TODAY: The final totals are in, as The Associated Press reports that the Red Sox will owe $11,951,091 in luxury tax payments, while the Nationals owe $2,386,097. Boston will also lose ten spots in draft position, dropping from its original 33rd overall spot in the first round.
NOVEMBER 4: As was widely expected, the Red Sox and Nationals were the only two clubs who exceeded the $197MM luxury tax threshold this season, as MLB.com’s Jon Morosi confirmed (Twitter link) earlier this week. The exact figures aren’t known, though as per the luxury tax calculations on Cot’s Baseball Contracts, Boston surpassed the threshold by slightly beyond $40.85MM, while Washington was just under $6.3MM beyond the tax line. As a reminder, a team’s normal payroll is just pure dollars spent on player salaries in a season, whereas the payroll as calculated for Competitive Balance Tax purposes consists of the average annual value of player contracts, bonuses, and other expenses.
This is the second straight year that the Nats passed the luxury tax threshold, so their tax bill will consist of 30 percent of every dollar spent in overage (so around $1.89MM). After exceeding the threshold in 2015 and 2016, the Red Sox ducked under the CBT line in the 2017-18 offseason to “reset their clock,” so they’ll be taxed at the first-timer rate of 20 percent of every dollar spent in overage. By Cot’s numbers, however, the Red Sox surpassed the threshold by more than $40MM, so they’ll face a 62.5 percent surcharge on the overage.
This would work out to roughly $25.53MM in luxury tax payments and, perhaps more importantly, Boston’s top pick in next year’s amateur draft (currently the 33rd overall selection) would drop by 10 spots. Since the Sox are so close to that $40MM figure, it’s possible there could be some other calculation or unknown payroll factor that got the club under the $237MM mark — we won’t know for certain about the draft pick or the final Competitive Balance Tax bill until the league makes an official announcement. Had Boston stayed within the $20MM-$40MM range for payroll overage, they would have faced only a 12 percent extra in tax on top of their 20 percent first-timer percentage, putting them on the hook for approximately $12.672MM in luxury tax payments.
The Giants were right up against the $197MM line seemingly all season long, though by Cot’s calculations, they squeaked under the threshold by less than $1.6MM, thus avoiding their fourth straight year of tax payments. San Francisco was very careful in trying to stay under the $197MM payroll line after a busy offseason, as the team made a pure salary dump of a trade with the Rangers in July to unload Austin Jackson and Cory Gearrin’s contracts, and also traded Andrew McCutchen to the Yankees on August 31 once they were fully out of contention.
The Competitive Balance Tax was a major subplot of the 2017-18 offseason, as one of the reasons behind the unprecedented lack of free agent activity was the fact that big spenders like the Giants, Yankees, and Dodgers all kept their spending in check (at least by their standards) in an effort to stay under the threshold. For New York, this marks the first time since the luxury tax system was instituted in 2003 that the team will avoid making payments — the Yankees paid a whopping $319.6MM in total luxury tax payments from 2003-17. The Dodgers have exceeded the threshold every season since 2013, as the Guggenheim Baseball Management ownership group made an initial big spending splash to bring the club back into relevance, though the Dodgers always stressed that they would eventually take a more measured approach to payroll.
The expectation was that, once these teams reset their spending clocks, it would open the floodgates for increased spending in a 2018-19 free agent market that has two players (Bryce Harper, Manny Machado) in line for record-setting contracts. Those two superstars plus many other available big names like Patrick Corbin, Dallas Keuchel, Yasmani Grandal, Craig Kimbrel, Josh Donaldson, Nathan Eovaldi, and many others makes this winter a particularly important time to have as much salary flexibility as possible.
Any team who exceeds the luxury tax threshold in three or more consecutive years must pay a 50 percent tax on the overage, so getting under the line carries some noteworthy savings. Plus, as per the terms of the Collective Bargaining Agreement that came into play for the 2017 season, a team that surpasses the $40MM overage figure (as it appears Boston has done) faces as much as a 90 percent tax on the overage, plus that 10-slot drop for their top pick in the amateur draft.
Those stiffer penalties surely also contributed to the Yankees, Dodgers, and Giants’ decisions, though it should be noted that the actual dollars paid in tax penalties aren’t overly pricey for such wealthy franchises. While big spending is certainly no guarantee of success on the field, it usually does provide some level of competitive advantage — for instance, nobody in Boston’s organization is sweating that tax payment in the wake of a World Series championship, no matter if the final bill ends up at $12.672MM or $25.53MM. (Even dropping from the 33rd to the 43rd overall pick is a pretty light penalty.) As MLBTR’s Tim Dierkes has written in the past, some “large market teams are treating the CBT thresholds as lines they absolutely cannot cross,” perhaps as an overall excuse to curb spending. Only eight teams total have ever made tax payments, with two of those clubs — the 2004 Angels and 2016 Cubs — doing so only once. Teams will have even more room to spend in 2019, as the luxury tax threshold is jumping up to $206MM.
In paying the tax in 2018, the Red Sox and Nationals will each face added penalties for pursuing free agents who were issued qualifying offers, and will receive limited compensation if their own QO free agent (Kimbrel for the Sox, Harper for the Nats) leaves. If Boston or Washington signs a player who rejected the QO from his former team, the Sox/Nats would have to give up $1MM in international signing bonus pool money as well as their second-highest and fifth-highest picks in next year’s draft. Should Kimbrel and Harper reject their qualifying offers and sign elsewhere, the Sox and Nationals would only receive a compensatory pick after the fourth round of the draft.
