Fear The Tax: How Baseball's Luxury Tax Could Effect The Red Sox This Off Season
Last year, the Red Sox committed to spend over $300 million on just two players. This off season with the Winter Meetings in the rear view mirror, there is no sign the team intends to take out the check book. They still may, but yesterday, Ken Rosenthal of Fox Sports speculated that the team's passivity may be due at least in part to their proximity to Baseball's luxury tax. Rosenthal obtained figures from another organization that show the Red Sox are currently up against the luxury-tax threshold of $178 million. (Nick Carfardo also wrote about this in the Globe yesterday.)
With several holes still to fill on the roster, Rosenthal claims the Sox have already committed about $170 million to this season's payroll. That leaves only [insert abacus joke here] $8 million to spend before running up against the threshold. Should the team cross that $178 million barrier, they would be subject to a 40% tax on each additional dollar spent. For example, if tomorrow the Red Sox signed Edwin Jackson to a four year, $48 million contract, the true cost of Jackson's salary to the Red Sox this season would not be $12 million, but $13.6 million. That's a hefty penalty.
The tax kicks in because the team has exceeded the threshold the previous two seasons. If Boston remains under the $178 million spending limit this season, they'll effectively reset the clock, allowing them to go over the threshold next season without penalty. But, if they spend over the tax threshold this season, they'll not only be taxed as stated above, but they'll also be subject to a 50% penalty on dollars spent over the threshold next season.
If, as Rosenthal surmises, fear of the tax has effectively become a salary cap for the team, the need to acquire additional players could force the Red Sox to shed salary by moving players currently on the roster. There is already talk the Red Sox may look to move Marco Scutaro and, though it's been said the Sox aren't looking to move him, Rosenthal guesses that Kevin Youkilis might also be moved in such a scenario.
Before you accuse the Red Sox of being cheap, there are some important aspects to point out about all this.
Hearing this brings with it fear that the team will try to fill out important spots on the roster with non-tendered or similarly inexpensive players. (Tim Britton of the Providence Journal has some options along those lines here.)
First, it's important to note that none of this has happened yet. But, if the Red Sox did trade players like Scutaro ($6 million salary) and/or Youkilis ($12 million salary) to save money, it would not be in a vacuum. It would be because they were improving the roster. Included in "the roster" is the team's current stable of players as well as the organization's ability to acquire productive players in the future.
Remember, the Red Sox aren't going to spend $177 million on the team and then ruin that expenditure by not adding important pieces. They'll fill out the roster entirely and do so in what they believe is the best way possible. It would be a shame to see Youkilis go, less so Scutaro though he's a fine player, but they aren't going to deal those players unless the end result is to make the team better.
Also, we're not just talking about subtracting players. Dealing a Youkilis would presumably net something besides cap space. This isn't the NBA. The Sox would receive players in return. What's more, any deals would likely occur because the team is acquiring other players that put them over the $178 million threshold, either through free agency or directly.
There are also ways to decrease the team's payroll number without trading any players. Two examples come to mind. Negotiating a deal with David Oritz for a slightly lower AAV over two years would reduce his annual "cap hit." Marc talked about the second on last week's podcast. Because of his injury and subsequent Tommy John surgery, a clause in John Lackey's contract kicks in adding a sixth season at the major league minimum salary ($500K). This turns his five year, $82.5 million contract into a six year, $83 million deal. That lowers the average annual value from $16.5 million to $13.8 million. Of course, $33 million of that $83 million has already been spent so that could decrease the AAV on the remaining deal to $12.5 million. In any case, making that official in some capacity could give the Red Sox some additional spending room.
It's important to remember that, no matter what reports you read and no matter how many screamers on the radio call the team and its executives cheap. They are demonstratively not cheap, and anyone who claims so can be dismissed out of hand. The Red Sox are trying to win in 2012. They are also not going to be stupid and cut their own legs out from underneath themselves. These are smart people trying to win this year as well as to preserve their ability to add quality players and improve the franchise going forward. Remember that. No matter what you hear.
