Surprising QO

[An Old Friend]

Maybe a more surprising one is the Red Sox offering a QO to Nick Pivetta, but they did not issue one to Tyler O’Neill.

Pivetta’s an underrated stud. Both he and Martinez are poised for multi-year deals, so it does make sense to offer them QOs. IMO it’s higher risk to give TO a QO, when there’s a strong chance he could accept and make $20+M, playing 60 games.

I’m probably just ignorant but I think both of them should accept.

Just saying, Lance Lynn & Kyle Gibson got paid $12-13M a season in their late 30’s…

I’m struggling to see the relevancy to this discussion.

His point (I think) is Lynn/Gibson were old bums compared to Pivetta/Martinez. The latter could have multi-year opportunities to explore.

Yes, they could both make themselves more marketable betting on themselves… but why should they assume that risk?

OK, on point one... the Lynn/Gibson commentary makes no sense. They didn't have picks hanging over their heads so their acquisition cost was nothing aside from their salary. I'm saying that aside from a couple of teams who can easily throw away picks in 2025, it's a really limited market of teams that would sacrifice a pick for talents like theirs.

On point two - that is my point... why should they assume the risk that the market doesn't open up for them? Take the guarantee now and then if they're healthy, hit the open market next season.

Martinez should absolutely take that $21MM. The market shuts down hard on pitchers like these. They sit around till February hoping something materializes, then have to take a [shirt] deal from a team they might not even want to play for.

[Quincy Varnish]

I’m probably just ignorant but I think both of them should accept.

Just saying, Lance Lynn & Kyle Gibson got paid $12-13M a season in their late 30’s…

I’m struggling to see the relevancy to this discussion.

His point (I think) is Lynn/Gibson were old bums compared to Pivetta/Martinez. The latter could have multi-year opportunities to explore.

Yes, they could both make themselves more marketable betting on themselves… but why should they assume that risk?

OK, on point one... the Lynn/Gibson commentary makes no sense. They didn't have picks hanging over their heads so their acquisition cost was nothing aside from their salary. I'm saying that aside from a couple of teams who can easily throw away picks in 2025, it's a really limited market of teams that would sacrifice a pick for talents like theirs.

I think he was only citing their contracts as a reference point . Cost of bum = $12-13M/yr. Cost of decent, younger SP = more. Of course the QO creates more circumstances.

On point two - that is my point... why should they assume the risk that the market doesn't open up for them? Take the guarantee now and then if they're healthy, hit the open market next season.

“If they’re healthy” = the risk. IMO Pivetta could command a very good contract even w/ the QO attached. It’s worth exploring that opportunity. If he misses? He wouldn’t have too much trouble finding a 1-year pact for the same value.

Martinez should absolutely take that $21MM. The market shuts down hard on pitchers like these. They sit around till February hoping something materializes, then have to take a [shirt] deal from a team they might not even want to play for.

I’ll give you a “probably”.

[Quincy Varnish]

Maybe a more surprising one is the Red Sox offering a QO to Nick Pivetta, but they did not issue one to Tyler O’Neill.

Pivetta’s an underrated stud. Both he and Martinez are poised for multi-year deals, so it does make sense to offer them QOs. IMO it’s higher risk to give TO a QO, when there’s a strong chance he could accept and make $20+M, playing 60 games.

Ehh, I wouldn’t go that far. I like him but he’s just a solid pitcher. He’s never had an ERA under 4, never had more than 10 wins, went 6-12 this year, his FIP is usually 4+, gives up too many HRs. Plus who would give up draft money for Pivetta? Or a Nick Martinez?

Pivetta has wicked nasty stuff, seriously. He’s better than solid. He’ll do well in FA, and should certainly be hunting for something better than a one year guarantee.

Martinez? Different level, but he could still manage a good 2-3 year deal that’s more appealing than the QO. His versatility will be valued by contenders… more so with the reigning champs setting a new standard with their bullpen. That said, he could still take the sure thing.

Pivetta isn’t taking the QO, so we’ll see who signs him.

Sure, but at some point you have to produce results even with “wicked stuff”. He’ll be 32 years old and has a career ERA of 4.76 and FIP of 4.36. Not to mention record of 56-71. Who will give up draft pick money for what amounts to a 32 year old project?

He’s not a project. Are you saying nobody will sign him?

I’m saying QO makes him less appealing to teams when they can sign someone else who doesn’t have a QO attached.

I say project because the stuff hasn’t matched the results.

I agree with all that, but I don’t think the QO will prevent him from getting a very attractive contract. We’ll see. He might be able to grab something in the ballpark of Eovaldi’s last deal w/ the Red Sox, which I believe was 4@68.