Yanks2
Doesn’t the National League not have a luxury tax?
driftcat28 2
Its an MLB wide thing, not just limited to leagues
joshua.barron1
Red Sox stay under $237mm! Nice
Melchez
You knew they would… MLB couldn’t penalize the World Series champions like that. Wink Wink Nudge Nudge
Jonthunder
“I got this.”
-Mitchell-
Ry.the.Stunner
Are the Washington Nationals not in the National League?
nymetsking
But what about baseball?
OverUnderDone
I mean, it’s not like they’re trying to hide it, it’s right there in their name.
(Also, not that I’m looking for points for style, but I did use all three versions of “there” in the previous sentence.)
I’ll show myself out.
Robertowannabe
And you used them correctly and got the spelling correct for each as well. Well done!
SayfromMaclay
Your use of the word “there” in its many variations have drawn rave reviews.
MetsYankeesRedSox
Congrats! That probably drives smartphones crazy.
Marc (Phillies Phan)
Thumbs up for there, their and they’re.
HummBaby
While admirable, you unfortunately started your statement with “I mean”, the current verbal tic plaguing America.
joepanikatthedisco
literally wrong
Melchez
You too deserve to get two thumbs up…
Where should I wear my Andre Ware jersey?
JKB 2
The Nationals are in the National Leage
xabial
Expect Yanks to shatter it for 2019.
strosguy
I could see the giants to. Grabbing Harper or Machado give how young they are. Throw in a pitcher or two and they will stay/ blow right past it even with expiring contracts.
Kayrall
Highly doubtful. They’re in major Flux, probably rebuilding
Slevin
Shh, there’s Giants fans around.
Jean Matrac
They probably are not rebuilding As long as they hang on to Bumgarner they definitely aren’t rebuilding. Maybe the new guy will convince them to move Bum, but that’s probably not happening. It’s just not their MO.
Marc (Phillies Phan)
Sabien and company are gone (even if he is there, he is not in that position). We do not know what their MO is now. They’re in flux. This is a team that simply needs to rebuild, but I can see the Giants’ fans argument for not doing so. Giants are the toughest team to figure out – as an objective fan on them.
I will take my thumbs down from Giants’ fans.
Hey look, I unintentionally used there, their, and they’re too LOL. Though my use was not impressively in one sentence. He won.
bradthebluefish
It isn’t an even year. Giants should wait for 2020.
MetsYankeesRedSox
There’s truth in patterns.
Mets next WS appearance in 2031.
wiggysf
Honestly, as a Giants fan, we do need a rebuild or a retool. We do need to trade bumgarner, smith, watson, and any payroll we can offload. We need to find hidden gems in waiver claims, MiLB signings, and rule 5 picks. I hope Zaidi is the right person to return the Giants to relevance.
WestCoastSoxFan
The Giants have basically gotten every decision wrong for a while now. No matter what it was: Cueto, Samaragaggaja, Melancon, Longoria etc… it was the wrong move. And they’re paying for it now. But they’ll be fine once they clear some of that dead payroll.
scullycap
You forgot the “z” in Samaragaggaja
strosguy
Being a Astros fan I expect us to rapidly approach this the next couple of years. You figure one of Bregman, Correa or Springer will get a sizeable extension. Not to mention Cole and Verlander. It’ll be interesting to see how and what parts of the core we keep together.
Patrick OKennedy
We’re taking Verlander back after this season, dude!
Yankeepatriot
I think they try to extend cole and verlander and will offer verlander a 2 year deal. Cole will command much more if he repeats last season
deweybelongsinthehall
Xab, for Corbin AND Keuchel or Happ assuming they don’t trade for starting pitching?
Melchez
Red Sox rumored to sign Bryce Harper and Machado…. they are thumbing their noses at the luxury tax.
driftcat28 2
Doubtful X, these aren’t George’s yankees anymore. Hal will keep the team under the luxury tax. Even with a possible Machado signing they’d be under it. But besides that potential I don’t think the Yankees will make flashy signings as often as before
WestCoastSoxFan
It will start to change next year when Judge and Sanchez hit arbitration for the first time. Severino is in his arb years, as well. That young core is going to start getting expensive.
metseventually 2
Thus proving why the Luxury Tax means nothing. MLB needs a salary cap and the lousy former commissioner Selig destroyed any chance of that.
xabial
Lol. Selig also destroyed any chance of the Mets being sold to prospective owners that would treat the NY Mets like the proud NY franchise they are. Wilpons get 400M next 20 years for name rights deal and own 65% of SNY. Wilpon apologists the worst. Keep supporting those crooks
metseventually 2
This has ZERO to do with the Mets. Try to make a legitimate comment about salary cap vs luxury tax next time.
xabial
You’re mad about the Mets not spending up to RedSox Yankee standards so you want a salary cap, common request of fans of small market teams. What’s not to get? Wilpon “Big market” owners with a “small market” mindset.
Harry pness
Wow good job X, first time I’m saying these words
deweybelongsinthehall
I recall the Mets financed their share of Citi Field with Madoff earnings that suddenly dried up. Anyone know what that obligation is yearly and when it ends? It’s been my belief that while they will always have a competitive budget, it will not return to a top six or seven payroll until that obligation ends.
deweybelongsinthehall
Wiki reports the Mets share of Citi Field was $420m.
MetsYankeesRedSox
Xab…well said.
MetsYankeesRedSox
And another thing! ….