53 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Not gonna lie. With the exception of the bullpen this is a similar team...
to what we all expected to be a world beating group last year. They underperformed and guys got hurt. So if Crawford can pick up where he left off year before last and Bard converts to a good starting pitcher then I think things are pretty ok even with the team as it currently exists. I don’t see any real weak points again with the exception of the bullpen (which is a big exception i agree) but Crawford (again if he performs), Ellsbury, and Reddick make a very usable outfield and the infield is solid with Scutaro at SS unless he’s traded. Maybe pick up some misc. pieces to shore up the pen and try and get madson as well to close things out and you should be able to stay under the cap this year and still put a great team with WS potential on the field. With new coaching staff and the embarassment from last year driving some of these guys big things could happen.
Official Driver of the Draft Andy Dalton Winnebago. In the sidecar of the draft Mark Ingram motorcycle.
by NavajoShamanSchoolAlum on Dec 12, 2011 10:47 AM EST reply actions
Yeah but the key differences between this offseason and last was starting pitching.
We had Lackey (who was not great but not terrible the year before and threw alot of innings in 2010) and Dice-K (even if he was an injury risk we still HAD him in theory) and Wake as back-up. One of the big discussion points at this time last year was if they were going to have a six-man rotation. Unfortunately now we are at this point of taking our two best remaining relievers (Bard and Aceves) and possibly converting them to our #4 and #5 starters. I am fine with giving them a shot at it and the team will without a doubt (I hope) add another starter or two. But if you are evaluating the team as is, you can’t say that starting pitching isn’t a weakness. It is a big one at this point especially with not knowing how Buch will recover from a broken back.
Our starting rotation last year was near the bottom of the league in innings pitched last year. That was a significant weakness LAST year and in my opinion was the biggest weakness of this team. If they throw more innings, than maybe Albers doesn’t wear down at the end of the year, and Wheeler could’ve been used as a specialist as he is best used.
I’m not sure how you don’t see it as a weakness at this point. It is their biggest weakness right now…not the bullpen (although that needs shoring up too as you said). I don’t see how anyone can argue that. Right now the potentials for the guys who will start 40% of our games are Daniel Bard, Kyle Weiland, Alfredo Aceves and Andrew Miller. Two struggled as starters last year and two were very good relievers but will likely not be used for more than 130-140 innings even if they are decent starters for fear of injury.
by The Name is Dalton on Dec 12, 2011 1:42 PM EST up reply actions
At this point I have more faith in Bard and Aceves as starters...
then I did last year with Dice-K and Lackey. Both of whom I thought were lost causes last year. I’ll take our starting rotation right now over the Yankees and I think our offense matches up well with theirs. I’m just saying that the team as it currently stands is pretty good and if each player plays the way I know they are capable of then we have a great team on the books already (minus the bullpen). Did you really expect for Lackey, Daisucke, and Wake to really account for a lot of wins last year. Bard is young and has the plus pitches required to be a good starter (even more potential as a starter than Pap had). Aceves will be an above average #4 or a great #5 starter depending on how Bard comes along then if the Bard experiment doesn’t work then the closer spot is sealed up and Miller is #5 and Aceves is #4. Sounds doable to me.
Official Driver of the Draft Andy Dalton Winnebago. In the sidecar of the draft Mark Ingram motorcycle.
by NavajoShamanSchoolAlum on Dec 12, 2011 1:55 PM EST up reply actions
Aceves as an above average #4?
Based on what? Granted the sample size is tiny but he only had a few starts last year and they weren’t great. Last year was the first time he topped 100 innings and FIP, etc suggest that a 2.61 ERA might not be sustainable. Sure, he might have it in him. Bard might to despite never throwing more than 75 innings. I would love for them to come out and be great. But at this point, your faith is based on the hope that they can take their production of 70-100 innings and stretch them each out to 150+ innings. You are looking at their production 3 outs at a time and just assuming it will translate over 20+ outs at a time.