Maybe, we’ll see. Eovaldi was younger, had better results, and a better FIP. Eovaldi is someone that is a FA as well and in the same range as Pivetta likely and won’t have a QO. My guess is Pivetta takes the QO, but who knows.

Nick Pivetta Unlikely To Accept Qualifying Offer

Red Sox right-hander Nick Pivetta was one of the more surprising recipients of a $21.05MM qualifying offer earlier this month, but he’s likely to reject the offer in search of a multi-year deal, reports ESPN’s Jeff Passan, who suggests that “at least” a three-year deal should be waiting for the righty, who’s heading into his age-32 season. Passan lists the Orioles, Cubs and Braves as potential landing spots.

Anything more than a three-year deal for Pivetta would register as a surprise and something of a precedent-breaker. In the past ten offseasons, only four pitchers have commanded a contract of four or more years when signing ahead of their age-32 season or later (link via MLBTR’s Contract Tracker): Jacob deGrom (five years, $185MM starting at age 35), Hyun Jin Ryu (four years, $80MM starting at 33), Zack Greinke (six years, $206.5MM starting at 32) and James Shields (four years, $75MM starting at 33).

Solid as Pivetta is, he doesn’t have the track record of any of those four pitchers. When healthy, deGrom has been the best pitcher on the planet. Ryu signed his four-year deal after a Cy Young runner-up. Greinke was opting out of a six-year, $147MM deal with the Dodgers and was one of the game’s best pitchers at the time he signed his six-year deal with Arizona. Shields was a clear No. 1 or 2 starter, having pitched 933 innings over the prior four seasons — 233 per year — with a 3.17 ERA and strong strikeout and walk rates.

Pivetta doesn’t have that sort of resume, though his high-end strikeout and walk rates have made him a candidate for a quietly strong deal. When preparing for our annual top 50 free agent rankings, we felt a three-year deal in the $14-17MM annual range was possible for Pivetta — at least before he received a qualifying offer. The right-hander has never turned in a sub-4.00 ERA campaign, but that’s largely due to a regular susceptibility to home runs, something that another club might feel can be curbed or improved with a tweak in mechanics, approach or pitch selection. Pivetta is durable, misses bats at a premium level and has improved his command three years running. He ranked 10th among 126 big league pitchers (min. 100 innings) in terms of his K-BB% this season (22.9%).

It still seems feasible that a three-year deal could be there, but suggesting anything more feels like a stretch, unless multiple teams feel Pivetta is untapped as a potential No. 1-2 starter and is willing to ignore historical norms for pitchers in this age bracket. That could well be the case, but Passan opines that Pivetta “is looking at one of the biggest deals of the winter for a starter,” which would surprise plenty of onlookers. That’s a subjective sentence, but no one expects Pivetta to top Corbin Burnes, Max Fried, Blake Snell and Jack Flaherty, while others like Sean Manaea and Yusei Kikuchi should have greater per-year earning power on a three- or four-year contract.

https://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2024/11/ ... raves.html

[Futuregm2]

Maybe a more surprising one is the Red Sox offering a QO to Nick Pivetta, but they did not issue one to Tyler O’Neill.

Pivetta’s an underrated stud. Both he and Martinez are poised for multi-year deals, so it does make sense to offer them QOs. IMO it’s higher risk to give TO a QO, when there’s a strong chance he could accept and make $20+M, playing 60 games.

Ehh, I wouldn’t go that far. I like him but he’s just a solid pitcher. He’s never had an ERA under 4, never had more than 10 wins, went 6-12 this year, his FIP is usually 4+, gives up too many HRs. Plus who would give up draft money for Pivetta? Or a Nick Martinez?

Pivetta has wicked nasty stuff, seriously. He’s better than solid. He’ll do well in FA, and should certainly be hunting for something better than a one year guarantee.

Martinez? Different level, but he could still manage a good 2-3 year deal that’s more appealing than the QO. His versatility will be valued by contenders… more so with the reigning champs setting a new standard with their bullpen. That said, he could still take the sure thing.

Pivetta isn’t taking the QO, so we’ll see who signs him.

Sure, but at some point you have to produce results even with “wicked stuff”. He’ll be 32 years old and has a career ERA of 4.76 and FIP of 4.36. Not to mention record of 56-71. Who will give up draft pick money for what amounts to a 32 year old project?

He’s not a project. Are you saying nobody will sign him?

I’m saying QO makes him less appealing to teams when they can sign someone else who doesn’t have a QO attached.

I say project because the stuff hasn’t matched the results.