Why would any owner/owners in a metro area of 8-10 million people NOT want to spend the money to make a better product?
It’s being totally braindead.
deweybelongsinthehall
Perhaps because the financial terms of their stadium loan caps payroll commitments? Just a guess here.
MetsYankeesRedSox
Im clueless there & too lazy to research but they’re spending now.
Kayrall
Lol no
ACK
Only in sports do teams/businesses get rewarded for failure with a salary cap/ luxury tax and high draft pick for failure to win or tanking (trying not to win). I would agrue that the luxury tax is hurting the sport more than helping as teams are incentivized by not signing players with more talent who are eligible for free agency/arbitration and signing players who have less talent but make the minimum salary which is vast underpay. This is hurting the game with a weaker product (or talent on many MLB Rosters).
cowdisciple
So you feel the MLB product would be improved if the half dozen super rich teams won more than they already do?
petrie000
Major league sports is also they only business in which you suffer if your competition stinks.
The less competitive the league is as a while, the less each team makes from gate fees and tv deals, so there needs to be mechanisms in place to make the worse teams get better, or they’ll drag attendence down for everyone else
WestCoastSoxFan
With the mega TV deals and Internet streaming deals, I’m not sure actual attendance even matters anymore. Don’t get me wrong, it’s great having fans at the games, but attendance is always in the same basic range overall. The real revenues come from TV.
deweybelongsinthehall
Uncontrolled spending is that what you want? Remember the Rangers and Tom Hicks? Sometimes rules protect you from yourself.
Melchez
To avoid all these teams tanking, why don’t they give the top pick to the team with the best record? No incentive for teams to lose. Make them all try and put the best product on the field.
Have a hard cap. Teams cannot exceed X dollars.
skip 2
And teams need to spend X dollars!
jbigz12
MLb definitely needs a salary cap. I’d love the Steinbrenner’s and ricketts families to rake in more profits.
cowdisciple
A salary cap and a salary floor, both indexed to 50% of league revenues?
deweybelongsinthehall
And indexed geographically to a cost of living factor and I’m in (not that my or your input matters…).
WestCoastSoxFan
MLB needs the salary floor more than the cap. It’s not good when only 8-10 teams in the league are even trying. Make those tanking teams pay some competitive wages, at least.
petrie000
Um, the pretty undeniable evidence that teams really do want to stay under the luxury tax (2 out of 30 teams did not… And neither of them was the Yankees or Dodgers) is proof the luxury tax doesn’t work?
One of us I feel is missing something painfully obvious here…
cowdisciple
It is doing a great job at what it was designed to do, which is to lower expenses for ownership of the wealthiest teams.
petrie000
Whatever you feel about the ‘why’ of it, I think it’s pretty clear it’s working as intended
cowdisciple
Agreed. Working as intended.
BlueSkyLA
Now, there’s a novel argument, since it takes cash from the wealthiest teams and distributes it to the other teams.
cowdisciple
The effect is that the richest teams still get all the best free agents. It just costs them less because they don’t bid against each other past the cap.
BlueSkyLA
An even more novel argument. Apparently the problem is the wealthiest teams don’t have enough money to spend and that hurts the less wealthy teams. Wonder why nobody ever thought of that one before.
Polish Hammer
Oh yeah, those 28 teams will get loaded after taking their cut if that tax…SMH
deweybelongsinthehall
Why blame Selig Mets7? What am I missing/forgetting? As far as I can recall it’s been the union that won’t support a hard salary floor and ceiling.
Jean Matrac
It’s over-stating it significantly to say the CBT means nothing. The penalties were enough to make teams like the Yankees and Dodgers pump the brakes on spending. Without it the spending by the wealthy teams would be even worse.
You might want to read “The Game” by Jon Pessah. It delves into the salary cap/CBT negotiations in depth. Selig and the owners wanted a salary cap. It was the players and the union that dug in their heels. As far as it went for the players, a salary cap was the one deal breaker they were not going to compromise on. Rather than endure an extended stoppage in play, the parties instead compromised on the tax. Getting that agreed to wasn’t exactly easy either.
Marc (Phillies Phan)
No sport should have a salary cap. I personally don’t care if my merchandise money goes in their pockets. In the end, the owners pay them and it is their money. I don’t have any athletic talent, so pay them whatever. That said, I will be critical when they don’t live up to it though. But salary cap? No.
I cannot post the URL,but I got this from Reddit. This is NOT my research, but highest payrolls do not always equal world series winners
Posted bySan Diego Padresu/PanicAtTheSisqo
1 year ago
On average, the team with the 6th highest payroll has won the World Series each of the last 25 years. No team outside of the top 15 has won.
EDIT I looked at the data too quickly. 1 team outside of the top 15 has won. The Marlins in 2003.
Year Winner Payroll Rank
2016 Chicago Cubs 5
2015 Kansas City Royals 13
2014 San Francisco Giants 6
2013 Boston Red Sox 3
2012 San Francisco Giants 7
2011 St. Louis Cardinals 9
2010 San Francisco Giants 10
2009 New York Yankees 1
2008 Philadelphia Phillies 12
2007 Boston Red Sox 2
2006 St. Louis Cardinals 11
2005 Chicago White Sox 13
2004 Boston Red Sox 2
2003 Florida Marlins 25
2002 Anaheim Angels 15
2001 Arizona Diamondbacks 8
2000 New York Yankees 1
1999 New York Yankees 1
1998 New York Yankees 2
1997 Florida Marlins 5
1996 New York Yankees 1
1995 Atlanta Braves 4
1993 Toronto Blue Jays 1
1992 Toronto Blue Jays 1
Avg: 6.32
kylegocougs
Wow thanks for info. It’s cool to see it displayed like this
WestCoastSoxFan
Wow. Hard to believe there was a time when the Toronto Blue Jays had the highest payroll in MLB.
williemaysfield
start from 2001 to present and it changes to around 9th in payroll All the Red Sox titles have come with the team in top 3 in payroll. Yanks only win was 2009 after unloading the truck on free agents. Having a top payroll helps but most of the teams Were built with homegrown talent.