I expected Lackey do to what he did the two years before…180ish innings at around a 4 FIP (and around a 4.25 ERA). And if we could get a starter that could give us that I would take one in a second (depending on price). Daisuke had an injury riddled 2009 and the other three years he was here had 150+ innings at around 4-4.25 FIP. I didn’t expect 200 innings at Lester-level, but I also didn’t expect him to blow out his elbow.
To be very clear, I am all for letting Aceves and Bard have some spring training starts to see how they do. If nothing else it might stretch Bard out so that he can be more of an Aceves-type reliever next year. I REALLY hope Bard in particular makes a good starter. But if we go into the season with no other legitimate pitchers who have actually started games, then we’re going to have a similar issue. I’m glad you like our rotation more than the Yankees. However, arguably every Red Sox fan felt the same way last year at this time.
by The Name is Dalton on Dec 12, 2011 4:56 PM EST up reply actions
Great article Matthew.
Yes, we’d all like the team to spend more and more. But there are consequences to that spending, and I respect the FO for understanding those consequences. We are not the Yankees, and I don’t think we should be. But having one of the top 3(ish) payrolls in MLB means that any cries of “cheapness” with this team are a joke.
I understand the value of trading Youk (return package, free up some salary space), however, I worry that our other options at 3B would pale in comparison. Middlebrooks is not ready. And I can’t see any cheap alternatives who are not awful. Maybe Headley would be good, but I fear that might be rosterbating at best.
Thanks
Agreed, from the outside right now I don’t see who’d step in and play third at the level we fans have been accustomed to since about 2003. But, at least right now, I’d trust the front office to decide that trading Youk, if they were to do so, would be an overall improvement in the ball club now and going forward.
Writer at Over The Monster. Follow me on Twitter! It'll be super awesome fun! @mattymatty2000
by Matthew Kory on Dec 12, 2011 12:28 PM EST up reply actions
My understanding of the new CBA is,
and I haven’t researched this thoroughly like I did with the last one, but my understanding is that the tax is no longer dependant on whether a team has gone over in the past- from what I heard it’s just everyone pays (I believe) 42.5% this year if they go over and 50% next year.
Also, I’m not convinced that the Sox went over the limit in 2011- have those numbers been released?
Also, really, if they could get a 28-year old pitcher who has been worth 3.6, 3.8, and 3.8 WAR the last three years for $13.6 million, that sounds like a pretty good deal to me.
I was going off both Rosenthal’s and Carfardo’s articles as far as the numbers and their ramifications are concerned. Both journalists seemed convinced the Sox have been over the luxury tax threshold the past two seasons. I looked up the payrolls on Cot’s but the team payroll and the final number they’re judged on for luxury tax purposes are two different numbers. I’m not sure exactly how they are different, but it’s my understanding that contract-required expenses (like, for example, Carl Crawford contractually getting ten tickets a game) are included in the second number.
Writer at Over The Monster. Follow me on Twitter! It'll be super awesome fun! @mattymatty2000
by Matthew Kory on Dec 12, 2011 12:32 PM EST up reply actions
I don't think those extra things are required
or at least aren’t stated explicitly in the CBA- probably the most likely thing is that if a team tries to shove too many little perks in, Selig vetoes it.
Cot’s doesn’t really list the AAV- and doesn’t include the $10 million in player benefits.
Cafardo and Rosenthal may be right though, just from what I’d seen, I thought they were a bit under. I’m being hesitant to call Cafardo an idiot lately, as last time I did, they hired Bobby Valentine (who has since won me over into giving him a chance)
Cot’s has year by year team payroll going back to 2000, which is what I was referring to. I don’t think they use AAV for those numbers though, which could explain some of the discrepancy between their numbers and those that Rosenthal and Carfardo obtained.
Writer at Over The Monster. Follow me on Twitter! It'll be super awesome fun! @mattymatty2000
by Matthew Kory on Dec 12, 2011 1:37 PM EST up reply actions
Competitive Balance Tax
I went off of what MLB.Com had on their website, but it is still based on whether you went over in the past. One of the key differences is that when you go back under the threshold for a year, it basically resets it. Before, I believe if you had gone over three years and then went below, it would only drop you back one level. Now, if you go under one year, and over the next it treats it as if you went over for the first time.
