I think it is clear the owners did want this effect - a serious cut in salary for anyone who is non-elite who gets a qualifying offer.

Adam LaRoche - missed most of 2011, had a great 2012, but is a 1B with a 128 OPS+ last year and 114 lifetime, entering age 33 season - not worth $15+ million per year and a draft pick.

Kyle Lohse - In 2009/2010 he had ERA+'s sub 90, his peak was 112 before last years freak 134. Entering age 34 season, probably worth a 3 year deal in the $10 per year category but mix in a draft pick with demands of $15 per year and interest is minimal.

Michael Bourn - a CF who was over 100 OPS+ just once (barely) in his career, value is in his speed and defense. The type of player traditionally undervalued by teams thus making it hard for them to justify a draft pick plus $15+ mil a year.

Rafael Soriano - a closer, nuff said. OK, add in how Paplebon 'only' got $13 mil a year despite a superior record last winter and you can see why he is cooling his heels.

These 4 are quality players but teams have trouble with the idea of paying them what they are asking with the question marks each has. Bourn is the best of the batch, but defense is hard to put a solid dollar value on (a team with mainly ground ball pitchers won't have as much value for him as a team with fly ball ones for example). LaRoche I see sitting for the longest time - he should've taken the qualifying offer.

Yeah, but draft pick compensation was actually reduced across the board for signing free agents. The problem is that you need the wiggle room on first round caps because they're a bit high (and later round caps are too low).

I think the high impact on only a few players is an unintended consequence.

John has it right. None of these guys are worth what they're likely asking. Throw in the pick, and it's no wonder they're waiting.

LaRoche has 4.6 bWAR over the last 3 years, 10.3 in his 9 year career. If he'd take 3/25, I'd bet he'd have a deal. But, he probably wants to get paid off the one 4 bWAR season he put up in 2012.

Lohse has average 1.1 bWAR over the last 5 years (using 5 b/c 2010 was soooo bad, -2.4 bWAR). If he wants to be paid based on 2012's 3.9 bWAR, I can see why there are no takers.

Soriano would be a perfectly cromulent signing at 3/24, but I'm sure he wants double digit AAV. Big money deals to closers rarely ever work out for the team. It's pretty funny TFA cites the Madson deal, but doesn't draw the obvious connection.

The market is being shockingly rational here. That said, I'm sure Boras will pule 4 rabbits out of his hat and sign them each to eleventy billion dollar deals.

I remember January Man; it was a pretty bad thriller that the video rental box, poster, and other advertising tried to paint as a comedy in the vein of A Fish Called Wanda (obviously hoping to capitalize on the success of said movie).

As far as FA compensation goes, this was already a pretty drastic alteration to the arbitration rules and it's a decent improvement as we're seeing only 4 players who've had their markets affected (it seems like we always had more than that in previous years). If the players really wanted to keep every FA's market from being affected, they should've pushed to completely uncouple FA compensation from the draft, but then the MLBPA wouldn't have had any input on the rules for the draft and IFA signings. The impingement on the markets for these players is the cost the collective pays for continuing to have input on rules about players they don't represent.

I think their is a disagreement between different factions of owners, as some probably really want to keep compensation (small market teams with a tendency to lose good players to larger markets) and others would like to see it done away with as well (the large market teams that are active in FA). I get the sense that Selig tends to negotiate with an idea that he has to keep spending down at all costs, rather than looking for well rounded rules that make sense.

If there's a value in giving teams that developed talent compensation if they can't afford to keep it (which is a bit dubious IMO; the savings over the first 6-7 years of control should cover that) then a system that only offers compensation for elite players coming into their first period of unrestricted FA might make sense.

Yeah, but draft pick compensation was actually reduced across the board for signing free agents. The problem is that you need the wiggle room on first round caps because they're a bit high (and later round caps are too low).

Overall Selig forced draft spending down by kicking the legs out from under amateur players and their "advisers." This money went straight into the free agent market to the benefit of the players. The players could probably have let go of the draft entirely and known that Selig would further drive down that spending (thus freeing up more money to go to the players they do represent), but they also can't plan that for life after Selig, and they know that once they've given up that right of control they'll never get it back.

The market is being shockingly rational here. That said, I'm sure Boras will pule 4 rabbits out of his hat and sign them each to eleventy billion dollar deals.

Just three rabbits - LaRoche isn't his client. I'm expecting that Bourn and Lohse will get paid like Boras clients. I have grown increasingly skeptical on Soriano, as it seems like there really is a lot of rationality going around at the top end of the relief market.

I'm expecting that Bourn and Lohse will get paid like Boras clients.

I think Bourne could be a good signing for someone. Texas would be pretty obvious.