JonSnow
Shouldn’t the luxury tax threshold be lowered? Raising it to 206 only benefits those few big market teams. means nothing to teams like the dbacks who spend what they can but never approach 200 mil. Lower the threshold so big market teams have to think harder about spending freely.
Samuel
It was negotiated along with a number of other financially related items.
Owners, players union, and hangers on all participated. No one is going broke.
petrie000
If the luxury tax doesn’t go up, player salaries would stagnate because team lose the ability to hand out ever larger contracts
So yeah, that’s why it always goes up
Patrick OKennedy
The tax threshold goes up as MLB revenues go up- for all teams.
The threshold has crept up at a snail’s pace by comparison with revenues.
A salary cap would only put more money in the pockets of the very wealthiest clubs. If you want to level the playing field, share all revenues, or at least a higher percentage of local revenues.
Cam
Key note – all teams can spend more than they currently do. It’s a business choice for some of them not to.
While the luxury tax is a limitation, the biggest limitation is the ones that Teams put on themselves.
fasbal1
Boston was way above every other team in payroll for the year and it worked. Now some teams are not sure whether to spend or build with prospects.
I Believe We Can Win
Boston did what the cubs did. Develop hitters spend on pitching. Same as the astros.
Betts devers bogaerts benentendi Bradley Vazquez they supplemented with Martinez.
Rizzo Bryant russel baez supplemented with Hayward and zobrist.
Develop hitters spend on pitching whether its $$$ or prospects.
rocky7
Boston did develop some of their hitters….but without Martinez who was absolutely their line-up heavyweight. whom they bought for big money….they might not win anything……lots of nerve citing Vazquez who absolutely sucks as a hitter! Bradley finally did some hitting but has never been cited for his offensive skills.
deweybelongsinthehall
Rocky7. Agree on JDM. As a Sox fan, he’s my MVP. JBJ and both catcher’s true value is on defense although JBJ is a streak hitter and came up big in the playoffs this season.
ffrhb14Sox
MVP was Betts,always a Red Sox. JD was only brought in as a last minute steal contract and did great but he didnt impact the game as a Silver Slugger RF and Gold Glove RF and disrupt the game on the bases like Betts. Whatever you want to say about Vazquez, Devers, Bradley they were three big contributors to winning this championship.
KnicksFanCavsFan
If you look at things the Yanks, Red Sox, Dodgers, Astros and Indians have all built their teams off the strength of their farm and splurged on big time players via trades or free agency. As much as I hate the red sox they’ve done a fine job of building from within, making bold trades and signing top free agents.
Patrick OKennedy
the big difference is that the Yankees, Red Sox and Dodgers can repeatedly screw up giving out bad contracts, and just move on from them like it’s no big deal. Smaller market teams can’t just eat a bad five year, $ 22 million contract for a Jacoby Ellsbury or a CC Sabathia or Adrian Gonzalez or Pablo Sandoval.
rocky7
I don’t think anybody would put CC Sabathia into the “bad contract” category your speaking about…..$10 Million for his leadership and the pitching he gave the Yankees in this fiscal baseball world was pretty pedestrian and certainly can’t be considered a bad contract.
Patrick OKennedy
CC’s previous contract was $ 25M per year for six years.
For his performance, that would have crippled many teams.
williemaysfield
Giants survived zito’s contract and won. Yanks won the title CC’s first year. The boost from winning a title can dramatically change a teams financial projections. The amount of merchandise that title teams sells is ridiculous.
Bruin1012
Instead of a salary cap there should be a salary minimum with revenue sharing there is no reason to have teams that have a 50 million dollar payroll just lining that owners pockets. Once they have a salary minimum then you can address some sort of salary cap for the high spending teams.
BlueSkyLA
Agree. If shared revenue doesn’t result in the receiving teams using it to improve their rosters, then it’s doing little to create competitive balance. I imagine the players feel the same way, so this will probably be an issue in the next round of CBA negotiations.
hiflew
Why not both? The NFL has it and they haven’t really had this kind of problem. Franchises win and lose regularly based on their competence putting together a team rather than the size of their home city. That’s the way it should be.
Kenleyfornia74
Because the NFL has the whole non guarenteed money thing. Teams can escape bad deals pretty easily.
Judge Judy
LOL
Where does their farm system rank??
pinballwizard1969
Actually Cot’s shows the Red Sox at $237.85MM just over $40MM past the threshold ($197MM). MLBTR’s piece didn’t add in their in season additions: Pearce, Eovaldi & Kinsler which Cot’s reflects at the very bottom of their tax tracker spreadsheet.
jmi1950
Cot’s always has the Red Sox too high. In 2017 they had them at 197+MM for the 25 man roster and the final number with all players and benefits was only 191+ MM — under the tax level.
I doubt that the Sox went over 237MM by such a small amount.
Patrick OKennedy
The article says ” Boston surpassed the threshold by slightly beyond $40.85MM” add that to the $ 197 M threshold, and you get $ 237.85 M, which is $ 40,85 M over the threshold.
