You'd think Pederson, Anderson and Perez would accept and eovaldi and Contreras might take it. I'm a little surprised Rizzo opted out.

I did not realize Joc had hit so well last season, but that still seems like a lot of money for him.

Agree that Joc and Perez have to seriously consider it. Contrereas should not take it, Rizzo obviously will say no whether (in theory) he should or not.

Anderson is a tough call -- on the one hand, turning 33, it might easily be his only shot at multiple years so even 2/$30 or 3/$40 would be good; on the other hand, if he repeats in 2023, he'll do much better next year. According to b-r, Anderson has already made $16 so either way, set for life.

Yeah, if I'm Anderson, adding $19 million to the bank with a chance to maybe sign a 3 year deal next year for $50 ish seems a safe bet. $19 million and you are set for life. If he opts out how many teams want to lose a draft slot which might be worth 3-4 million for him plus a longish contract ?

I can't see any way Pederson says no - what a windfall for him (unless the Giants sign Pham)

3/$50 next year is not a safe bet. That is closer to this year's safe bet (I'd guess 3/$40 more likely). He possibly takes the QO in hopes of repeating this year at which point he gets something like 3/$70 or better next year, not 3/$50.

And the lost draft pick is nearly meaningless at this point. At worst a team loses their 2nd-highest pick. Other than not signing their previous pick, I don't think there's any way for a team to have more than one pick in the top 30 anymore. The next picks are the compensation picks awarded to revenue-receiving teams that lost an FA -- so there's pretty much no way anybody can lose a pick this high either.** Then there are the competitive balance picks given to revenue-sharing teams -- in rare circumstances they might lose one of thee picks. Finally you get to the 2nd round which is the pick most likely lost by an FA-signing team.

** If a revenue-receiving team signed a QO-rejecting FA, they forfeit their 3rd pick. If they also lost such a FA then conceivably they would have a regular 1st round pick, a compensation pick and a competitive balance pick, losing the competitive balance pick. If they lost 2 FAs while signing one, I suppose they'd lose the 2nd compensation pick.

There are plenty of weidnesses though. For example, in the 2022 draft, the Dodgers didn't pick until #40 which was a penalty for exceeding the threshold repeatedly. But that top pick is now also protected. So when the Dodgers rock up with money for some FA, they'll be forfeiting their second pick which would be something like #70. They'd also lose their 5th highest pick which might well be around #160.

So I'm not sure all the unintended silliness has been worked out yet. I believe it's somewhere between possible and likely that the Rays would forfeit a higher pick than the Dodgers even though the Rays would only surrender their 3rd highest pick.

Yep, the new system doesn't really discourage signing free agents. I think pretty much every participant(owners, players, agents, fans) is happy with that outcome. I'm not sure it's a good system for maintaining competitive balance though, but it definitely doesn't rock the boat, and doesn't discourage signing a free agent or offering a QO.

Yep, the new system doesn't really discourage signing free agents.

The other day I read the compensation for teams related to losing or signing a player who received a qualifying offer. It's convoluted, in a way only MLB seems to muster. From the MLB Glossary:

Compensation for losing players who reject their QO

• If a team gives a qualifying offer to a player who then signs elsewhere, the club that lost the player is eligible for Draft pick compensation. If the team that loses the free agent is a revenue-sharing recipient, based on its revenues and market size, then the selection -- if and only if the lost player signs for at least $50 million -- will be awarded a pick between the first round and Competitive Balance Round A of the 2022 MLB Draft. If the player signs for less than $50 million, the compensation pick for those teams would come after Competitive Balance Round B, which follows the second round.

The following 14 teams currently qualify for these picks: Athletics, Brewers, D-backs, Guardians, Mariners, Marlins, Orioles, Pirates, Rays, Reds, Rockies, Royals, Tigers and Twins.

• If the team that loses the player does not receive revenue sharing and did not exceed the luxury-tax salary threshold the previous season, its compensatory pick will come after Competitive Balance Round B. The value of the player's contract doesn't matter in this case.