But man, I wouldn't give Lohse much more than 2/20. This is a guy who had a career 4.79 ERA (93 ERA+) in almost 1600 IP, before the last 2 years. I don't know how you project him with any confidence.

January Man did have some comedic elements. Kind of like Red Dragon with more normal sex and some yuks thrown in*

*Yeah, I couldn't come up with a decent analogy. Which is probably one of the reasons the film failed. Audiences couldn't figure out if they were supposed to laugh or not...."Running Scared" with a semi-psychic detective?

I wouldn't either. But pitchers like Lohse have been getting paid for years, especially when they have the right representation. I doubt the draft picks thing can prevent some owner from overpaying for a starting pitcher with good enough recent numbers.

Is Soriano going to be kicking himself for not taking the 1/$13m deal?

edit: also aren't there more players who have benefited from the new rules than have been hindered? I'm thinking of people like Anibel Sanchez and Mike Napoli.

I've heard "sign and trade" rumors on all players. Is that what breaks the stalemate?

It's pretty clear to me that LaRoche and Soriano should have taken the qualifying offers since they were both offered more than they're worth. I don't think Soriano makes more unless it's on a 3 year deal. I would value him at 2 years $18M if there was no compensation. Take the offer and he probably gets $20M over the next 2 years. Likewise, LaRoche is probably maxed out at 3/$30M without the draft pick messing things up. Now he's looking at $26M if he really wants the third year.

Lohse would get Edwin Jackson money but a year shorter due to his age. He may only get this shot at one last big deal so he was probably smart to turn down the offer and look for a long term deal. I think he still gets 3/$30M which is better than the downside risk of taking the qualifying offer.

Bourn is young enough and good enough that he's going to get a long term deal and the draft pick isn't what messed things up. What hurt Bourn is asking for too much money and seeing all his suitors go with Plan B (Span, Revere, Upton, etc).

I've heard "sign and trade" rumors on all players. Is that what breaks the stalemate?

I've also read speculation that sign-and-trades will happen in the future. But I am not sure how often that would be appealing to the necessary parties. For players like Hamilton, the former teams aren't going to take a return that is less valuable than the draft pick out of the goodness of their hearts just to get the player a better deal. For players like Mike Napoli, if a team correctly predicts that he would not get an offer, they have no motivation to send his old team something in addition to offering him a contract. A sign-and-trade could be useful as a hedge for some borderline cases, but even then it would be difficult to complete the negotiations in the short time span: the teams would have to negotiate with each other in addition to the player negotiating his new contract.

I can see some sign-and-trades happening after a player accepts a qualifying offer which was made in hopes of getting a draft pick.

These players no longer have the option of accepting their qualifying offers, correct?

The "sign and trade" that I heard floated was that one of the teams who has already lost a pick (Cleveland, Angels or Braves) signs the player and then trades him to the team that wants him.

These players no longer have the option of accepting their qualifying offers, correct?

Correct.

The "sign and trade" that I heard floated was that one of the teams who has already lost a pick (Cleveland, Angels or Braves) signs the player and then trades him to the team that wants him.

Or, it could be a team with a protected first round pick.

The "sign and trade" that I heard floated was that one of the teams who has already lost a pick (Cleveland, Angels or Braves) signs the player and then trades him to the team that wants him.

Ah, I see.

The "sign and trade" that I heard floated was that one of the teams who has already lost a pick (Cleveland, Angels or Braves) signs the player and then trades him to the team that wants him.

It's my understanding that the commissioner's office would consider such a deal to be illegal collusion.

January Man did have some comedic elements. Kind of like Red Dragon with more normal sex and some yuks thrown in*

That was the problem with a sh!t ton of those movies, too much in the mediocre middle to be either a comedy or a drama/ thriller. (I remember the box, not the movie or actors, of a movie that had 2 different covers: one with them actor/ actress smiling to advertise it as a comedy, and one in the same pose where they looked stern, and it was re-branded as a drama/ thriller. Sucked either way.)

Sign and trade sounds like something players who (or who's agent) misevaluated the current state of the market are floating to get their pay day.

It's my understanding that the commissioner's office would consider such a deal to be illegal collusion.

Then every trade where a player agrees to waive a no-trade clause is illegal collusion.

It's my understanding that the commissioner's office would consider such a deal to be illegal collusion.

Then every trade where a player agrees to waive a no-trade clause is illegal collusion.

Just because it is collusion, doesn't mean that the powers-that-be consider it illegal collusion.

Best movies with months in their title:

The January Man
Summer in February
The Ides of March
Pieces of April
Martha Marcy May Marlene
Henry & June
Born on the Fourth of July
August Rush
Four Days in September
The Hunt for Red October
Sweet November
A Warm December

Just because it is collusion, doesn't mean that the powers-that-be consider it illegal collusion.