They got that right. What is incorrect is how the tax is calculated.
The 62.5% only applies to the portion more than 40 M above the threshold.
Frank kemble
I agree. I think there should be a minimum cap so that teams like the marlins, etc have to meet in order to be part of the league. There’s a set price to get into the league as an expansion team.. So there should be one for operating one. They can still rebuild talent all they want but still have to keep a minimum. And I don’t see how it defeats the purpose if they’re intelligent in how they sign players. Hosmer going to san diego last off season was interesting, but on a cool note a guy like machardo to the rays or Corbin to the reds (just examples, I know it’ll never happen) – would be just as interesting and should be more commonplace to keep everything competitive league wide.
bobtillman
Yes, Yes, Yes and Yes.. If there was a “floor” (which frankly I think there will be for the next CBA), less talented teams could absorb troublesome contracts in return for prospect capital. That would improve the product immediately and (if done right) long-term.
In modern dollars, there isn’t a team that can’t afford a 100M payroll….any team operating with less than that is robbing their customer. As is any big-boy teams that don’t operate as close to the Tax threshold as possible.
If owners REALLY believed that “tanking” was a legitimate way to operate a franchise, they’d reduce ticket prices and TV revenue in the years they are “tanking”….hear of any team doing that? As such, tanking is merely a marketing ploy, nothing more, that’s fed just because of “prospect” web sites and Baseball America. Most prospects will fail.
In the years 2011-2015, the Sox signed/drafted/developed Betts, Bradley, Benetendi, Boegarts et al. ALL could have easily been Tampa Bay Rays. Since bonus money has been regulated from then, money had nothing to do with building a competitive roster. Skill did.
Franchise values have tripled in the past 12 years or so. NO TEAM can blame revenue for their problems.
lettersandnumbersonly
i like Mike Rizzo and applaud most of the job he’s done with the Nationals. I also don’t know how much the Lerners have been involved, but 2018 left me acratching my head on several moves/non-moves the Nats made or didn’t make. I think they were holding out right to the very end that 2018 would be the year everything finally came together and they won the Series. and that would make everything else worth it. ie. letting Harper walk for virtually nothing??? (a 5th round pick?) a 2nd year in the luxury tax… which would effectively remove the Nats from the Bryce negotiations if they ever were really intending on paying anything more than lip service. cause if they end up signing Bryce, a 3rd year in luxury tax would potentially blow his cost over the moon. also the seemingly half hearted pay dump? for what real purpose? they still fell nearly 10mill shy of getting under the luxury tax. got nothing for Adams. got next to nothing for Murphy and probably shut the door on any chance to get him in free agency. Nats seeming a bit like the Mets front office in 2018.
cowdisciple
MLBTR really thinks 25m dollars is less important than the difference between the 33rd and 43rd pick?
Didn’t Fangraphs value top prospects somewhere in the range of 50 to 75m? Awfully long odds for anyone picked 33rd or 43rd to get into the top 10 overall prospects where those values live. Long odds for anyone picked anywhere.
I guess what I’m saying is that the Red Sox almost certainly care more about that 26m cash.
cowdisciple
I mean, the difference in expected value between the 33rd pick and the 43rd pick is probably only a few hundred thousand at most…
WestCoastSoxFan
Yup. The 33rd pick is basically the same lottery ticket of a pick that the 43rd pick is. What the Red Sox REALLY care about is the crappy compensation they get when Kimbrel walks. And it will be even worse next year getting potential 4th round compensation picks for Sale, Bogaerts, Porcello and JDM.
jmi1950
No team that is more than say 60 MM under the salary cap should get any rev. sharing $$$.
Any team 100MM under the tax level should lose their 1st rd draft pick. That would force “rebuilding” teams to at least put a MLB team on the field.
cowdisciple
I agree with the sentiment, but half the league was more than 60m under the cap.
There should be a floor to go with the cap, and they should both be indexed to league revenues. This would require increased revenue sharing.
Where MLB continues to get killed is that their ownership group continues to see the other MLB franchises as their economic competitors, to the detriment of the overall quality of the MLB product.
The NFL ownership, for example, is much more willing to act in the best interests of the NFL product as a whole, and sees MLB and the NBA as strategic competitors, rather than other NFL owners.
cowdisciple
Oh, and as a side benefit of a salary cap and floor and increased revenue sharing MLB could also abolish the draft and the 7 years of team control, so that good young players get paid what they’re truly worth without destroying competitive balance.
williemaysfield
Everyone can’t be free agents at the same time. Marvin Miller made sure that didn’t happen. more free agents available would drive the price down and put more money in the owners pockets. It’s better to have free agents trickle in to drive up demand. In 1975 the reserve clause ended and all the players were declared free agents. This would have been disastrous for baseball. Miller brilliantly negociated the 6 years of team control to keep team continuity. Simple supply and demand of the market.
jmi1950
If a team is way under the cap, why should they get rev. sharing $$$. The fans only get a benefit when the $$$ are spent.
If the lux tax # is 206 the floor should be at least 103.
nood4256
Great article
Papabueno
Money well spent by the World Series Champs. Money not so well spent by the disappointing Nationals. Rizzo has made some good trades over the years, but I’m afraid he’s painted the team into a corner with some of deferred deals. The Lerner’s don’t like to spend, so I could see them pulling way back next season.
petrie000
… owners of one of 2 teams over the luxury tax ‘don’t like to spend’?