I agree with all that, but I don’t think the QO will prevent him from getting a very attractive contract. We’ll see. He might be able to grab something in the ballpark of Eovaldi’s last deal w/ the Red Sox, which I believe was 4@68.

Maybe, we’ll see. Eovaldi was younger, had better results, and a better FIP. Eovaldi is someone that is a FA as well and in the same range as Pivetta likely and won’t have a QO. My guess is Pivetta takes the QO, but who knows.

Nick Pivetta Unlikely To Accept Qualifying Offer

Red Sox right-hander Nick Pivetta was one of the more surprising recipients of a $21.05MM qualifying offer earlier this month, but he’s likely to reject the offer in search of a multi-year deal, reports ESPN’s Jeff Passan, who suggests that “at least” a three-year deal should be waiting for the righty, who’s heading into his age-32 season. Passan lists the Orioles, Cubs and Braves as potential landing spots.

Anything more than a three-year deal for Pivetta would register as a surprise and something of a precedent-breaker. In the past ten offseasons, only four pitchers have commanded a contract of four or more years when signing ahead of their age-32 season or later (link via MLBTR’s Contract Tracker): Jacob deGrom (five years, $185MM starting at age 35), Hyun Jin Ryu (four years, $80MM starting at 33), Zack Greinke (six years, $206.5MM starting at 32) and James Shields (four years, $75MM starting at 33).

Solid as Pivetta is, he doesn’t have the track record of any of those four pitchers. When healthy, deGrom has been the best pitcher on the planet. Ryu signed his four-year deal after a Cy Young runner-up. Greinke was opting out of a six-year, $147MM deal with the Dodgers and was one of the game’s best pitchers at the time he signed his six-year deal with Arizona. Shields was a clear No. 1 or 2 starter, having pitched 933 innings over the prior four seasons — 233 per year — with a 3.17 ERA and strong strikeout and walk rates.

Pivetta doesn’t have that sort of resume, though his high-end strikeout and walk rates have made him a candidate for a quietly strong deal. When preparing for our annual top 50 free agent rankings, we felt a three-year deal in the $14-17MM annual range was possible for Pivetta — at least before he received a qualifying offer. The right-hander has never turned in a sub-4.00 ERA campaign, but that’s largely due to a regular susceptibility to home runs, something that another club might feel can be curbed or improved with a tweak in mechanics, approach or pitch selection. Pivetta is durable, misses bats at a premium level and has improved his command three years running. He ranked 10th among 126 big league pitchers (min. 100 innings) in terms of his K-BB% this season (22.9%).

It still seems feasible that a three-year deal could be there, but suggesting anything more feels like a stretch, unless multiple teams feel Pivetta is untapped as a potential No. 1-2 starter and is willing to ignore historical norms for pitchers in this age bracket. That could well be the case, but Passan opines that Pivetta “is looking at one of the biggest deals of the winter for a starter,” which would surprise plenty of onlookers. That’s a subjective sentence, but no one expects Pivetta to top Corbin Burnes, Max Fried, Blake Snell and Jack Flaherty, while others like Sean Manaea and Yusei Kikuchi should have greater per-year earning power on a three- or four-year contract.

https://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2024/11/ ... raves.html

Pivetta remains unsigned. Wonder when and where he’ll end up signing.

[rockondlouie]

Reds offer Nick Martinez a QO, which is $21.05 million.

42 G/16 starts
3.10 ERA
110 IP

Pretty surprising for a guy like him and coming from the same Reds team that gave away Gray a few years ago because of money IMO. But I guess they want to keep him around.

That's really surprising coming from the Reds.

[scoutyjones2]

The Reds have a TON of talent and look primed to make a go at it next year. They lost players to injury throughout the season. Despite their losing record, they scored more runs and allowed fewer runs that the Cardinals.
When they let guys like Gray walk, they were punting until now.
I'd trade rosters with the Reds today.

Absolutely. Would trade anyone on this team for Elly and as you said flip rosters.

McClain is the one you go after...like Hans Gruber at Nakatomi

[rockondlouie]

The Reds have a TON of talent and look primed to make a go at it next year. They lost players to injury throughout the season. Despite their losing record, they scored more runs and allowed fewer runs that the Cardinals.
When they let guys like Gray walk, they were punting until now.
I'd trade rosters with the Reds today.

Absolutely. Would trade anyone on this team for Elly and as you said flip rosters.

McClain is the one you go after...like Hans Gruber at Nakatomi

Yippee Ki-Yay I agree, McClain is the one I'd want too.

[Quincy Varnish]

Pivetta remains unsigned. Wonder when and where he’ll end up signing.

Same here. So far, nobody in his tier is getting more than 3 years… I imagine they’re aiming higher.

