Few Marginal Players Will Get Qualifying Offers Today

Today at 5 p.m. E.T. is the deadline for teams to make a qualifying offer (QO) to their free agents. For years, this decision was straightforward: teams handed offers to anyone remotely worth it. Why not? Every player rejected them. It was a free draft pick.

Meanwhile, evidence mounted that players should adjust their strategy of “always reject.” Nelson Cruz, Stephen Drew, and Kendrys Morales (among others) showed that rejecting the offer wasn’t always a good idea. These players cost themselves big time.

Can you imagine the frustration they felt at reaching free agency only to see a big payday slip through their grasp? This year’s free agents are watching and learning. And teams are watching and learning with them.

When these guys rejected the QO, their price tags increased by about $8.1 million. Research by Matthew Murphy at The Hardball Times shows that, prior to 2014, a draft pick in the compensation range (typically picks No. 26-30) was worth this much, or a little more than a win. Cruz, Drew, and Morales gambled that teams would pay this additional price for them.

They lost their bets. Teams priced the draft pick into their assessments of each player and found the math upside-down. Because the teams had all the leverage, the players had to concede some salary.

Last year, three players got wise and adjusted their approach. In the 2015-2016 offseason, Brett Anderson, Colby Rasmus, and Matt Wieters accepted QOs from the Dodgers, Astros, and Orioles, respectively. Meanwhile, Ian Desmond became the latest example of a player weighed down by the draft pick he incurred by rejecting the QO.

You Aren't a FanGraphs Member
It looks like you aren't yet a FanGraphs Member (or aren't logged in). We aren't mad, just disappointed.
We get it. You want to read this article. But before we let you get back to it, we'd like to point out a few of the good reasons why you should become a Member.
1. Ad Free viewing! We won't bug you with this ad, or any other.
2. Unlimited articles! Non-Members only get to read 10 free articles a month. Members never get cut off.
3. Dark mode and Classic mode!
4. Custom player page dashboards! Choose the player cards you want, in the order you want them.
5. One-click data exports! Export our projections and leaderboards for your personal projects.
6. Remove the photos on the home page! (Honestly, this doesn't sound so great to us, but some people wanted it, and we like to give our Members what they want.)
7. Even more Steamer projections! We have handedness, percentile, and context neutral projections available for Members only.
8. Get FanGraphs Walk-Off, a customized year end review! Find out exactly how you used FanGraphs this year, and how that compares to other Members. Don't be a victim of FOMO.
9. A weekly mailbag column, exclusively for Members.
10. Help support FanGraphs and our entire staff! Our Members provide us with critical resources to improve the site and deliver new features!
We hope you'll consider a Membership today, for yourself or as a gift! And we realize this has been an awfully long sales pitch, so we've also removed all the other ads in this article. We didn't want to overdo it.

The signal became clear: marginal players shouldn’t reject the QO. If they do, they’ll get burned. This year, the signal will manifest itself as a higher probability that a marginal player will accept a QO. I expect teams will read this intent and, accordingly, be more selective this time when making their QOs. Fewer marginal players will likely get one.

To model the break-even point teams need to justify a QO, I estimated what each player might be worth on a one-year deal and compared that to the $17.2 million guarantee they’d get if tendered a QO. I used the following inputs to compute break-even points for many free agents:

  • A reasonable one-year contract offer. To get this I divided the total value of multi-year contracts, as estimated by the FanGraphs crowdsourcing project, in half.
  • The value of a QO: $17.2 million.
  • The value of a compensating draft pick: $8.91 million.

The formula is:

Break-Even % = 100 – (100 * ((QO ValueOne Year Contract Value) / Draft Pick Value)

where Break-Even % is between 0 and 100.

Consider Luis Valbuena. No one thinks Valbuena is worth $17.2 million per year, but he’s a useful player who should land a multi-year contract as a free agent. In years past, an aggressive team would’ve made him a QO in order to get a draft pick. In the soon-to-be published results of this year’s contract crowdsourcing exercise, readers estimated Valbuena’s contract this winter (without a QO) at $25.6 million, so I estimated his one-year value at half that: $12.8 million. In reality, he’ll probably sign for less than that on a per-year basis, but he’ll probably get two or three years, so that’s my guess at what his open-market value would look like if he only wanted a one-year deal.

