Qualifying offer/draft pick loss

[Dtwncbad]

This stupid system has to stop.  Guys play out their control years and have earned free agency and then they are tagged with losing a pick.

I am sorry but that is not a FREE agent.

So then they get offers that are heavily influenced by the draft pick cost, they have to take a one year deal and then hit the market as a true FREE agent a year later, a year older.

The thing is, this sucks for players and teams.

Fix it.

[stormngt]

11 minutes ago, Dtwncbad said:

This stupid system has to stop.  Guys play out their control years and have earned free agency and then they are tagged with losing a pick.

I am sorry but that is not a FREE agent.

So then they get offers that are heavily influenced by the draft pick cost, they have to take a one year deal and then hit the market as a true FREE agent a year later, a year older.

The thing is, this sucks for players and teams.

Fix it.

If they were good enough the teams wouldnt worry about giving up a draft pick.

[kevinb]

Also it was collectively bargained. If they want to change it they had the power to they chose not to. 

[Angel Oracle]

7 minutes ago, Kevinb said:

Also it was collectively bargained. If they want to change it they had the power to they chose not to. 

Exactly, if they want it changed, focus on the next collective bargaining.

[Docwaukee]

Not a fan.  they either need to make it more thoughtful or completely get rid of it.   

[kevinb]

Talk to their union doc. Tell them how this has impacted your life and how you want more proceeds from the owners. I say get rid of it all. Once a rookie has a full year of a rookie contract he should be a free agent. Let free market reign. 

[Blarg]

It used to be a first round pick at draft slot and few teams ever balked. Prospect currency has been reevaluated so even a supplemental first round is valued.

How do you create a compensation for a player leaving if that is supposed to even the playing field between the haves and have nots? Even for player and ownership?

MLB has adopted revenue sharing and salary caps to create more parity along with free agent compensation. Nothing seems to keep the usual suspects out of the playoffs while draft pick compensation can put a barrier to the lesser teams flexibility in free agency.

[Hubs]

I'd get rid of the penalty, and just award picks to teams based on their free agent losses. No qualifying offer. Lower comp.

So like this offseason: Harper, Machado, and maybe Corbin would be valued at 1st round picks. They'd come after the 1st round, before the stupid supplemental round that also needs to go away. Keuchel, Grandal, Donaldson would be valued at 2nd, etc.

 

[GrittyVeterans]

55 minutes ago, Dtwncbad said:

This stupid system has to stop.  Guys play out their control years and have earned free agency and then they are tagged with losing a pick.

I am sorry but that is not a FREE agent.

So then they get offers that are heavily influenced by the draft pick cost, they have to take a one year deal and then hit the market as a true FREE agent a year later, a year older.

The thing is, this sucks for players and teams.

Fix it.

Agreed completely. Never been a fan of it. 

[Dtwncbad]

I know this was collectively bargained.  I am merely saying it isn't working.  It has created complications that don't really serve either side well at all.

I am ok with a team that loses a premium player picking up a created sandwich pick, but there really is no reason for a team that signs a player to LOSE a pick.  And as a matter of principle, I have a problem with how the loss if a draft pick so clearly affects the contract offered to the "free" agent.  They are an encumbered agent, certainly not free.

But I am just belly aching.  There is nothing else to talk about.

[Inside Pitch]

1 hour ago, Dtwncbad said:

This stupid system has to stop.  Guys play out their control years and have earned free agency and then they are tagged with losing a pick.

I am sorry but that is not a FREE agent.

So then they get offers that are heavily influenced by the draft pick cost, they have to take a one year deal and then hit the market as a true FREE agent a year later, a year older.

The thing is, this sucks for players and teams.

Fix it.

The hilarious part is that the current system is seen as being more forgiving towards the team signing the player than the old system where ALL free agents who rated as either a Type A (first rounder and a sandwich pick), or Type B (sandwich pick) had compensation attached.

[greginpsca]

The team that signs one of those free agents should not lose a draft pick. Instead, just give the team that lost the free agent a supplemental pick after the 2nd round. That way everyone gets rewarded in some way.

 

[Lou]

I'm guessing the "lose a pick" rule was instituted as a deterrent for the big money teams signing all the FAs.

Is that correct?

[Dtwncbad]

5 minutes ago, Lou said:

I'm guessing the "lose a pick" rule was instituted as a deterrent for the big money teams signing all the FAs.

Is that correct?

I guess so but that would assume that only the big money teams will sign free agents.  How do they think the Royals are going to step up every once in a while and go get somebody if it wrecks their primary way of building their roster?

You could argue it clears away competition for the large market teams to sign premium players because small market teams will never want to give up the pick.

When 25 teams are automatic "no bid" on a player, the Yankees have fewer offers to beat.

[Docwaukee]

25 minutes ago, Lou said:

I'm guessing the "lose a pick" rule was instituted as a deterrent for the big money teams signing all the FAs.