Competitive Balance Tax (AKA Luxury Tax): Will remain at $178 million for the next two years and will increase to $189 for 2014-2016. Slight changes on tax rates: 1st time going over = 17.5% (lowered), 2nd = 30% (same), 3rd = 40% (same) and 4th = 50% (increased) Tax has been modified so that when a team moves below the threshold, they will be treated as going over for the first time when it next exceeds it. I believe currently if you are over 3 times in a row (for instance), and go below for a year it only knocks one year off but someone can correct me on that.
by The Name is Dalton on Dec 12, 2011 1:48 PM EST up reply actions
This quote
was mine from a fanpost I did on the CBA.
http://www.overthemonster.com/2011/11/22/2581139/mlb-mlbpa-reach-new-five-year-labor-agreement
by The Name is Dalton on Dec 12, 2011 1:51 PM EST up reply actions
Cool
I must’ve misunderstood.
The going under the threshold thing sounds like the same way it worked before- one year under lowers your tax rate by one step.
My understanding, and it seems to be Rosenthal’s as well, is that you can go over continually, but once you stay under for one season, it resets the clock and you start back from square one.
Writer at Over The Monster. Follow me on Twitter! It'll be super awesome fun! @mattymatty2000
by Matthew Kory on Dec 12, 2011 3:08 PM EST up reply actions
I believe this is correct
Which is good for teams that always “toe the line” so to speak like the Sox.
by The Name is Dalton on Dec 12, 2011 4:58 PM EST up reply actions
Oh and also, as far as Lackey's contract
I’m quite sure it just gets reduced to an AAV of $13.8. If it were the other way, you’d see the Sox and Yankees front-load the crap out of all their contracts- we’ll give you a 3 year, $36 million contract, where we pay you $34 million in year one, and $1 million in each of the others; that way, the AAV for year one is $12 million but after that, would only be $1 million
Front loading or back loading a contract won’t change the AAV. If you sign someone to a two year, $22M contract, the AAV is $11M whether you pay them $20M in the first year and $2M in the second or vice versa.
Writer at Over The Monster. Follow me on Twitter! It'll be super awesome fun! @mattymatty2000
by Matthew Kory on Dec 12, 2011 12:34 PM EST up reply actions
Yeah, I know
I was saying that in regards to the $12.5 million number you said might be applicable to Lackey’s contract.
My point re: Lackey’s contract is that, since the sixth year wasn’t originally in the deal and two years have elapsed since the thing was signed, it could be, for luxury tax purposes, now considered a four year, $50M deal ($12.5 AAV) going forward.
Writer at Over The Monster. Follow me on Twitter! It'll be super awesome fun! @mattymatty2000
by Matthew Kory on Dec 12, 2011 1:35 PM EST up reply actions
Gotcha
That’s possible too.
Writer at Over The Monster. Follow me on Twitter! It'll be super awesome fun! @mattymatty2000
by Matthew Kory on Dec 12, 2011 3:08 PM EST up reply actions
Matt, this is a great article.
Most fans always think they are smarter and can run a team better than the people in charge, if that was the case they’d have a job with some organization. That’s because the fan is short for fanatic. Just because the Red Sox haven’t made a “splashy” move yet doesn’t mean they won’t. Larry Lucchino said as much on the radio Friday. Fans think just because they haven’t signed anybody yet, means they won’t sign anybody. As you said, these are smart people and I would add, extremely competitive, both the players and the executives. If they were happy with the way last season ended, they wouldn’t have made the changes they made front office wise, and the subsequent player moves that WILL come. I wouldn’t put anything past any team. Just because Ben C. has said they won’t be bidding on Yu Darvish, doesn’t mean they won’t be. If he had come out and said “Yes, we will be bidding on Yu, and will be very aggressive on that accord.” That would just be plain dumb. All of these teams are extremely tight lipped when it comes to the moves they are trying to make, which is completely understandable to me.
Thanks for the kind words.
