Belt, Taylor receive QO's

[sharksrog]

MLB Trade Rumors will be updating its list as the day goes on, but both Brandon Belt and Chris Taylor have received a Qualifying Offer. That means the Giants control Belt for at least a year or receive a compensation draft pick, and it likely eliminates the Giants' signing Taylor. Intriguingly, Clayton K-Shaw isn't going to be given a QO, and at least at this point, Anthony DeSclafani hasn't.

Reliever Raisel Iglesias was suggested as a possible acquisition, but he has received a QO. Intriguing that the Astros consider Justin Verlander healthy enough to give him one. I'm a little surprised that Taylor received one, although on a 1/$18.4 million contract he's not overly risky. Risky IMO, but perhaps not overly so.


Brandon Belt, Giants (link)
Nick Castellanos, Reds (link)
Michael Conforto, Mets (link)
Carlos Correa, Astros (link)
Freddie Freeman, Braves (link)
Raisel Iglesias, Angels (link)
Robbie Ray, Blue Jays (link)
Eduardo Rodriguez, Red Sox (link)
Corey Seager, Dodgers (link)
Marcus Semien, Blue Jays (link)
Trevor Story, Rockies (link)
Noah Syndergaard, Mets (link)
Chris Taylor, Dodgers (link)
Justin Verlander, Astros (link)

[sharksrog]

I just realized that MLB Trade Rumors was probably waiting for the QO's before completing its list of the top 50 Free Agents. They rate the free agents in order of the amount they expect the players to receive, and players who receive QO's are not only slightly likely to remain with their own teams, but to receive less in free agency than an equivalent free agent without compensation applied.

If I were the Players Association, I would attempt to either eliminate compensation tied to player signings or have it involve draft picks received to compensate the team losing the free agent, but not at the expense of the signing team.

If the Giants didn't have to give up a draft pick to sign Chris Taylor, I think they would have been quite interested. But unless they can negotiate a price low enough to compensate for the loss of the draft pick (which I think is highly unlikely), I doubt they'll sign him. The only thing that could work in favor of a Taylor/Giants hookup is that the Giants' first round pick will be so low because of their having the best record in the majors.

[sharksrog]

Anyone else feel the Giants might be making a mistake if they don't issue a QO to DeSclafani? Might there be health issues the Giants know about that we don't?

I felt the A's made a mistake by not offering a QO to Hendrix a year ago, and I think the Giants may be making one by not extending a Qualifying Offer to Anthony.

This does signal to me that the Giants will be going all-out to re-sign Gausman, and perhaps they're liking Wood nearly as much as Gausman.

Fan Graphs believed that DeSclafani's injury season of 2020 had no value, but they felt Anthony was worth $24 million last year and even believed he was worth $20 million in 2019. To me, that suggests a QO wouldn't have been too big a risk. Maybe the Giants will still make one, but I would assume they would announce them all together.

QO's are up this year, even if no one else is added to the list. The Giants' $18.9 million QO to Gausman last winter was one of only six QO's extended. This year there are more than twice that already. Of course, with vaccinations available and COVID under better control, there is less economic risk for the teams.

[sharksrog]

I wonder if the Giants would have claimed Wade Miley if the Cubs hadn't.

[reedonly]

Nov 7, 2021 17:25:14 GMT -5 sharksrog said:

MLB Trade Rumors will be updating its list as the day goes on, but both Brandon Belt and Chris Taylor have received a Qualifying Offer. That means the Giants control Belt for at least a year or receive a compensation draft pick, and it likely eliminates the Giants' signing Taylor. Intriguingly, Clayton K-Shaw isn't going to be given a QO, and at least at this point, Anthony DeSclafani hasn't.

Reliever Raisel Iglesias was suggested as a possible acquisition, but he has received a QO. Intriguing that the Astros consider Justin Verlander healthy enough to give him one. I'm a little surprised that Taylor received one, although on a 1/$18.4 million contract he's not overly risky. Risky IMO, but perhaps not overly so.


Brandon Belt, Giants (link)
Nick Castellanos, Reds (link)
Michael Conforto, Mets (link)
Carlos Correa, Astros (link)
Freddie Freeman, Braves (link)
Raisel Iglesias, Angels (link)
Robbie Ray, Blue Jays (link)
Eduardo Rodriguez, Red Sox (link)
Corey Seager, Dodgers (link)
Marcus Semien, Blue Jays (link)
Trevor Story, Rockies (link)
Noah Syndergaard, Mets (link)
Chris Taylor, Dodgers (link)
Justin Verlander, Astros (link)

Seager and Taylor expected to reject the QO.  Taylor expecting 4y/$55m might be too steep.  Kershaw might be close to TJ.

