{"id":8768,"date":"2014-04-15T08:00:16","date_gmt":"2014-04-15T12:00:16","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.nationalsarmrace.com\/?p=8768"},"modified":"2014-04-15T08:00:16","modified_gmt":"2014-04-15T12:00:16","slug":"qualifying-offers-are-they-working","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.nationalsarmrace.com\/?p=8768","title":{"rendered":"Qualifying Offers; are they working?"},"content":{"rendered":"

In the wake of several posts I’ve seen on the topic of Qualifying Offers (one long-winded piece from the long-winded windbag\u00a0Murray Chass<\/strong> here<\/a>, accusing the owners of collusion in the cases of\u00a0Stephen Drew<\/strong> and\u00a0Kendrys Morales<\/strong> instead of just understanding the state of the game, another from the more reasonable\u00a0Jayson Stark<\/strong> here<\/a>, talking about some potential fixes, and their respective agent Scott Boras<\/strong>\u00a0whining about anonymous executive quotes in an ESPN article here<\/a>), I thought I’d do some quantitiative-summary analysis of the Q.O. so far.<\/p>\n

I think its fairly inarguable to state that the system isn’t really working how the players envisioned; especially as two decent FAs still sit un-signed. \u00a0Clearly the players union did not realize just how much teams are valuing draft picks, to the point where they’d rather keep a mid-first rounder than sign a decent middle-aged free agent. \u00a0I also believe that several of the players this past off-season got *really* bad advice on the state of the market for their services, and wholy deserve their fates. \u00a0Baseball is changing; we’re seeing metrics highlighting the value of defense, we’re seeing positional flexibility win out over inflexibility, and we’re seeing teams go with youth over veterans even when the cost difference is rather negligible. \u00a0That middle-aged, defensively challenged free agents (especially Morales) didn’t see this is entirely on them. \u00a0The situation is even worse for players of advancing years, who are not even getting contract offers after decent seasons and are being forced into early retirement in some cases.<\/p>\n

Here’s part of a spreadsheet I put together<\/a>, analyzing the eight guys who were faced with Q.O. decisions after the 2012 season:<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n<\/colgroup>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
Year<\/td>\nPlayer<\/td>\nOld Team<\/td>\nNew Team<\/td>\nDraft Pick Forfeited<\/td>\nSigning Date<\/td>\nSubsequent contract (w\/o options)<\/td>\nMoney up\/down per AAV<\/td>\nQ.O. Screw the player?<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
2012<\/td>\nJosh Hamilton<\/td>\nTEX<\/td>\nLAA<\/td>\n1-22<\/td>\n12\/13\/2012<\/td>\n5yrs\/$125M<\/td>\n11.7<\/td>\nNo<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
2012<\/td>\nMichael Bourn<\/td>\nATL<\/td>\nCLE<\/td>\n2sup-69<\/td>\n2\/11\/2013<\/td>\n4yrs\/$48M<\/td>\n-1.3<\/td>\nSort of<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
2012<\/td>\nKyle Lohse<\/td>\nSTL<\/td>\nMIL<\/td>\n1-17<\/td>\n3\/25\/2013<\/td>\n3yrs\/$33M<\/td>\n-2.3<\/td>\nYes<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
2012<\/td>\nAdam LaRoche<\/td>\nWAS<\/td>\nWAS<\/td>\nnone<\/td>\n1\/16\/2012<\/td>\n2\/$24<\/td>\n-1.3<\/td>\nYes<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
2012<\/td>\nB.J. Upton<\/td>\nTB<\/td>\nATL<\/td>\n1-28<\/td>\n11\/28\/2012<\/td>\n5\/$75.25M<\/td>\n1.95<\/td>\nNo<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
2012<\/td>\nHiroki Kuroda<\/td>\nNYY<\/td>\nNYY<\/td>\nnone<\/td>\n11\/20\/2012<\/td>\n1yr\/$15M<\/td>\n1.7<\/td>\nNo<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
2012<\/td>\nRafael Soriano<\/td>\nNYY<\/td>\nWAS<\/td>\n1-29<\/td>\n1\/8\/2013<\/td>\n2yr\/$28M (lots deferred)<\/td>\n0.7<\/td>\nSort of<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
2012<\/td>\nNick Swisher<\/td>\nNYY<\/td>\nCLE<\/td>\n2-43<\/td>\n12\/23\/2012<\/td>\n4yr\/$56M<\/td>\n0.7<\/td>\nNo<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

Arguably, 3 of the 8 players in question were never going to be affected by the Q.O. (Hamilton<\/strong> and Upton<\/strong> because of the known long-term deals they were going to get, and Kuroda<\/strong> for being nearly guaranteed to return to the Yankees). \u00a0So, by my way of thinking 4 of the remaining 5 players in the \u00a02012 FA class had their earnings either curtailed or affected by the presence of the Q.O.:<\/p>\n