Using the formula noted above, Valbuena’s break-even point is calculated as follows:

100 – (100 * ((17.2 – 12.8) / 8.91)) = 100 – 49 = 51%.

If the Astros though there was less than a 51% chance that Valbuena would take the QO, they could justify making him the offer. The potential value of a draft pick makes up for the risk of overpaying him by a few million if he takes the one year deal. However, I’m confident Valbuena is more than 51% likely to accept a QO this year. Last year or the year before, maybe not. But he knows that if he rejects the offer, the draft pick will hurt him badly. He’ll have to convince other teams he’s worth something like $20 million for one year or $35 million over two, since they’ll be factoring in the tax they’ll have to pay to sign him as a free agent.

Therefore, the Astros shouldn’t make him an offer, even with the lure of a draft pick if he turned it down and signed elsewhere. If they do, they’ll likely find themselves paying $17.2 million, after he and his agent correctly ascertain that the QO would crush his market value, and a multi-year deal probably isn’t available on the open market with a draft pick attached. Also, the Astros would have the additional headache of finding playing time for Valbuena while also having to work Alex Bregman and Yulieski Gurriel in at the same positions Valbuena plays.

Rasmus is another player who won’t get a QO, even though he got one last year. His break-even point is 47%. If he’s any more likely to accept a QO, the Astros shouldn’t make it. With an estimated one-year contract of $12.5 million, Rasmus is more like 99% probable to take the QO.

The last interesting guy to examine is Brandon Moss. His break-even point is 41%. Like Valbuena and Rasmus, Moss would take the QO in a heartbeat. This may be why the Cardinals reportedly won’t make him one.

The following table shows other eligible free agents, sorted by Marginality, which is 50 – (|50 – Break-Even %|). The closer to 50% a player’s break-even point is, the more marginal the player is. (Once again, data taken from contract crowdsourcing effort.)

Break-Even Points for Making Qualifying Offers
Player Marginality Est. Total Contract* Est. One-Year Contract* Break-Even Point (%)
Luis Valbuena 49 25.6 12.8 51
Colby Rasmus 47 25.1 12.5 47
Brandon Moss 41 23.8 11.9 41
Edinson Volquez 28 29.4 14.7 72
Michael Saunders 24 30.3 15.1 76
Mike Napoli 24 20.9 10.4 24
Matt Holliday 21 20.5 10.2 21
Doug Fister 15 19.2 9.6 15
Brett Cecil 3 17.3 8.6 3
Angel Pagan 1 16.7 8.4 1
Edwin Encarnacion 0 90.4 45.2 100
Kenley Jansen 0 77.1 38.6 100
Justin Turner 0 70.9 35.5 100
Ian Desmond 0 62.7 31.4 100
Dexter Fowler 0 61.6 30.8 100
Mark Trumbo 0 59.2 29.6 100
Jose Bautista 0 65.3 32.7 100
Jeremy Hellickson 0 54.1 27.0 100
Neil Walker 0 50.5 25.3 100
Wilson Ramos 0 43.9 21.9 100
Matt Wieters 0 40.3 20.1 100
Jon Jay 0 14.0 7.0 0
Sergio Romo 0 13.6 6.8 0
Joe Blanton 0 13.1 6.5 0
Matt Joyce 0 12.0 6.0 0
Bartolo Colon 0 14.7 7.3 0
Chase Utley 0 12.2 6.1 0
R.A. Dickey 0 11.6 5.8 0
Koji Uehara 0 8.5 4.2 0
Rajai Davis 0 11.5 5.8 0
Pedro Alvarez 0 10.9 5.4 0
Colby Lewis 0 9.8 4.9 0
Santiago Casilla 0 8.5 4.2 0
Greg Holland 0 8.2 4.1 0
Jonathan Papelbon 0 7.3 3.6 0
C.J. Wilson 0 7.1 3.6 0
Kurt Suzuki 0 7.7 3.8 0
Austin Jackson 0 7.5 3.7 0
* Millions USD.