[reedonly]

Nov 7, 2021 17:32:39 GMT -5 sharksrog said:

I just realized that MLB Trade Rumors was probably waiting for the QO's before completing its list of the top 50 Free Agents. They rate the free agents in order of the amount they expect the players to receive, and players who receive QO's are not only slightly likely to remain with their own teams, but to receive less in free agency than an equivalent free agent without compensation applied.

If I were the Players Association, I would attempt to either eliminate compensation tied to player signings or have it involve draft picks received to compensate the team losing the free agent, but not at the expense of the signing team.

If the Giants didn't have to give up a draft pick to sign Chris Taylor, I think they would have been quite interested. But unless they can negotiate a price low enough to compensate for the loss of the draft pick (which I think is highly unlikely), I doubt they'll sign him. The only thing that could work in favor of a Taylor/Giants hookup is that the Giants' first round pick will be so low because of their having the best record in the majors.

The international signing money is more important than the draft pick.

[sharksrog]

How much international signing money is lost if a team signs a player who received a QO? That's a good point.

[sharksrog]

I'm not sure 4/$55 is a horrible price for Chris Taylor (although I don't think I'd want to be the one to pay it), but it looks more daunting when coupled with compensation. I think someone is going to turn out to be unhappy they signed Marcus Semien as well, much as I hate to say that about a fellow Cal guy.

[reedonly]

From mlb.com

• A team that neither exceeded the luxury tax in the preceding season nor receives revenue sharing will lose its second-highest selection in the following year's Draft as well as $500,000 from its international bonus pool. If it signs two such players, it will also forfeit its third-highest remaining pick. If that team loses a free agent, it will be awarded a Draft pick immediately following Competitive Balance Round B. The 13 clubs that fall into this category during the 2020-21 offseason are the Angels, Athletics, Blue Jays, Braves, Cardinals, Dodgers, Giants, Mets, Nationals, Phillies, Rangers, Red Sox and White Sox

[sharksrog]

The final list of QO's:

Brandon Belt, Giants (link)
Nick Castellanos, Reds (link)
Michael Conforto, Mets (link)
Carlos Correa, Astros (link)
Freddie Freeman, Braves (link)
Raisel Iglesias, Angels (link)
Robbie Ray, Blue Jays (link)
Eduardo Rodriguez, Red Sox (link)
Corey Seager, Dodgers (link)
Marcus Semien, Blue Jays (link)
Trevor Story, Rockies (link)
Noah Syndergaard, Mets (link)
Chris Taylor, Dodgers (link)
Justin Verlander, Astros (link)


Anyone else think it was a mistake not to QO DeSclafani, or do we think the Giants know something we don't? I would have given him a QO to decrease his market price in order to make it easier to re-sign him. It will be intriguing to see what MLB Trade Rumors projects him to get.

Here's a thought: Could the Giants' not tendering a QO to DeSclafani signal an interest in going after one of the big boy free agents? I don't think I truly see that, which makes me wonder -- especially with Posey's money freed up -- why the Giants didn't go QO with DeSclafani. I'm guessing they're still concerned with his arm health. But if that is the case, wouldn't we rather have him on a one-year contract than a long-term pact? The Giants are plenty smart. What am I missing here?

Especially with pitchers, one-year contracts have the lowest risk. $18.4 million is a lot to pay for one year, but don't we think that if the Giants got "stuck" with Anthony, they could get something decent in trade?

Of course I'll probably be proven wrong here, but I think had the Giants proffered a QO to DeSclafani, they would have been able to sign him for longer if they had chosen to do so. By not tendering him the QO, they will allow him to receive a higher outside offer than if they had tendered it, and I think that will be the difference in his not re-signing with them.

I'm guessing it was a close call for the Giants, one that I believe makes it more likely that they will re-sign both Gausman and Wood. I think re-signing Wood now becomes likely, and I think whether they re-sign Gausman will depend on how much he values staying with the team and with the coaching staff that helped him finally reach his potential. That he didn't sign long-term last winter even though the Giants were said to want him long-term makes me wonder.

