Why Mike Leake Should Threaten to Accept a Qualifying Offer

Mike Leake has millions on the line.
Photo Credit: Keith Allison

As of right now, we are just over 24 hours until the non-waivers trade deadline, and Mike Leake is still a Cincinnati Red.  The Blue Jays' acquisition of David Price is a blow, as the Jays had been connected in the rumor mill to Leake over the past few days.  Now, that's at least less likely to happen.  I'm sure that there still are suitors out there for Leake, and odds are that he will be moved.  But if I were Mike Leake, I'd be nervous.

The reason?

Mike Leake is a very solid pitcher.  He has been routinely worth between 2 and 3 wins over the past three seasons, and can absolutely be a valuable part of a contending team's rotation.  But he's not an ace, and will always have to answer skeptics due to his smaller size profile and low velocity.  He doesn't rack up strikeouts.  He gets ground balls, avoids walks, and fields his position well.  A free agent this offseason, Leake has earned a pretty nice payday.  I think he can reasonably look for a 3+ year contract at $10-13 million per season.  2016 will only be his age-28 season, and he has no history of injury, so I think clubs will be happy to pay him to lock down 180+ innings per season.

Aside from a late-season injury, there is really only one major pitfall that could derail his payday: compensation.  If the Reds fail to trade him, they will have the option to make him a qualifying offer, which will be somewhere close to $17 million for one year.  If he declines, then whatever team signs him will have to give the Reds their first-round draft pick in the 2016 draft as compensation for signing him.  If the Reds trade him, however, the team that acquires him cannot receive free agent compensation.

I like the principle of compensating teams who lose free agents.  The problem is that bonus to the team losing the free agent is paid by the team that acquires him.  Therefore, the acquiring team has to include the loss of a first-round pick as part of their calculations of how much they're willing to spend.  As a result, many mid-tier free agents in recent years have had a hard time finding a job, and ultimately had to accept a below-market deal, as a result of this compensation pick.  It directly cuts into their potential earnings, and ultimately has kept players from playing baseball.

So, if I'm Mike Leake, I would tell the Reds front office that I intend to accept a qualifying offer.  No player has ever actually accepted this offer (which boggles my mind), but even the threat of it might spur the Reds to action.  Bronson Arroyo commented that he'd strongly consider signing a qualifying offer as he approached free agency two years ago.  The Reds opted not to make an offer, and Arroyo went on to sign a 2-year, $23.5 million contract with the Diamondbacks.  If I were Mike, I'd make the same threat.  The Reds would most likely respond by either trading him now, or simply not making the offer this fall; I'm guessing that they are still too cash-strapped to risk it.  And letting Leake walk without getting anything for him would be completely unacceptable.  That leaves trading him as the most viable solution.

Whether he'd actually accept a qualifying offer, in that scenario, is another question.  The threat might be all that matters.

The Free Agent Compensation Mess

The Reds' Todd Frazier was acquired via compensation
pick in the 2007 draft.  Photo courtesy of David Slaughter.

One of the biggest features of the latest CBA is a revised free agent compensation system.  The short version, as I understand it, is that if a team makes a "qualifying offer" to a player, which is defined as at least a one-year offer at a certain rate based on current player salaries (last year, it was ~$14 million), his team can receive compensation in the form of a draft pick if he turns it down and signs with another team.  The draft pick usually will come from the team that signs the free agent.

This offseason we've seen a group of free agents really struggle to find employment.  It's a big list: Nelson Cruz, Stephen Drew, Ervin Santana, Ubaldo Jimenez, Kendrys Morales...  All of these players are mid-tier free agents, and all are players who turned down qualifying offers from their teams in order to pursue larger contracts on the open market.  Like we saw in past years, these players all appear to be encountering a significant challenge: these are not top-tier talents, so teams don't want to give up their first round pick to sign them on top of paying their salaries.

The Nelson Cruz example is particularly interesting because he ended up having to settle for a one-year, $8 million contract after turning down a $14 million contract earlier in the offseason.  And ultimately, the main reason he actually got a deal seems to be that the Orioles had already given up their first-round pick to sign Ubaldo Jimenez, which made signing Cruz far less of a consequence for them.  Now, granted, his agents probably misread the market for him; apparently, teams are realizing that low OBP, poor fielding sluggers aren't worth as much as teams used to pay for them.  But this was a pretty big mistake.

Earlier this week, Tangotiger noted that MLBPA has decided not to challenge the compensation system until the next CBA.  I can understand that on some level--trying to renegotiate in the middle of the agreement might make negotiations of the next CBA a challenge.  But the system really seems very unfair to these few players who have to deal with the compensation pick.  It's not just this offseason, either.   I remember Orlando Hudson having similar issues some years ago.

I've always liked the principle of compensation.  It's best merit, in my view, is that it's a small token of recognition that small market teams, in particular, can't always keep their players.  Therefore, when a team loses an important free agent, they get slightly better draft position to help them begin to recover.  A 30-something pick isn't great shakes, but teams have scored some nice players with compensation picks.  Todd Frazier, for example, was the product of a compensation pick under the old system when the Reds lost Rich Aurilia to free agency.  I also like the idea of a qualifying offer: rather than trying to rank players by the TERRIBLE free agent system, the qualifying offer lets the market determine a player's value.  Teams (presumably) won't give a qualifying offer if the player isn't worth it, and so you're effectively letting the market determine if a player is good enough that the team deserves compensation.  To me, that's pretty elegant.

So how do we fix it?  To me, the problem is that the team has to surrender their own pick in order to sign a free agent.  I'm sure there's some important reason for this, but it seems to me that if we just got rid of that component--there would be no cost to the team that signs the player beyond the player's salary, just a bonus mid-30's pick to the team who lost the player--the system would serve its purpose and work quite well.  

As it is, the penalty of the pick means that some players get a raw deal, and teams are less likely to sign mid-tier free agents to improve their teams.  Seems like a lose-lose to me.