Is that correct?

originally to some degree.  there was the whole type A and B free agent thing and the team that lost the player would get the signing teams first pick and a supplemental pick if type A and only supplemental pick if type B.  So it was more about comp for the team that lost the FA than the punishment for signing them.  Which is why the lux tax was created eventually which actually has curbed large market teams from signing everyone.  For a few years, the yanks payroll was almost double the next closest team.  

[fanfromday1]

2 hours ago, greginpsca said:

The team that signs one of those free agents should not lose a draft pick. Instead, just give the team that lost the free agent a supplemental pick after the 2nd round. That way everyone gets rewarded in some way.

 

I kind of like this idea, but I think I would flip it around a bit.

The team that loses the Free Agent gets the signing teams first round pick. However the signing team still gets a pick as a supplemental pick after the first round.

[beatlesrule]

I was hoping MLBTR would do an article on which FA's where affected the most by their attached QO.

[Lou]

11 minutes ago, beatlesrule said:

I was hoping MLBTR would do an article on which FA's where affected the most by their attached QO.

wouldn't it make sense to wait until the FAs sign their deals to make that assessment?

[Mark68]

4 hours ago, Dtwncbad said:

I know this was collectively bargained.  I am merely saying it isn't working.  It has created complications that don't really serve either side well at all.

 

One could say that something that serves neither side well is a good compromise.

[IheartLA]

The current system is 100% heading for a lockout. The minors don't accrue any service time, arbitration is stuck in the 1900's but teams use analytics to drive the player's value down when they see fit. I laughed a couple years ago when the Yankees were so angry that Betances filed for a high $ arbitration saying that he didn't have the saves, a stat that if that player was a FA the Yankees would have laughed in their face at.

A player can't even hit FA now till 30 if they went to college and now teams would rather stash a guy like Guerrero or Bryant another year in the minors to play the clock. Even if you're a savant player you're looking at 2-3 years in the minors, 7 years in the show before being eligible to get paid. That's a decade which means almost every player other than the demigods that make it at age 21,22 will be hitting FA at ~30+ meaning they wont' be getting anything in today's climate.

I think the union at the conclusion of the CBA needs to fight for better rights in the minors, arbitration, or the way teams basically create "factories" in third world countries where they get dirt cheap labor where 1 out of 1000 players might have a career and the other 999 are thrown to the side. Population growth in Latin America is skyrocketing and teams are using the endless supply of players to stack their farm systems without paying these players what they would have to pay in this country to develop the same quantity. It's the exact same situation that happened with these corporations going to foreign countries for cheap labor driving down the cost. Only the top top players will get paid, the entire middle class is going to be wiped out. 

[ukyah]

10 hours ago, Kevinb said:

Also it was collectively bargained. If they want to change it they had the power to they chose not to. 

 

9 hours ago, Angel Oracle said:

Exactly, if they want it changed, focus on the next collective bargaining.

 

obviously, they will. unfortunately for the players, tony clark is a bit of a dipshit.

[Jeff Fletcher]

They already changed the system. It used to be a first round pick. Now you lose your second pick. 

This issue negatively impacts maybe one or two players a year now. 

 

[Lou]

To follow up on Fletch's point: 

https://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2018/11/mlb-draft-pick-compensation-free-agents.html

[Dtwncbad]

12 hours ago, Mark68 said:

One could say that something that serves neither side well is a good compromise.

Cool.  Let's add things like knocking each other's teeth out.  Since that sucks for both sides it's probably good too.

[stormngt]

10 hours ago, IheartLA said:

The current system is 100% heading for a lockout. The minors don't accrue any service time, arbitration is stuck in the 1900's but teams use analytics to drive the player's value down when they see fit. I laughed a couple years ago when the Yankees were so angry that Betances filed for a high $ arbitration saying that he didn't have the saves, a stat that if that player was a FA the Yankees would have laughed in their face at.

A player can't even hit FA now till 30 if they went to college and now teams would rather stash a guy like Guerrero or Bryant another year in the minors to play the clock. Even if you're a savant player you're looking at 2-3 years in the minors, 7 years in the show before being eligible to get paid. That's a decade which means almost every player other than the demigods that make it at age 21,22 will be hitting FA at ~30+ meaning they wont' be getting anything in today's climate.

I think the union at the conclusion of the CBA needs to fight for better rights in the minors, arbitration, or the way teams basically create "factories" in third world countries where they get dirt cheap labor where 1 out of 1000 players might have a career and the other 999 are thrown to the side. Population growth in Latin America is skyrocketing and teams are using the endless supply of players to stack their farm systems without paying these players what they would have to pay in this country to develop the same quantity. It's the exact same situation that happened with these corporations going to foreign countries for cheap labor driving down the cost. Only the top top players will get paid, the entire middle class is going to be wiped out. 

The qualifying offer is 17 million a year.  The minimum salary is over half a million a year.  The average salary for arbitration eligible players is 13 million.  The average salary is 4 million a year. I think they are being paid pretty well.

How much money did the Angel's pay Richard's, Heaney and Skaggs the last three years?