Gausman has got to be very close to the top of the list for teams wanting starting pitching, which leads me to believe he may price himself out of the Giants' grasp, if not out of their reach.

The Giants can use southpaw starters in particular, which leads me to believe Wood could be a priority. In a somewhat related aside, a year ago Seth Corry was the Giants' top southpaw prospect, having fashioned a stunning 1.76 ERA with 172 strikeouts in 123 innings. He didn't pitch in 2020, and last season he struggled with a 5.99 ERA and nearly a walk per inning, although he did strike out 100 in 68 innings. This fall he has struggled with 12 walks in 7 innings.

Kyle Harrison has replaced Corry as the Giants' top southpaw prospect, but he's only a year out of De La Salle High School. Harrison also has had his control struggles, but he fashioned a 3.19 ERA at San Jose, with 157 strikeouts in 99 innings and did construct a K/BB ratio just over three. Still, San Jose is a precipitously longer journey from San Francisco in baseball than it is in a car. 2023 would be a very aggressive timetable for Harrison to reach the Giants.

[sharksrog]

Thanks for the international money info, Reed. Half a mill is indeed significant, since the international pool is probably the best investment these days. Oh, and if a team loses only its SECOND-highest draft pick, that's not too bad.

But, really, should a team in fairness lose ANYTHING for signing a free agent? When it does, is the "free" agent truly entirely free? Of course a team should have to pay him, but should the amount of money he can command be reduced because his signing team also has to lose additional compensation?

I just thought of something ironic. Boly is an old-fashioned guy who thinks players earn too much money. In one sense, he's right. But Boly is one of those people who apparently believed President Trump (and I'm not trying to make this into a political thread) when he said that if Joe Biden were elected, we would have socialism. And yet capitalism (and we're the world's strongest capitalistic country) says that it's the law of supply and demand that should determine what a person (or player) makes, that an employee is able to sell himself to the highest bidder.

I find it ironic that a person who fears socialism wants to limit a person's capitalistic rights.

Don't get me wrong; Boly is right when he asks how much more a player truly needs after he's signed a few years in eight figures. But if we embrace the principles of capitalism, he has a right to earn as much as his talents will pay him. And baseball has limited his ability by adding additional draft pick and international money compensation to what a player is paid in free agency if the player is offered a QO.

MLB could be in for a very tough negotiation with the Players Association. Free agents might become closer to being entirely free. Right now, free agent needs to have an asterisk after it.

I would think the Players Association would be trying to reduce the six years in the majors (and up to seven more years in total) before a player can become a free agent, as well.

If baseball players are overpaid, what about entertainers and corporate executives? In one sense, it wouldn't bother me if they made less. But that would go against the principles of capitalism.

Not really fair to decry socialism and then deny people some of their rights under capitalism, is it?

[reedonly]

Giants probably will not sign anyone with a QO. Except Belt

[reedonly]

One would probably need enough money to set themselves and their kids but beyond that it’s probably excessive. The NBA super max is more than they or their grandchildren could ever spend. Iguadala and Durant seem level headed in preparing for life after NBA. Buster deserves his time with the family and it’s something worth more than the money.

[reedonly]

MLB.com has a good breakdown of the QO, who got it, who didn’t , and the penalties and compensation. So far, only Dodgers and Padres are in the luxury do if they sign QO players, they take big hits.

[sharksrog]

Thanks for the info, Reed. I'm almost always interested in where to find good info.

[reedonly]

Nov 10, 2021 23:11:39 GMT -5 reedonly said:

Nov 8, 2021 6:18:49 GMT -5 sharksrog said:

I'm not sure 4/$55 is a horrible price for Chris Taylor (although I don't think I'd want to be the one to pay it), but it looks more daunting when coupled with compensation. I think someone is going to turn out to be unhappy they signed Marcus Semien as well, much as I hate to say that about a fellow Cal guy.

For the first time, I’m glad the 49ers took Alex Smith

[sharksrog]

Aaron Rodgers has long been my favorite player (with the exception of Jahvid Best's years), and as a result the Packers took over for the 4oers as my favorite team, but I'm deciding right now whether to continue rooting for them. I probably will. I continued to root for the Giants even after I realized Barry Bonds was using steroids. But I can tell you one thing: I wouldn't vote for the man, even though my son is named Aaron Roger and was at Cal the same time as his near namesake.