Writer at Over The Monster. Follow me on Twitter! It'll be super awesome fun! @mattymatty2000
by Matthew Kory on Dec 12, 2011 12:35 PM EST up reply actions
Sorry that was so long.
I just get really pissed when people who don’t have a damn clue, myself included, think they truly know what the Red Sox or any of the other teams have up their sleeves.
by aubatron2011 on Dec 12, 2011 12:58 PM EST up reply actions
No problem
To my knowledge there is no word limit in the comments section. Thanks for taking the time to write up your thoughts.
Writer at Over The Monster. Follow me on Twitter! It'll be super awesome fun! @mattymatty2000
by Matthew Kory on Dec 12, 2011 1:35 PM EST up reply actions
I just find it amazing sometimes why most fans don't think their owner and FO wants to win.
Last year, for example, when the Angels backed out of the Crawford sweepstakes, so far that looks pretty damn good judgement on their part. I don’t know if Crawford would have struggled so badly in Anaheim, but they probably wouldn’t have been able to afford Wilson and Pujols, no matter how good the TV deal they recently got was. You talked about trading Youkilis. Would I be upset if they traded him? Yeah, he’s a hell of a player, but if they felt trading him made the team better, that’s their call. I can bitch and moan all I want about who they trade or acquire via FA, but that’s about all I can do.
by aubatron2011 on Dec 12, 2011 2:00 PM EST up reply actions
The Angels not signing Crawford might look good except...
They then went and traded for Vernon Wells. From everything I’ve read, the two moves were definitely related, and in that light, the Angels look dumb.
But now that they have the flexibilty to afford
Pujols AND Wilson, because they aren’t hamstrung by the massive contract from Crawfford, they look a lot better.
by aubatron2011 on Dec 12, 2011 4:09 PM EST up reply actions
True.
But I don’t think at the time, anyone thought (I mean, really thought) that Albert would be available this offseason. He was in talks with the Cards about an extension, and most believed he would stay.
Good for them for going all in, even if it will be a bitch in 5 years or so. Personally, all I can do is hope Crawford bounces back and we can find some sort of solace watching him play.
I never said I don't think Crawford will bounce back.
The dude works his ass off in the off-season, and you know he, like every other player on this team, is extremely pissed off from what happened last year. My point was, had the Angels had signed Crawford last off-season, they would have only probably been able to sign Wilson. And while everybody thought Pujols would stay in St. Louis, nobody thought Prince would stay in Milwaukee, so they could have been in the Prince Fielder sweepstakes, and still get WIlson.
by aubatron2011 on Dec 12, 2011 4:26 PM EST up reply actions
I didn't say you don't think Crawford will bounce back.
I just said that, I, as in me, hope he does. No need to infer otherwise.
But you’re right about Fielder, it’s a great point, and I said you were right about Pujols. We’re pretty much on the same page here.
Which leads me to think this?
Did Theo really want to go to the Cubs? or Did John Henry basically tell him to get out for financially bitchslapping the Sox for this year? Was the whole "We want Theo here forever (or whatever he said) a charade?
by aubatron2011 on Dec 12, 2011 10:50 PM EST up reply actions
Doubt it
It’s not like ownership didn’t see this coming, they fill out the paychecks, they knew this offseason there wasn’t going to be a lot of money.
Joe, the reason we shout "WE ARE" and the reason the answer will always be "PENN STATE"
That's true.
But they probably didn’t see the collapse coming. If the Sox hadn’t collapsed, this off-season wouldn’t be as crucial as it is. They could afford to be on the cheap this year. But the fact they collapsed, and they need not one but two SPs, which they didn’t know abou either, might have spurred something in John Henry.
by aubatron2011 on Dec 13, 2011 12:19 AM EST up reply actions
Mulyi-year deals
If the Red Sox can save money by signing Ortiz to a multi-year deal , why not do the same with Ellsbury ? I understand that arbitration will make his salary fall between 14-15 mil. Why not sign him for 4 years at 44mil . Saves 3-4 mil. and removes the arbitration eligability for the net few years .
Ellsbury made $2.4M last season. He’s not going to make $14M next year.