That seems a very odd take.
Papabueno
If you were a Nats fan, you’d know what I mean. The Lerner’s have stopped Rizzo from spending to improve the team at the deadline for several years. I guarantee they won’t go over the luxury tax again this season.
larry48
giants were on salary cqp also
Patrick OKennedy
TO CLARIFY THE TAX:
– The amount for player benefits is an estimate by Cot’s at $ 14,044,600. It is actually tied to a cost of living adjustment. That number is pretty close, but not exact.
– Every team is estimated at the same number for the 15 players on the 40 man roster who are not in the majors. The number estimated is $ 2,250,000. That number will actually be different for every team, depending on players on the major league DL, players called up in September, and actual contracts negotiated for players on optional assignment.
– Finally, the actual calculation of the surtax is applied only to the overage, not to the entire amount above the tax threshold. If the Red Sox are $ 41 million above the threshold, their tax is calculated like this:
0- 20 M over = 20% x 20 M= 5 M
20 – 40 M over = 32% x 20 M = 6.4M
40- 41 M over = 62.5% x 1 M = 625K
Total tax = 6.025,000
The language in the CBA provides an illustration:
“By way of illustration, a Third-Time CBT Payor Club with a $260 million payroll in 2018 will pay a 50% tax rate on its payroll between $197 million and $217 million; a 62% tax rate on its payroll between $217 million and $237 million; and a 95% tax rate on payroll in excess of $237 million.”
Patrick OKennedy
Make that 4 million tax on the first 20 million over the threshold.
of9376
The Dodgers were over the threshold . This article is incorrect.
jmi1950
I have been saying this since opening day when the LADs 25 man roster was 187 MM plus 14MM in benefits plus something for the additional players.
However, Stan Kasten stated during the WS that the official numbers would show the LADs to be under 197.
Last year both Cots and the press (except Alex Spier of the Globe ) stated that the sox would be over 197 but in fact they came in at 191, so there is quite a bit of room between the press reports and the truth.
Patrick OKennedy
No, the Dodgers were not over the tax threshold.
Cot’s contracts has the exact calculation. While there is some room for error, as I explained above, there’s not that much room.
25 man payroll is irrelevant. Use the average annual value of contracts, not this year’s salary, and use the 40 man roster.
Cot’s number is $194,175,972, or $2,824,028 under the threshold.
If you dispute Cot’s numbers, which numbers do you dispute?
jmi1950
If Cots numbers are more than just estimates , how did they get the Red Sox WRONG by more than 10 MM last yr?
I do think Stan Kasten would not have said they were under if it wasn’t true. But I remember several NFL teams being penalized because their numbers were found to be “incorrect”.
Right now MLB has an army of “bean counters” looking at these contracts. That is why it will be more than a month until the official numbers are released.
I believed Alex Spier in Nov. 2017 when he said he was assured by Red Sox front office people that all of the press reports — including Cot’s — were wrong when they said the Sox were over. But I did not “know” until mid December when MLB made it official.
Patrick OKennedy
I don’t recall the comments about the Red Sox being over. I never had any doubt that they were under last year.
The salaries are not just estimates. The number for player benefits and the 15 players optioned are estimates.
FWIW- Cot’s spreadsheet for the Boston tax tracker for 2017 shows them at $182,794,750.
If you are looking at the opening day payroll, which is the wrong spreadsheet, it shows $197,041,179. Those numbers are not the average annual value of each contract and do not include the full 40 man payroll or player benefits.
jmi1950
Now I have no respect for you at all. Google teams over luxury cap for 2017, and you will see numerous articles listing six including the Red Sox. Cots had the Sox OVER 200 MM until after the official numbers were released when they changed them.
Spier wrote his article in the Globe in Nov 2017 but USA Today, Cots and the AP continued to state the Sox were way over until AFTER the official numbers were relesed by MLB. You don’t recall? That’s BS.
All I’m saying is that once the official numbers come out there will be many corrections most of which will go unnoticed because few teams are near the cap.
Patrick OKennedy
I’m not disputing you, just saying I don’t recall that and I was writing stories about the subject- focused on the Tigers.
I don’t know what articles were written, but Cot’s doesn’t publish articles. They just have spreadsheets.
I believe that the “in season adjustments” that Cot’s makes at the bottom of the page is a new thing.
I do know that this article does not correctly calculate the tax for the Red Sox this year.
jmi1950
You’re losing credibility. If you do not recall look up USA last year on this topic, don’t say — I don’t recall and I was writing articles on this topic which implies you would recall if it was true.
As for Cots I applaud that they change their numbers as more accurate info comes out but that doesn’t mean that they were not wrong about the Sox numbers last Nov.
Patrick OKennedy
Dude, I am not implying anything and my credibility has nothing to do with whether I can remember some articles that you are referring to about the Red Sox paying a luxury tax. I don’t read about the Red Sox obsessively.
In any case, I don’t see the importance here. Cot’s has made mistakes in the past and I’ve pointed some out to them, which are promptly corrected. It is still by far the best source for MLB payroll information, IMO.
Here is one bit of information that may or may not help to explain a miscalculation. Allen Craig was outrighted off the roster but the Red Sox still had to pay him $ 11 million in salary. I believe that this did not count against their payroll for tax purposes under the old CBA. That would be a significant difference if not excluded. Just one possibility.
jmi1950
1. Do not call me “dude” which is an insult.
2. If someone tells you there is info that can be checked, either check it or concede it is true.
3. For several yrs . I have been commenting on sites that had Craig and Rusney Castillo’s contracts listed incorrectly,
4. I also use Cot’s as the best site but I take everything that is on it as best info but not 100% correct.
Patrick OKennedy
Fair enough.