[An Old Friend]

Pivetta remains unsigned. Wonder when and where he’ll end up signing.

Same here. So far, nobody in his tier is getting more than 3 years… I imagine they’re aiming higher.

So… interesting deal. 4 years $55MM with an out at 2 and 3, so the deal breaks down to:
2 years $23MM
3 years $37MM
4 years $55MM

2 years and $23MM to hit the market again… or he’s not worth it and opts in.

[Quincy Varnish]

Pivetta remains unsigned. Wonder when and where he’ll end up signing.

Same here. So far, nobody in his tier is getting more than 3 years… I imagine they’re aiming higher.

So… interesting deal. 4 years $55MM with an out at 2 and 3, so the deal breaks down to:
2 years $23MM
3 years $37MM
4 years $55MM

2 years and $23MM to hit the market again… or he’s not worth it and opts in.

There is no “opt in” unless it’s a mutual, or player option. You’ll only keep digging in your heels on this, so it’s pointless to debate.

Not a bad deal for Pivetta, but they sold out some AAV for the opt outs. Could easily tack on another $10-12MM TV without those. But - he has the opportunity to put up some impressive numbers in SD and cash in for the same total value of his current contract in fewer years.

[Quincy Varnish]

.

[An Old Friend]

Pivetta remains unsigned. Wonder when and where he’ll end up signing.

Same here. So far, nobody in his tier is getting more than 3 years… I imagine they’re aiming higher.

So… interesting deal. 4 years $55MM with an out at 2 and 3, so the deal breaks down to:
2 years $23MM
3 years $37MM
4 years $55MM

2 years and $23MM to hit the market again… or he’s not worth it and opts in.

There is no “opt in” unless it’s a mutual, or player option. You’ll only keep digging in your heels on this, so it’s pointless to debate.

Not a bad deal for Pivetta, but they sold out some AAV for the opt outs. Could easily tack on another $10-12MM TV without those. But - he has the opportunity to put up some impressive numbers in SD and cash in for the same total value of his current contract in fewer years.

He has a 2 year commitment to the Padres unless he chooses to make it longer. I don’t know why people find that so hard to understand. He can be a free agent again in 2 years if he wants to.

An opt out and player option may as well be twins.

[Quincy Varnish]

Pivetta remains unsigned. Wonder when and where he’ll end up signing.

Same here. So far, nobody in his tier is getting more than 3 years… I imagine they’re aiming higher.

So… interesting deal. 4 years $55MM with an out at 2 and 3, so the deal breaks down to:
2 years $23MM
3 years $37MM
4 years $55MM

2 years and $23MM to hit the market again… or he’s not worth it and opts in.

There is no “opt in” unless it’s a mutual, or player option. You’ll only keep digging in your heels on this, so it’s pointless to debate.

Not a bad deal for Pivetta, but they sold out some AAV for the opt outs. Could easily tack on another $10-12MM TV without those. But - he has the opportunity to put up some impressive numbers in SD and cash in for the same total value of his current contract in fewer years.

He has a 2 year commitment to the Padres unless he chooses to make it longer. I don’t know why people find that so hard to understand. He can be a free agent again in 2 years if he wants to.

An opt out and player option may as well be twins.

Nobody finds it hard to understand. It’s your terminology that is incorrect.

There is no “it’s kinda the same thing” in contract law.

You’re the dude that knows how to play four chords, insisting that C-sharp and D-flat are the same thing. They are not the same.

[An Old Friend]

Pivetta remains unsigned. Wonder when and where he’ll end up signing.

Same here. So far, nobody in his tier is getting more than 3 years… I imagine they’re aiming higher.

So… interesting deal. 4 years $55MM with an out at 2 and 3, so the deal breaks down to:
2 years $23MM
3 years $37MM
4 years $55MM

2 years and $23MM to hit the market again… or he’s not worth it and opts in.

There is no “opt in” unless it’s a mutual, or player option. You’ll only keep digging in your heels on this, so it’s pointless to debate.

Not a bad deal for Pivetta, but they sold out some AAV for the opt outs. Could easily tack on another $10-12MM TV without those. But - he has the opportunity to put up some impressive numbers in SD and cash in for the same total value of his current contract in fewer years.

He has a 2 year commitment to the Padres unless he chooses to make it longer. I don’t know why people find that so hard to understand. He can be a free agent again in 2 years if he wants to.

An opt out and player option may as well be twins.

Nobody finds it hard to understand. It’s your terminology that is incorrect.

There is no “it’s kinda the same thing” in contract law.

You’re the dude that knows how to play four chords, insisting that C-sharp and D-flat are the same thing. They are not the same.