The 10 teams in this category: Angels, Astros, Blue Jays, Braves, Cardinals, Cubs, Giants, Nationals, Rangers and White Sox.

• If the team that loses the player went over the luxury-tax threshold, the compensation pick will be placed after the fourth round has been completed (as with the previous scenario, it doesn't matter how much the player signs for).

Six clubs exceeded the threshold in 2022: Dodgers, Mets, Padres, Phillies, Red Sox, Yankees

Like standard Draft picks, compensatory picks in a given tier are ordered in accordance with the previous season's standings. If a team with MLB's worst record and a team with a .500 record both lose a free agent that signs for more than $50 million, the team with the worse record would receive the higher of the two compensatory picks.

Penalties for signing players who reject their QO

Any team that signs a player who has rejected a qualifying offer is subject to the loss of one or more Draft picks. (Players who are unsigned after the start of the Rule 4 Draft in the year that follows the rejection of their qualifying offer are no longer tied to Draft pick compensation and can be signed without their new club needing to forfeit a Draft pick.)

A team's highest first-round pick is exempt from forfeiture, which is a big change that went into effect under the 2017-21 CBA. Three tiers of Draft pick forfeiture -- based on the financial status of the signing team -- are in place to serve as a penalty for signing a player who rejected a qualifying offer:

• A team that exceeded the luxury tax in the preceding season will lose its second- and fifth-highest selections in the following year's Draft, as well as $1 million from its international bonus pool for the upcoming signing period. If such a team signs multiple qualifying-offer free agents, it will forfeit its third- and sixth-highest remaining picks as well.

Teams in this group this offseason: Dodgers, Mets, Padres, Phillies, Red Sox, Yankees

Examples: A team with one pick in each round of the 2022 Rule 4 Draft would lose its second- and fifth-round picks. A team with two first-round picks and one pick in each subsequent round would lose its second-highest first-round pick and its fourth-round pick.

• A team that receives revenue-sharing money will lose its third-highest selection in the following year's Draft. If it signs two such players, it will also forfeit its fourth-highest remaining pick.

Teams in this group: Athletics, Brewers, D-backs, Guardians, Mariners, Marlins, Orioles, Pirates, Rays, Reds, Rockies, Royals, Tigers and Twins.

Examples: A team with one pick in each round of the 2021 Rule 4 Draft would lose its third-round pick. A team with two first-round picks and one pick in each subsequent round would lose its second-round pick.

• All other teams will lose their second-highest selection in the following year's Draft, as well as $500,000 from their international bonus pool for the upcoming signing period. If one of these teams signs two such players, it will also forfeit its third-highest remaining pick and an additional $500,000.

Teams in this group: Angels, Astros, Blue Jays, Braves, Cardinals, Cubs, Giants, Nationals, Rangers and White Sox.

Examples: A team with one pick in each round of the 2021 Rule 4 Draft would lose its second-round pick. A team with two first-round picks would lose its second-highest first round-pick.

(Note: Each pick in the first 10 rounds of the Draft has an assigned value, and the total for each of a club's selections equals what it can spend on signing bonuses for players selected in those rounds without incurring a penalty. When a team forfeits a Draft pick, it also surrenders the accompanying bonus pool money associated that pick, independent from any money forfeited from its international bonus pool per the rules below.)

Tyler Anderson is coming off three straight one-year deals. I bet he and his wife would really like to sign a long term deal of some stripe.

Yeah, I think Anderson turns it down. He should be able to get at least $30m over multiple years and this is likely to be his best shot at big money. Bassitt is in a similar boat.

Perez and Joc should definitely accept. I don't know if they could even get 2/$20 on the open market.

Eovaldi I think accepts. He could do a lot better next offseason if he can stay healthy in 2023, and isn't going to get $20m AAV this offseason.

Rizzo also could accept, especially if he wants to stay in New York. I could see him doing an Abreu-style 3 year deal after taking the QO.

Everybody else is a pretty easy decline.