I am not questioning you about some articles and I wasn’t referring to any articles. I have no reason to google the subject to see if you are accurate about these articles. I didn’t question you about that, nor did I imply anything.
I was referring to Cot’s contracts and the accuracy of their information, in this case as it pertains to the Dodgers.
Marc (Phillies Phan)
You can call me dude. I am secure within myself. Joking aside, this is educational.
jmi1950
The only thing I said was that the numbers are too close to be sure where the LAD will end up. Cots has been wrong before.
The reason I believe they will be under is Stan Kasten went on national TV during the WS and assured LAD fans they will be under.
That being said, there have been instances where the league has disagreed with the team’s calculation.
Most troubling is the fact that you state you were researching articles in Nov. 2017 about the Tigers CBT but not Red Sox. Many such articles listed the same six teams as being over including the Red Sox but apparently you were able to only read about the Tigers. I’m sorry , but to me that is just not credible.
Patrick OKennedy
I did not say that I was researching articles. I write articles about the Detroit Tigers. Sorry if you find that troubling.
You can generally count on Cot’s to be accurate, as long as you’re looking at the right spreadsheet.
I have told you that I was not questioning your point about these articles, but if you insist that I was, whatever.
jmi1950
Where can I read your articles? I dislike having to form opinions based on incomplete info.
Cot’s is a great source as long as you realize that Cots does not have a way to confirm the numbers.
The only “right speadsheet” is the one in December after MLB issues its ruling.
In Nov. 2017 USA Today among others reported that six teams would be over — LAD, NYY, BOS, CUBS, DET & SF. In fact Bos & the Cubs were under but the NATS were over. When you consider that 25 of 30 teams were nowhere near the Tax number they only got two out of five ( of the teams close to the number) correct — 40%. At the time Cots numbers seemed to agree with USA Today but were not as detailed as they are today and could have been argued either way on Bos, Det, Cubs,SF, Nats.
All I believe is based on Bos being very close to 237 MM and the LAD being close to 197MM we will have to await the official numbers for the answer.
Patrick OKennedy
I just came across the USA today article that you mentioned and another one that cited that article. It was dead wrong.
There is actually one here on MLBTR on 11-7- 17 quoting Dombrowski and John Henry saying that they’d go over the tax in 2018 and wouldn’t stay under for another season.
I don’t think I can post links on here, but I wrote for the Tigers website on SB Nation and two articles on this subject were posted on Sept 3 and Dec 20 of 2017. I calculated the Tigers’ payroll for tax purposes myself for the September article.
Most of the salary information comes from the players’ side, rather than the club side on these matters. MLB has to give the players this information so they can run comps when negotiating salaries, and MLBPA comes out with data every year.
The reason that I wonder about your earlier comment re the Dodgers is that you said their opening day payroll was
” 187 MM plus 14MM in benefits plus something for the additional players” This makes me wonder if you are looking at the right spreadheet.
At the top of the page for Cot’s salaries for the Dodgers, there are three spreadsheets. One is opening day payroll which does not matter for tax purposes. One is 2019 numbers and one is 2018 tax tracker. That’s the one you want to look at. For 2017, I believe the link is at the bottom of the page.
Maybe you know this. Apologies if that’s the case. But Dodgers’ payroll for tax purposes is not $ 187M plus 14 M plus more players. That’s just not accurate.
I would bet those numbers on Cot’s are extremely accurate at least as far as the salaries go. The estimates for player benefits and the 15 optioned players are estimates, but there’s not a lot of margin for error there. The Dodgers went to a lot of trouble to get under the tax threshold, and I’m sure they didn’t blow it.
BlueSkyLA
Your last point was the most important one. The Dodgers built their entire approach to the 2018 season around staying below the tax threshold, as it is calculated by the commissioner’s office. I’m sure they have the right numbers, which outside sources can’t be expected to know to the same level of accuracy.
Papabueno
How did the Dodgers manage to stay belies the luxury tax limit, when their payroll was over $200M?
Patrick OKennedy
Except it wasn’t, for tax purposes.
The Dodgers’ payroll for tax purposes included
– Average annual value of players on the 40 man roster
– plus payments owed to other clubs for players still under contract
– minus payments received from other clubs for players under contract
– plus $ 14 million for player benefits
Their payroll was $181,491,386
plus and minus some in season adjustments.
jmi1950
Yet when you go to NBC, CBS, Sportrac you will see differences in many players contracts. No one has access to the contracts except the player, his agent and MLB. The rest are estimates based on press reports which are not always right.
mike156
The system needs a fresh look. It does act as a drag on salaries, which is of course what the owners want, But I don’t see it acting to meaningfully help competitiveness in an era in which competitiveness is often secondary to the value of tanking and pocketing the difference. It’s not a good thing to have baseball teams that are doing everything they can to lose–it creates an unfair advantage for those teams in the same Division, and lowers overall interest in the game. MLB won’t tolerate a player throwing a game. Why, then, does it tolerate (and even tacitly encourage) team ownership throwing an entire season?
Guest617
financial engineering at its finest
Jjbeach
Maybe there should be some kind of tax on teams that go UNDER a certain amount, too.
