Three weeks in to the MLB 2024 offseason and teams are more active than they were the last two seasons. This pas Tuesday was the deadline teams to offer players Qualifying Offers. These are an intriguing piece of the offseason puzzle, offering a blend of strategy and financial planning for both teams and players. Introduced as part of the 2012 Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA), they were designed to compensate teams that lose top-tier free agents while also giving players some level of flexibility in their career decisions. At its core, the system allows teams to offer a one-year contract to pending free agents, valued at the average of the top 125 salaries in the league. If the player declines the offer and signs with another team, the original team receives a compensatory draft pick. While the system appears straightforward, its implementation and impact have been anything but, especially when compared to similar mechanisms in other leagues, such as the NBA.
In the NBA, player movement and compensation work quite differently. The league has sign-and-trade agreements, restricted free agency, and the concept of Bird Rights, which allow teams to offer their own free agents contracts that exceed the salary cap. These mechanisms create a system where teams can retain their stars more easily or at least get some tangible assets in return if a player chooses to leave. The NBA’s approach fosters more flexibility while ensuring a level of fairness, as teams losing major players can often recoup something valuable. In MLB, however, the qualifying offer system lacks the same finesse. While compensatory draft picks are helpful, they don’t hold the immediate, tangible value of a proven player or a trade package that NBA teams often receive in similar situations.
MLB’s qualifying offer rules have undergone notable changes since being implemented as part of the 2012 CBA, reflecting an ongoing struggle to balance fairness to both players and teams. Initially, the system was fairly rigid. Players who turned down a qualifying offer and signed with a new team saddled that team with the loss of a high draft pick, which deterred some teams from pursuing marquee free agents. This became especially problematic for older players or those with significant injury histories, as teams hesitated to sacrifice a draft pick for a player who might only have a few good years left. The 2016 CBA addressed some of these concerns, softening the penalties for signing players who had rejected a qualifying offer. The changes tied the loss of draft picks to a team’s revenue-sharing status, making the system more equitable but still far from perfect.
One of the more controversial aspects of the qualifying offer system is how it can affect a player’s market value. Take, for instance, a mid-tier player who has had a strong season and is offered a qualifying offer. While the player may reject the one-year deal in hopes of landing a multi-year contract, the draft pick compensation attached to them can act as a deterrent for potential suitors. This situation often leaves such players stuck in free agency limbo, unable to secure the contract they were expecting. The system has occasionally been criticized for punishing players rather than helping teams, as it sometimes disincentivizes clubs from signing certain free agents.
Looking back at the 2023 off season Cody Bellinger would be a great example of this. The Chicago Cubs made the qualifying offer and after he rejected it he was left in off season limbo as were the Cubs for the entire winter until he resigned with them. Excluding the Dodger from the conversation none of the other 28 teams wanted to sing Cody because his injury history which left the Cubs in limbo the entire off season since they were still in communication with him and his agent, Scott Boras, about a multi year deal after he rejected the qualifying offer.
The argument for compensating teams more robustly when a player declines a qualifying offer and signs elsewhere is compelling. A compensatory draft pick is nice, but it doesn’t always reflect the true value of the departing player. Teams invest significant resources in developing players, and when those players leave, the franchise often loses more than just on-field talent. A draft pick might yield a future star, but the odds of that happening are slim. A more substantial compensation package, perhaps involving higher draft picks or even additional international bonus pool money, could provide a more balanced outcome. Such changes would better reflect the value lost when a top-tier player exits.
Consider the situation from a team’s perspective. A small-market team like the Tampa Bay Rays or Oakland Athletics often relies heavily on homegrown talent. If one of their stars becomes a free agent and declines a qualifying offer, the compensatory draft pick they receive doesn’t always bridge the gap in competitive balance. These teams already face uphill battles in free agency, as they can’t typically afford to match offers from larger-market clubs. Giving them better compensation for losing a star player would help level the playing field and make the qualifying offer system more equitable.
From the player’s perspective, the qualifying offer system can be a double-edged sword. For elite players like Gerrit Cole or Bryce Harper, declining a qualifying offer and signing a mega-deal is a no-brainer. But for mid-tier players, the decision is fraught with uncertainty. Accepting the offer provides a guaranteed payday for one year but limits their long-term earning potential. Declining the offer and testing the market might result in a better deal—or it might backfire if teams shy away due to the attached draft pick compensation. This dynamic puts certain players in a tough spot, forcing them to weigh immediate financial security against the possibility of a larger, multi-year contract.
One potential solution would be to create a tiered compensation system that takes into account the value of the departing player. For example, losing a superstar could yield a team a first-round pick, while losing a mid-tier player might result in a second-round pick and additional international bonus money. This would more accurately reflect the impact of losing players of varying calibers and would provide teams with incentives to develop and retain talent. It would also reduce the stigma attached to players who decline qualifying offers, making it easier for them to navigate free agency.
Another issue with the current system is its one-size-fits-all approach. Every qualifying offer is valued at the same amount, regardless of the player’s position, age, or market value. This doesn’t account for the nuances of player evaluation or the unique needs of individual teams. In contrast, the NBA’s system allows for much more flexibility, with teams able to negotiate deals that align more closely with a player’s value and the team’s strategic goals. MLB could benefit from adopting a similar approach, perhaps allowing teams to offer qualifying contracts tailored to a player’s market value. This would make the system more dynamic and reduce the instances of players feeling undervalued or unfairly punished by the qualifying offer process.
Here’s the thing folks: The debate over how teams should be compensated when a player declines a qualifying offer and signs elsewhere isn’t just a question of fairness; it’s also about maintaining competitive balance. Small-market teams are particularly vulnerable in this equation, as they often serve as stepping stones for players who eventually sign big deals with larger-market clubs. Strengthening compensation for these teams could help mitigate this disadvantage and ensure that all franchises have a fair shot at building and sustaining competitive rosters.
With thata… the qualifying offer system in MLB has its merits, but it also has significant flaws that need addressing. While it provides a mechanism for teams to recoup some value when losing free agents, the current level of compensation often falls short of what’s truly fair.
If you cannot play with them, then root for them.