Valbuena, Rasmus, and Moss are the players most on the bubble. The next tier includes Edinson Volquez, Michael Saunders, Mike Napoli, and Matt Holliday. Their respective break-even points are 72%, 76%, 24%, and 21%. If you’re Dayton Moore, do you think Volquez is more than 72% likely to accept a QO? If so, don’t make him one. As for Napoli and Holliday, I guarantee you they’re more than 24% and 21% likely to accept a QO. Those thresholds are very low.

The guys who definitely won’t take a one-year, $17.2 million offer appear in the middle of the table. Their break-even point is at 100%, reflecting the fact that making guys like Justin Turner a QO is never a mistake. These guys will likely get offers. Because the decision to make an offer is so easy, their Marginality is 0.

Last come the guys who would take one-year, $17.2 million every single time. Making these guys a QO is always a mistake. A 0% break-even point for C.J. Wilson means if he’s even 0.000001% likely to accept a QO, Billy Eppler shouldn’t make him one. This decision is just as easy as deciding whether to make an offer to Turner, so Wilson’s Marginality is also 0.

If the physical game of baseball is one of constant adjustments, so is the business game. Last year, three players saw evidence of how rejecting a QO could hurt their income. They adjusted their business strategy and took the QO. This year, teams can expect more marginal players to do the same. Therefore, the teams themselves will adjust. The result will be fewer (if any) QOs to marginal players.





Ryan enjoys characterizing that elusive line between luck and skill in baseball. For more, subscribe to his articles and follow him on Twitter.

35 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Matthew
9 years ago

Any reason Kendrys Morales doesn’t make the table? I was wondering how marginal he was.

Matthew
9 years ago

You think he will be offered less than 1/$12 on the open market?

ZonkMember since 2016
9 years ago
Reply to  Matthew

Heyman reports the Royals will not extend Morales a QO, so I guess he’s pretty marginal

HamelinROY
9 years ago

Shocked that Volquez is that high. It doesn’t sound like they plan to extend one, which I think is for the best.

Bat
9 years ago
Reply to  HamelinROY

Maybe I am misunderstanding but I read the above table and explanation in the article to say that (for example) a guy with a 0% chance of accepting the one year, $17.2 million qualifying offer is Matt Weiters?

Do you really think so?

Walker is another one that I think isn’t a slam dunk to reject the QO although it should be noted that he’s coming off season-ending back surgery, which the model can’t account for, as noted with Ramos’s (much more serious) injury, and that affects his value negatively, which in turn makes him more likely to accept the QO, and again the model doesn’t account for this.

But Weiters…yes, he’s the #1 (uninjured) catcher on the free agent market. So like a guy such as Hellickson w/r/t pitchers, he’ll benefit from weak alternatives for teams in need of help.

But it might be noted that the Orioles couldn’t have agreed with your model no? Because if they did, they would have offered Weiters the QO, certain that he would reject and they’d collect the draft pick.

Unless I’m misunderstanding, which as noted above is a distinct possibility.

Bat
9 years ago

Thanks for explaining Ryan.

Very interesting article, by the way.

ZonkMember since 2016
9 years ago

Wilson Ramos broke the model here because of his injury. On the table, he is “100%”, which without the injury would be absolutely correct. But the Nationals announced the are NOT giving him a QO, because getting $17.2 mil for a one-year rehab is a no-brainer YES decision for Ramos, and not such a good deal for Nats

HappyFunBallMember since 2019
9 years ago

The crowd thinks Ramos is getting $44M? Consider me floored, and I LIKE Ramos.

Hareeb al-Saq
9 years ago

What in the world are these 1-year estimates? Encarnacion at 45MM for a year? That’s beyond absurd. I don’t know what his crowdsource is, but if it’s like 6/90 and you just divided by 2….. C’mon Man.