TooToughToScuffle
The Red Sox showed that, among the big spending teams, it does well to go all in and cross that spending limit. Look what happened to the Dodgers and Yankees.
billysbballz
What happened to Dodgers and Yanks? The evil empire Red Sox spent the most and won. Not how it always works but they bought this one. Most anti Yankee fans would be all over this as typical Yankee spending.
ffrhb14Sox
Cant say they bought it when they were in the middle of the playoff pack in homegrown contribution. Lazy opinion.
RedRooster
Lol so the Nats only get a fourth rounder for losing Harper. But at least they still have their integrity!
Yankeepatriot
ZOMG THEY ARE TRYING TO BUY A CHAMPIONSHIP !!! SALARY CAP NOW !!!!!!
Oh that only applies to one team, gotcha …..
bobtillman
The Red Sox exist primarily as programming for NESN, whose viewership (across multi platforms) was up more than 20% this year…..the Luxury Tax they’re paying is just a reasonable cost of sales. So they make money on the deal.
They learned a couple of years ago that when the Sox sux, nobody watches them; what a concept! So, from here on in (unless Henry/Warner sell the team), they won’t sux. In the event you missed that Economics 101 class, the rich ARE different…they have more money.
Mikel Grady
Cubs stay under. Now time to spend some money
bradthebluefish
Amazing how the Nationals went about the cap and still didn’t make the playoffs.
Yankeepatriot
They have been an enigma over the last 7 years or so. Can’t figure them out one bit. The Pete kozma game still haunts them to this day (game 5 2012)
wiggysf
In 2017 the Giants went over and were the second worst team in MLB.
gomerhodge71
How much is Sandoval tilting the scale on this one (pun fully intended)?
williemaysfield
Whatever his average salary was minus the league minimum. Around 19m I believe.
I’m still baffled that people want to argue about the luxury tax and base it on current season payroll. The reason the Dodgers traded for Kemp last year was to lower their contract average.
ffrhb14Sox
MVP was Betts,always a Red Sox. JD was only brought in as a last minute steal contract and did great but he didnt impact the game as a Silver Slugger RF and Gold Glove RF and disrupt the game on the bases like Betts. Whatever you want to say about Vazquez, Devers, Bradley they were three big contributors to winning this championship.
Papabueno
Actual salaries for 2018:
Boston $240M
SF $213M
LAD $191M
CHC $189M
WSH $188M
LAA $183M
I understand how a team like the Nats can go over the shreshold, because of the AAV of some of their deferred salaries (Scherzer for example). But, I don’t understand how a team can spend more than the $197M threshold in pure dollars (Giants for example) and not pay the tax.
Can someone please explain it? Thx
66TheNumberOfTheBest
Also because of AAV. Teams pay based on the “average annual value” of each player’s deal not any one particular year’s salary.
Made up example: Player X signs a two year, $20 million deal. He gets $19 million in year one and $1 million in year two in actual cash money salary. He’s got a $10 million a year AAV but his salary will spike his teams payroll in one year but not the other, but still counts as $10 million against the tax each year, not $10 million the first year and $1 million the second. Just the average.
So, chances are the Giants had some deals pay out like that.
66TheNumberOfTheBest
(should read “but still counts as $10 million against the tax each year, not $19 million the first and…”)
williemaysfield
Here’s an example using a Giants player. Posey’s salary for 2019 is 22m, but the average salary over the life of his contract is 18.5m. The 18.5m is what is caulculated for luxury tax. Cots baseball is an excellent source for both current salary and luxury tax. They have spread sheets next to each other. It’s not perfect but is very close.
66TheNumberOfTheBest
MLB will never allow a salary cap because MLB has no interest in actual competitive balance.
The league and the TV networks don’t want the Rays or A’s to have the same chance to win as the Yankees or Red Sox. Bottom line. The league and the networks make significantly more money when big market teams succeed than they do when small market teams succeed.
And the majority of MLB fans are fans of the top 10 (market size) teams, meaning those ten teams have more fans than other 20 combined, so even the fans are OK with the league keeping it’s finger on the scale for the big market teams.
For example, in leagues with salary caps, every current NYC team is junk…the Giants, Jets, Knicks, Rangers, Islanders, Devils are all mediocre or bad teams. Their money can’t save them because they play in cap leagues. MLB has ZERO interest in the Yankees becoming anything like them. And since they can spend infinitely more than their competition, they rarely, if ever, will.
Small market fans don’t want to hear it. Large market fans don’t want to admit it. But…that’s the game.
williemaysfield
And yet in the last 9 years the yanks have won the same amount of titles and pennants as the A’s and Rays. While the middle of the pack payroll Royals won two pennants and a World Series.
66TheNumberOfTheBest
You are referring to outcomes, not opportunities.
The A’s and Royals have been absolute garbage in that same time frame, while the Yanks had, what…a half year rebuild?
The Red Sox bottomed out, bought a WS, bottomed out and bought another one.
Yes, there will be a Horatio Alger story here and there (Royals, Indians, etc.) but the big market teams are there year in and year out while the small market teams have to rebuild for 5-6 years to have a 1-3 year window.
If that’s what you call competitive balance…
Bruin1012
If you are going to argue for a salary cap then there also needs to be a salary floor of like 120 million. There is no owner who doesn’t make money with 120 million pay roll and if they can’t afford that sell the team. I think it’s a bigger problem then no hard salary cap.
66TheNumberOfTheBest
Hard cap and hard floor with revenue sharing. The NHL system would work very well for MLB.
The absurdly rich Toronto Maple Leafs have a payroll within 20% of the 3,000 fans a game Florida Panthers.