The other day I read the compensation for teams related to losing or signing a player who received a qualifying offer. It's convoluted, in a way only MLB seems to muster. From the MLB Glossary:

I actually don't mind convoluted, if it works. I would rather have a convoluted system that is designed to be fair all across the spectrum, than a simple system that has clear flaws. This system basically says a team that has a bad record isn't going to be penalized for signing a player from another team as much as a team with a good record is penalized. With caveats in place for large payroll teams to potentially make their hit to a signing a bit worse.

I like the addition that nobody loses a first round pick, I get that they did this partially so they can sell the live version of the draft, but it still works, and honestly a first round pick was probably too high of a price to pay for losing a guy to free agency, especially since probably over half of them were originally later round picks.

I actually don't mind convoluted, if it works. I would rather have a convoluted system that is designed to be fair all across the spectrum, than a simple system that has clear flaws. This system basically says a team that has a bad record isn't going to be penalized for signing a player from another team as much as a team with a good record is penalized. With caveats in place for large payroll teams to potentially make their hit to a signing a bit worse.

I understand what you're saying and I need to give it more consideration, but my initial thought is that the system in place seems backward in its arrangement—compensation/penalties are being determined by franchise factors rather than qualities of the player who changed teams. Assuming I read the rules above correctly, the Yankees would get a pick after the fourth round if Judge signs elsewhere. That doesn't seem like much.

I understand what you're saying and I need to give it more consideration, but my initial thought is that the system in place seems backward in its arrangement—compensation/penalties are being determined by franchise factors rather than qualities of the player who changed teams. Assuming I read the rules above correctly, the Yankees would get a pick after the fourth round if Judge signs elsewhere. That doesn't seem like much.

The penalty for giving up a player was never about the quality of the player being given up, it was always about franchise factors, as well it should be. From a fan perspective it doesn't matter if it's the best player or just a very good player, it's the fact that my franchise is losing a player, and the penalty should be based upon the actions of the franchise acquiring the player. We want to penalize the demon Yankees for buying everyone (note this is no longer an accurate claim but it is the genesis of the thought process)

Compensation is my team loses a player, another team stole/bought my player, I deserve compensation. The system that is convoluted is designed to assign degrees of punishment based upon how the acquiring team works. It punishes the most teams who have no care in the world and will spend indiscriminately while other teams are punished to a lesser degree.

Tyler Anderson is coming off three straight one-year deals. I bet he and his wife would really like to sign a long term deal of some stripe.

It would certainly be understandable but, like I said, according to b-r, he already has $16 M in career earnings and can now just say yes to $19 more. Enough for him and Mrs to squeak by on I would hope. The reason he's had these 1-years is because he's gotten hurt a couple of times and pitched at best average in the other times. This year of course he put up a monster year. If he does anything like that again in 2023, he'll do very, very well in 2024-26. Normally for a guy his age I'd recommend exactly what you suggest. And I still would if his agent thinks he can get, say, 3/$40 or better. But 1/$19 looks awfully sweet and, if he's ever gonna bet on himself, now's the time.

The penalty for giving up a player was never about the quality of the player being given up,

sure it was, that's what type A, type B, etc. and the Elias rankings were all about. And they still are it's just that they don't designate "this guy is quality" they designate "their team thinks this guy is worth at least 1/$19" and assume that means he's high quality. There's also that bit about if they sign for $50 or more which is another quality indicator (I think that one affects compensation only).

Annoying question: the Twins signed Correa for 3/$105 but with the opt-out, it's just 1/$35 ... so does that count as $50 M or more?

As to the Yanks -- they're the richest team in baseball, of course they don't get much compensation for not signing Judge. F'ing cheapskates, wouldn't rock up with good money last year when they could have had him for relative peanuts.

Granted, now that MLB has officially adopted WAR in some capacities, they could go with a FA compensation system that gets past the "class" of free agents to individual ones if somebody thinks that's important. Something like "the draft order of the comp picks in a given round will be determined by WAR of the player lost within each team-type (revenue-receiving, neutral, lux tax cheats)."