Gotcha. We're going with Soviet-style justice. Everything is against the law, but only what's prosecuted is illegal.

Gotcha. We're going with Soviet-style justice. Everything is against the law, but only what's prosecuted is illegal.

I agree with allowing players to waive their no-trade clauses, but not allowing shenanigans to circumvent the new compensation rules. Do you not agree with that?

"Collusion" is just shorthand for teams breaking certain rules, it doesn't mean that all collusion in the literal sense is illegal or immoral, otherwise teams couldn't even trade with each other.

I agree with allowing players to waive their no-trade clauses, but not allowing shenanigans to circumvent the new compensation rules. Do you not agree with that?

I think shenanigans have to be allowed if there's not a specific rule against them. It's more damaging for the sport for MLB to step in and disallow something that there is no prohibition against.

I agree with allowing players to waive their no-trade clauses, but not allowing shenanigans to circumvent the new compensation rules. Do you not agree with that?

If the sign-and-trade doesn't violate any actual rules, I think it should be allowed.

If they don't want to allow sign and trades, make an actual rule against it.

Edit: coke to JJ

I think shenanigans have to be allowed if there's not a specific rule against them.

If they don't want to allow sign and trades, make an actual rule against it.

Fair enough.

But if the case is that the actual rule is ambivalent or too vague about theses shenanigans, I have no problem with the league not allowing them based on the spirit of the compensation rule.

Was there ever sign-and-trades under the old system? Was there a specific rule against it?

Best movies with months in their title:

Martha Marcy May Marlene

7 Days in May was better

Was there ever sign-and-trades under the old system? Was there a specific rule against it?

Historically, a player had the right to free agency if he was traded in the first year of a long-term contract. Don't know if this is still true.

So, sign and trade couldn't happen unless the player wanted it.

Don't know if this is still true.

I believe it's been eliminated.

Rafael Soriano was sort of signed-and-traded a few years ago, so I don't think it was against the rules.

Rafael Soriano was sort of signed-and-traded a few years ago, so I don't think it was against the rules.

Arb guys have been signed and traded repeatedly. The only question is how a long-term contract impacts it. In any case, it seems that if the player consents, the sign and trade is technically allowed.

I thought there was a rule that a free agent signee couldn't be traded til May 15.

Historically, a player had the right to free agency if he was traded in the first year of a long-term contract. Don't know if this is still true.

So, sign and trade couldn't happen unless the player wanted it.

I do know this was eliminated, but that still wouldn't prevent a sign-and-trade, it would just let the player become a free agent at the end of the year.

Or, it could be a team with a protected first round pick.

Helps some but not completely - that still costs the team a pick in the 30's and (perhaps more importantly) the associated draft cap dollars.

Seems to me that if nothing changes over the next couple years with this part of the system, we'll see a lot more qualifying offers and a lot more potential FA's accepting the qualifying offers and then being shopped - in effect a sign and trade that takes on some 'gentlemens' aspects in much the way August deals currently have. Players will see how badly the associated draft penalty hurts their market value and be more inclined to take the bird in the hand knowing they can negotiate an extension with the new team, while the re-signing team makes up much of the value of the pick in certainty.

Best movies with months in their title:

The Ides of March

Not March of the Penguins? Cheating, I suppose.

I thought there was a rule that a free agent signee couldn't be traded til May 15.

I found this from the old CBA:

Teams can't normally trade a newly signed free agent until after June 15 of the following season, unless the player gives written consent.

Don't know if it's still current.

It would be awesome to see a team like the Indians (protected 1st, spent the 2nd on Swisher) make some money facilitating these deals. Who cares if they lose their 3rd, 4th, 5th and 6th rounders if they get C+ prospects or cash in return.

I do know this was eliminated, but that still wouldn't prevent a sign-and-trade, it would just let the player become a free agent at the end of the year.

That would be a de facto prevention because in most cases the teams wouldn't want to give their signees opt-outs.

The June 15th no-trade for free agents signed after the end of the Quiet Period (5 days after the World Series) still exists.

(a) Any Club signing a contract with a Player under this Section
B after the expiration of the Quiet Period described in subsection
2(b) above may not assign his contract until after the next June 15.
However, notwithstanding the foregoing, such contract may be
assigned for other Player contracts and/or cash consideration of
$50,000 or less prior to the next June 16 if the Player gives written
consent to such transaction.

That's from the new CBA.

Now, one thing that I do find interesting is the next section:

(b) There shall be no restriction or interference with the right of
a free agent to negotiate or contract with any baseball club outside
the structure of organized baseball, nor shall there be any compensation
paid for the loss of a free agent except as provided for in this
Section B

I'm actually not finding anything in the CBA that would technically prevent a free agent from signing a one-day contract with a Japanese team and clearing the draft pick compensation. Though no doubt it would lead to a big fight on interpretation and even if unsuccessful, can probably only be attempted once before the rule is changed.