FillmoreMember since 2018
9 years ago
Reply to  Hareeb al-Saq

That is indeed what they did. I think the logic isn’t that any team would actually pay Encarnacion that much on a one-year deal, but that that is the offer it would require for him to forgo a multi-year contract. Yes, the methodology is clumsy, but it makes a little bit of sense.

Hareeb al-Saq
9 years ago
Reply to  Fillmore

Except that number is completely meaningless for the breakeven % calculation- the number that matters from the team perspective is the VALUE he’s expected to provide in the year covered by the QO,

Luy
9 years ago
Reply to  Hareeb al-Saq

Why are you viewing this exclusively from the team perspective?

The player gets to choose whether or not to accept the QO. And the number you’re focusing on is related to the player’s perspective, not the team’s.

Since EE would need $45m to “break even”…it doesn’t make sense for him to accept a $17m QO.

Back to the team perspective…This info means it’s a no-brainer to extend a QO to EE. Because he either accepts and you get him$17m (a steal), or you get a draft pick.

Hareeb al-Saq
9 years ago
Reply to  Luy

Because the article contains a calculation of a breakeven % FROM THE TEAM’S PERSPECTIVE. The player’s risk tolerance/time preferences have nothing to do with that calculation.

FillmoreMember since 2018
9 years ago
Reply to  Hareeb al-Saq

They do though. If a team knows that a player is going to refuse the qualifying offer, they then know it is safe to offer one, whether they want that player back or not.

Hareeb al-Saq
9 years ago

How the hell can a player have a breakeven accept percentage? Are you even trying to make sense?

Hareeb al-Saq
9 years ago

Trumbo is a good example of why your calculation is completely wrong. Let’s stipulate that Baltimore agrees with projections on a 1.1-1.2 WAR contribution next season, well short of 17.2MM value. If they QO Trumbo, and he accepts, Baltimore just flushed money down the toilet by paying 17.2MM for a win. Therefore Baltimore’s breakeven % for Trumbo accepting is NOT 100%, and it’s nowhere close to 100% because they get creamed every time he accepts. They need him to decline around half the time to come out even on the offer.

FillmoreMember since 2018
9 years ago
Reply to  Hareeb al-Saq

And they know he will decline, because they know he knows he can get a multi-year deal that will pay him 3 times as much overall. He won’t take a one-year deal because he’s more likely than not to be less valuable next year at this time, and he knows it, and the Orioles know it.

Come on. This isn’t that hard.

Hareeb al-Saq
9 years ago
Reply to  Fillmore

That’s completely irrelevant to the breakeven% calculation. Come on. This isn’t that hard.

Jon
9 years ago
Reply to  Fillmore

Ok, I can *maybe* see that. But that’s such a hand-wavy kind of calculation that I think it requires a lot more explanation in the article than “I divided X by 2 to come up with a reasonable one-year offer.”

Jon
9 years ago
Reply to  Hareeb al-Saq

I have no clue why you’re getting downvotes. Makes me think we’re just missing something. I guess Giancarlo Stanton is worth $160 on a one-year deal….

Hareeb al-Saq
9 years ago
Reply to  Jon

Same reason the people posting complete nonsense in response are getting upvotes lol

rpeltzMember since 2016
9 years ago

The formula is wrong, and leads to incorrect conclusions, like that a team should not offer C.J. Wilson a QO and give up a pick worth $8.91M even if he is almost 0% likely to accept the offer.

The formula should be:

Break-Even % = 100 – (100 * ((QO Value – One Year Contract Value) / (QO Value – One Year Contract Value + Draft Pick Value))))

The Break-Even for C.J. Wilson is about 40%.

The 40% of the time he accepts, the team will overpay him by about $13.6M ($17.2M – $3.6M)
The other 60% of the time the team will get a pick worth $8.91M.

(.4 * -13.6) + (.6 * 8.91) ~= 0

The Break-Even for Luis Valbuena is about 67%.