Writer at Over The Monster. Follow me on Twitter! It'll be super awesome fun! @mattymatty2000
by Matthew Kory on Dec 12, 2011 4:08 PM EST up reply actions
Because Ellsbury doesn't want to stay here after what happened in 2010
You've got to know your limitations. I don't know what your limitations are. I found out what mine were when I was twelve. I found out that there weren't too many limitations, if I did it my way.
-Johnny Cash
by TheLoneDavid on Dec 12, 2011 4:08 PM EST up reply actions
he should be dealt
career year, no chance to keep him.
The 2011 Over the Monster Gedman League Fantasy Baseball Champion
I hate free agency
There’s no way you get value for him. While you’re disagreeing with that in your head, tell me this: who are you going to trade him for that can step in and help the 2012 Red Sox win? Remember, you’ve got $170 million committed to winning in 2012 so don’t tell me you’re punting the season while some prospect develops.
Writer at Over The Monster. Follow me on Twitter! It'll be super awesome fun! @mattymatty2000
by Matthew Kory on Dec 13, 2011 1:23 AM EST up reply actions
Cost controlled young starting pitching
The 2011 Over the Monster Gedman League Fantasy Baseball Champion
I hate free agency
but, really,
can you think of a team that has good, cost controlled, young pitching, that can afford to get rid of it and still compete in 2012? And needs a center fielder? Because that’s the only team for whom it would make sense to acquire Ellsbury in exchange for good, cost controlled young pitching. I don’t disagree with the concept of sell high, I just don’t think that there is an actual match out there anywhere.
The only team I could think of is the Braves.
They have as much pitching as anybody in baseball. And a lot of them are close to being ready for the majors. They are also in need of a centerfielder. But they probably would only trade for Ellsbury if they had an understanding they could sign him to an extension.
by aubatron2011 on Dec 13, 2011 9:13 AM EST up reply actions
And if they lost Micheal Bourn.
You've got to know your limitations. I don't know what your limitations are. I found out what mine were when I was twelve. I found out that there weren't too many limitations, if I did it my way.
-Johnny Cash
by TheLoneDavid on Dec 13, 2011 9:46 AM EST up reply actions
Sean, they can win
I just think it’s very unlikely that they will.
You've got to know your limitations. I don't know what your limitations are. I found out what mine were when I was twelve. I found out that there weren't too many limitations, if I did it my way.
-Johnny Cash
by TheLoneDavid on Dec 14, 2011 9:45 AM EST up reply actions
One Name, two Words:
Scott Boras is the reason why they can’t sign him to an extension.
by aubatron2011 on Dec 12, 2011 4:11 PM EST up reply actions
Not necessarily
Carlos Gonzalez has Boras as his agent yet signed an extension with the Rockies before FA, coincidentally being a player with similar skill set to Ellsbury (speed, contact hitter, mediocre discipline, sudden power surge). However I don’t feel Ellsbury has any intent to stay for a below market extension, nor will the team have any desire to do so at least until he shows he can duplicate at least 75% of what he did in 2011.
"We’re the Sox. Not Apple Sox. We ain’t no Barbeque Sox. We’re the Red Sox.’’ - David Ortiz
There's always an outlier.
Over 95% of his clients never sign extensions, because he believes he can get them all mega deals.
by aubatron2011 on Dec 12, 2011 5:09 PM EST up reply actions
They'd better not deal Youk
Of all the ways to save money, I think that would be one of the dumbest. He’s exactly what you want on your team and in your clubhouse, and his salary is perfectly reasonable for an All-Star player. Even with his injuries, he’s not Nomar.
That said, I definitely wouldn’t mind the Sox being a bit more thrifty. Even if you can afford it, huge deals handcuff what you can do from year to year. This isn’t the NFL after all, you’re going to spend ALL the money you promise no matter how crappy the player performs. Put money into scouting and player development instead so you can get more star level talent that works for cheap.
by Aluminum Penguin on Dec 13, 2011 4:30 AM EST reply actions

by 



























