Starting pitcher Jake Odorizzi surprised people last week by accepting a one-year, $17.8 million qualifying offer from the Twins instead of testing free agency. But given the nature of baseball's economic structure, was it really that unexpected?
First take: Michael Rand
We can view this as Odorizzi betting on himself, which he is, to a degree. And we can view this as a win-win for Odorizzi and the Twins, since he's getting a big raise and they are guaranteed to keep the top of their rotation intact.
More than anything, though, I think it's an indictment of baseball's economic system. If not for the draft-pick penalty attached to signing a player who was given a qualifying offer, Odorizzi almost certainly would have opted for free agency.
But it's still a bad system.
Phil Miller: You might say it's a bad system. Jake Odorizzi might say it's a bad system. But I doubt that Rob Manfred or Jim Pohlad or any of baseball's other billionaire owners would say it's a bad system.
It's pretty simple: What is the goal of a structure that exacts a penalty from teams for lavishing money on players? It's to suppress the amount of money they receive. Baseball has been unable to force a salary cap system on its sport — that's what the 1994-95 strike was about — but the owners have managed to add a brake to the prices of the best players by penalizing teams for signing them.
It's the not-quite-elite players like Odorizzi who are most affected, though, not the top-of-the-market types. And the system feels more punitive than it used to because teams value draft picks more than they used to, and they're less willing than before to spend big on older players.