JediHoyer
9 years ago
Reply to  rpeltz

Even this is probably incorrect, shouldn’t we be using projected value and not projected contracts prorated to one year. I.e Valbuena projects for 1.5 war and 13.5 mil of value, more than the crowd projections.

Paul Clarke
9 years ago
Reply to  JediHoyer

rpeltz’s equation is right (and Ryan’s is wrong), though it might be simpler to express it as:

100 X Draft Pick Value / (Draft Pick Value + QO – One Year Value)

What you’re worrying about is a different issue: how to estimate the one year value. Ryan’s method of halving the multi-year contract estimate will probably work well enough for marginal players, those around the 1.5 WAR mark, because you expect something like 1.5, 1.0, 0.5 on a 3-year contract, with the first year providing half the total value. For better players it won’t work – e.g. I really doubt Encarnacion would get $45M on a 1-year contract, and your method would work better here – but they’re an easy decision anyway.

Dominikk85Member since 2020
9 years ago

Can you say that a comp pick on average turns out to be a prospect in the 90-120th range? if the comp pick is around 30th and you consider that most good talents are around 3 years in MLB you could expect that comp pick statistically to become a bottom Tier top100 prospect.

that is quite a Price for a marginal guy to sign.

hurricanexyzMember since 2016
9 years ago

Cespedes is also a free agent after opting out, and I assume should be in that break-even rate of 100% group.

Jon
9 years ago

I’m completely lost on the “1/2 of the predicted contract value” thing, apparently without any regard for the length of the predicted contract.

So to be clear, if the readers predict a 1-year, $12M contract for Mike Napoli, you assume he’s going to get a 1-year, $6M contract? And if they predict a 5-year, $125M contract for Cespedes, you assume he’s going to get a 1-year, $62.5M deal?

Paul Clarke
9 years ago

I’ll try to lay out what Hareeb and rpeltz are saying in a bit more detail. There are two questions here:

(1) What is the maximum probability of a player accepting a QO at which it makes sense for the team to make the QO? This is the “break-even” percentage.

(2) What is the actual probability of the player accepting the offer if made?

(1) The first question is relatively easy: if a player declines then the team gains the draft pick value, DPV ($8.9M), if he accepts then the team loses the QO ($17.2M) but gains the player’s on-field value (OFV, which is WAR x $/WAR ). So with a probability of acceptance of p the expected value to the team of making the offer is:

p X (OFV – QO) + (1-p) X DPV

The team wants this to be >= 0. If the on-field value is greater than the QO then this will always be true and the break-even probability will be 1, i.e. always make the offer. If not we want to find

p X (OFV – QO) + (1-p) X DPV >= 0
p X (OFV – QO -DPV) + DPV >= 0
p X (OFV – QO – DPV) >= -DPV
p X (DPV + QO – OFV) <= DPV
p <= DPV / (DPV + QO – OFV)

So for C.J. Wilson if we say, for the sake of the example, that he's projected for 1 WAR and the $/WAR is $8M, giving an on-field value of $8M, we get:

p <= 8.9 / (8.9 + 17.2 – 8M)
p <= 0.49

i.e. making a QO to Wilson makes sense if the team thinks the chance of him accepting is 49% or less. The problem with making a QO to Wilson is not, as Ryan argues, that it makes no sense even if he's practically certain to reject it: the problem is he's almost certain to accept.

(2) The second question doesn't have such a simple analytical solution – it's going to involve what the player expects to be offered, what he thinks he might get offered a year later (which also depends on whether he thinks he'll get a QO next year too), his tolerance for risk, and intangibles like comfort with the team, desire to play for a contender etc. Here I think Ryan is mostly right: players like Valbuena are very likely to accept because the difference between the QO and the they might get with draft-pick compensation attached is small. So Valbuena's probability of accepting is likely higher than his roughly 65% break-even point. Better players are less likely to accept, but there's not much room between Valbuena's 1.5 WAR projection and the roughly 2 WAR point at which the team doesn't mind the player accepting anyway – there aren't going to be many players in that window.