He turned down the 1 year QO at like $21MM and is getting paid $4MM this year and $23MM over 2.

Padres obviously hope he pitches well enough to leave after that.

He got his protection in case he sucks or is hurt… in the grand scheme of it, he probably would’ve been better off getting $21MM for 1 year and not had anything weighing down his market.

And the terminology doesn’t matter, I’m trying to simplify it for the kids in the back of the class that don’t understand what these contracts are. Opt in / Opt out… it’s the same (bleep) mechanism.

[Quincy Varnish]

Pivetta remains unsigned. Wonder when and where he’ll end up signing.

Same here. So far, nobody in his tier is getting more than 3 years… I imagine they’re aiming higher.

So… interesting deal. 4 years $55MM with an out at 2 and 3, so the deal breaks down to:
2 years $23MM
3 years $37MM
4 years $55MM

2 years and $23MM to hit the market again… or he’s not worth it and opts in.

There is no “opt in” unless it’s a mutual, or player option. You’ll only keep digging in your heels on this, so it’s pointless to debate.

Not a bad deal for Pivetta, but they sold out some AAV for the opt outs. Could easily tack on another $10-12MM TV without those. But - he has the opportunity to put up some impressive numbers in SD and cash in for the same total value of his current contract in fewer years.

He has a 2 year commitment to the Padres unless he chooses to make it longer. I don’t know why people find that so hard to understand. He can be a free agent again in 2 years if he wants to.

An opt out and player option may as well be twins.

Nobody finds it hard to understand. It’s your terminology that is incorrect.

There is no “it’s kinda the same thing” in contract law.

You’re the dude that knows how to play four chords, insisting that C-sharp and D-flat are the same thing. They are not the same.

He turned down the 1 year QO at like $21MM and is getting paid $4MM this year and $23MM over 2.

Padres obviously hope he pitches well enough to leave after that.

He got his protection in case he sucks or is hurt… in the grand scheme of it, he probably would’ve been better off getting $21MM for 1 year and not had anything weighing down his market.

And the terminology doesn’t matter, I’m trying to simplify it for the kids in the back of the class that don’t understand what these contracts are. Opt in / Opt out… it’s the same (bleep) mechanism.

Arguably the best SP in the NL thus far, that contract is looking like a steal.

Given that he’s guaranteed another $32M beyond this year, your assertion he would have been better off with a mere $2M more this year (and no guarantees beyond that) makes no sense.

[An Old Friend]

Pivetta remains unsigned. Wonder when and where he’ll end up signing.

Same here. So far, nobody in his tier is getting more than 3 years… I imagine they’re aiming higher.

So… interesting deal. 4 years $55MM with an out at 2 and 3, so the deal breaks down to:
2 years $23MM
3 years $37MM
4 years $55MM

2 years and $23MM to hit the market again… or he’s not worth it and opts in.

There is no “opt in” unless it’s a mutual, or player option. You’ll only keep digging in your heels on this, so it’s pointless to debate.

Not a bad deal for Pivetta, but they sold out some AAV for the opt outs. Could easily tack on another $10-12MM TV without those. But - he has the opportunity to put up some impressive numbers in SD and cash in for the same total value of his current contract in fewer years.

He has a 2 year commitment to the Padres unless he chooses to make it longer. I don’t know why people find that so hard to understand. He can be a free agent again in 2 years if he wants to.

An opt out and player option may as well be twins.

Nobody finds it hard to understand. It’s your terminology that is incorrect.

There is no “it’s kinda the same thing” in contract law.

You’re the dude that knows how to play four chords, insisting that C-sharp and D-flat are the same thing. They are not the same.

He turned down the 1 year QO at like $21MM and is getting paid $4MM this year and $23MM over 2.

Padres obviously hope he pitches well enough to leave after that.

He got his protection in case he sucks or is hurt… in the grand scheme of it, he probably would’ve been better off getting $21MM for 1 year and not had anything weighing down his market.

And the terminology doesn’t matter, I’m trying to simplify it for the kids in the back of the class that don’t understand what these contracts are. Opt in / Opt out… it’s the same (drat) mechanism.

Arguably the best SP in the NL thus far, that contract is looking like a steal.

Given that he’s guaranteed another $32M beyond this year, your assertion he would have been better off with a mere $2M more this year (and no guarantees beyond that) makes no sense.

His salary is $1MM in 2025 and got a $3MM signing bonus - so $4MM total comp in 2025. Then it’s $19MM in 2026.

So he’s going to make in 2 years what he could’ve made in 1 and hit the free agent market younger.

He’s been fantastic early. If he keeps it up, he probably cost himself $45MM or more by passing up the QO.