Someone (I think it was Shannon Stewart) recently signed a minor league deal after turning down arb.

edit: also, do not google search for "Shannon Stewart" at work.

edit 2: Stewart's contract was purchased in March and there was no compensation.

That would be a de facto prevention because in most cases the teams wouldn't want to give their signees opt-outs.

You could solve that by backloading. If you were going to give Michael Bourn 5/75, instead of $15M each year, pay him $9M in yr. 1 and $17M in years 2-5.

The June 15th no-trade for free agents signed after the end of the Quiet Period (5 days after the World Series) still exists.

But for this no-trade to be a prevention of the kind of sign-and-trade described in #14, it would not give the player the ability to waive it.

(b) There shall be no restriction or interference with the right of
a free agent to negotiate or contract with any baseball club outside
the structure of organized baseball, nor shall there be any compensation
paid for the loss of a free agent except as provided for in this
Section B

I'm actually not finding anything in the CBA that would technically prevent a free agent from signing a one-day contract with a Japanese team and clearing the draft pick compensation.

Was there anything that said a player signing a contract with an entity outside of MLB 'clears' the compensation? Otherwise there is no loophole to close.

You could solve that by backloading. If you were going to give Michael Bourn 5/75, instead of $15M each year, pay him $9M in yr. 1 and $17M in years 2-5.

Interesting. That could work.

But that brings me back to my earlier question: why didn't this happen under the old system?

But that brings me back to my earlier question: why didn't this happen under the old system?

Teams didn't value draft picks that highly. I mean, the A's once gave up the 20th pick in the draft to acquire Mike Magnante.

Teams didn't value draft picks that highly. I mean, the A's once gave up the 20th pick in the draft to acquire Mike Magnante.

Yes. But also, in the old system, the team could give up its 1st or 2nd rounder, and simply spend the money on signability guys later. You could get 1st and 2nd round talent much later in the draft. With the bonus slotting, that no longer works.

Teams didn't value draft picks that highly. I mean, the A's once gave up the 20th pick in the draft to acquire Mike Magnante.

What about last offseason?

edit:

in the old system, the team could give up its 1st or 2nd rounder, and simply spend the money on signability guys later. You could get 1st and 2nd round talent much later in the draft. With the bonus slotting, that no longer works.

Thanks, that makes sense.

Was there anything that said a player signing a contract with an entity outside of MLB 'clears' the compensation? Otherwise there is no loophole to close.

I'm unaware of any direct precedent. I wouldn't be that confident about no loophole - Travis Lee and Bobby Seay weren't supposed to end up as free agents, after all.

Was there anything that said a player signing a contract with an entity outside of MLB 'clears' the compensation? Otherwise there is no loophole to close.

I'm unaware of any direct precedent. I wouldn't be that confident about no loophole - Travis Lee and Bobby Seay weren't supposed to end up as free agents, after all.

I just read the relevant section (I think). I don't think that any interpretation would suggest that compensation is eliminated if the player signs an intervening contract with a Japanese team (or the Newark Bears etc). The only thing that clears the compensation is the next year's draft; i.e. the player can wait it out if he wants.

What I find most amazing from this is that the average salary of the top 125 players in the game is $13.3 million. I mean, wow.

Teams didn't value draft picks that highly. I mean, the A's once gave up the 20th pick in the draft to acquire Mike Magnante.

That remains one of the great mystery moves of Beane's tenure, as the A's were one of the teams that did value picks - they were the team that started the practice of trying to game the system by acquiring/letting go vets who would garner compensation, the Ray Durham deal being the one that broke the whole thing open. Although that might have actually been the deal that clued them into the inefficiencies of the system - after sacrificing that pick in 2000, they then had multiple first round picks in 2001-2005. Unfortunately they were all pretty much in the 20s.

EDIT: This subject has reminded me how much fun BB-REFs team draft pages are - and reminds me how crazy MLB drafts work out. It's incredible how few players who are drafted actually make it to the majors, and then how few of those have any significant impact. It's amazing how many busted drafts even what we think of as smart-drafting teams have - drafts where only one or two guys make it and end up with something like a combined 0.4 WAR. Or negative.

This subject has reminded me how much fun BB-REFs team draft pages are - and reminds me how crazy MLB drafts work out. It's incredible how few players who are drafted actually make it to the majors, and then how few of those have any significant impact.

I agree. It's great fun to look at old drafts and see the stars right next to guys who never played an inning.

First win for Boras - 2y/$28m for Soriano from Washington.