The Yankees finalized their five-year, $162.5MM contract with Cody Bellinger last week. That would ordinarily come with a $32.5MM average annual value that counts against the team’s luxury tax ledger. In most cases, a contract’s luxury tax number is taken by dividing the number of guaranteed years from the overall amount of guaranteed money — regardless of the salary distribution. Unlocked performance bonuses or option decisions can subsequently change the calculation, but the AAV is the starting point.
However, as Joel Sherman of The New York Post reports, Bellinger’s deal falls into a rare exception built into the collective bargaining agreement: the “Valley Charge,” as it’s called in the CBA. That only comes into play with a contract that is front-loaded before a player option year or opt-out clause. That applies to the Bellinger contract, which allows him to opt out after the second or third seasons. The next few paragraphs will hopefully explain why that’s the case — though it requires diving into some math and technical terminology within the CBA. Interested readers will also want to check out this X thread courtesy of Ethan Hullihen.
Bellinger’s deal comes with a $20MM signing bonus, which is counted as guaranteed money and is paid in full regardless of whether he opts out.* The outfielder will collect $32.5MM salaries for the first two seasons. The deal comes with respective $25.8MM, $25.8MM and $25.9MM salaries for the final three years if Bellinger does not opt out. He’ll make $85MM over the first two seasons and will have his first opt-out decision with three years and $77.5MM remaining. For CBA purposes, all three years after the opt-out are treated as player option years because Bellinger decides whether to stick with the contract.
To understand the Valley Charge exception, we’ll need to bring over some language from the CBA. The provision applies when the base salary of a player option year “is less than 80% of the base salary … plus attributed signing bonus” of the cheapest year before the opt-out. It’s therefore not a direct comparison. The salaries of the option years range from $25.8MM – 25.9MM. The years before the opt-out include both their $32.5MM salaries and $10MM each year for the prorated signing bonus: a $42.5MM value in total. The value of all three option years are less than 80% of that $42.5MM ($34MM), so they all fall within the Valley Charge.
Once the Valley Charge is triggered, the contract’s luxury tax distribution changes. Turning back to the CBA: “For each such player option year, the difference between the player option year value and the (80% value) shall be allocated pro rata across the years preceding the (opt-out).”
So, we subtract the salaries of each of the option years from the $34MM 80% value of the second season. That comes out to $24.5MM ($8.2MM + $8.2MM + $8.1MM). That’s divided over the two seasons preceding the opt-out at $12.25MM annually and added to the $32.5MM initial value, bringing the new CBT number to $44.75MM. If Bellinger does not opt out, the Yankees will receive “credit” in 2028-30 for the overcharge in the first two seasons, meaning he’d only count against their CBT ledger for roughly $24.33MM annually over the final three years.
RosterResource now projects the Yankees for a tax number above $330MM in 2026. That’s above their $320MM season-ending mark from last year, so it’s not clear how much room ownership will allot for in-season maneuvers.
* The Post’s Jon Heyman reports that the bonus will be paid in $10MM installments on April 1 and August 1 of this year. A player receives his full signing bonus regardless of his opt-out decision. Bellinger’s bonus is up-front, so that’s largely immaterial here, but the date of the bonus payment doesn’t have any impact on the Valley Charge calculation.

They should make this reality for the Dodgers too.
You don’t think that the Dodgers pay Luxury Tax? Lol!
They do pay luxury tax, but make the tax hits even higher.
Who is going to push for an arbitrarily higher tax penalty for the dodgers? They’re being charged what was collectively bargained. Other owners wouldn’t want the league to be able to tax them outside what is in the cba. The players arguably lose in that situation and wouldn’t want it either. The commissioner works for the owners. No one wants that
Why ?
And the all the Astros should have been punished for cheating in 2017…
@Astros71
You’re comparing apples to oranges. Belli’s contract doesn’t include deferrals. Both teams are operating under the same CBA rules. The Dodgers aren’t doing anything the Yankees can’t do as well to lower Belli’s AAV. The Yankees chose not to.
They are both fruits.
Probably should’ve. Won’t say all of them, but a good number of them should have been punished. Rumor is that these sort of things were around, the Red Sox took it overboard and the Astros took it severely overboard. Don’t get why you have to do it against Mike Bolsinger and too bad by Danny Farquard.
Yanks don’t have a billion dollar hedge fund company they can borrow from and then profit from investing the deferred funds. Stop it.
Wait, they don’t. Rats now our only hope for the Dodgers to run away are the Mets and the Jays.
The Yankees are ruining baseball.
Too late. I have already ruined baseball.
I think it helps Friedman worked in private equity before baseball. Dodgers know all the tax tricks and loopholes.
Friedman doesn’t run the financial side of the Dodgers. That is handled by Senior Finance VP Eric Hernandez, reporting to CEO Stan Kasten.
I hate the dodgers too, but I’m not sure you understand what’s happening here..
NYY should get a pinball machine that works.
That’s a pretty high payroll, not sure if Cashman will make any more moves with free agents. Probably a trade for either Dominguez or Jones to get more relief help.
It would be a really bad business decision trading Jones or Dominguez for a reliever. My guess is if one is traded, it will be for a stud starter.
Jones is not getting you a stud starter. Maybe for Dominguez.
Don’t think either brings you a “stud” starter on their own, and I assume by stud you mean a 1 or 2 with upside.
WFAN callers disagree.
The Yankees will also throw in two game-used Derek Jeter jock straps (that haven’t been washed), the backup catcher from Single-A Tampa, and a case of Red Bull Total Zero. Plus, the other team gets the privilege of doing business with the New York Yankees!
Also, the other team will pay the full salary of stud they are sending to the Yankees.
@Astros71- Its funny for Dominguez right now, Yanks could get Drew Rasmussen straight up, not saying I would give him up though. I disagree, with Jasson or Jones in a package the Yankees could have definitely gotten the rental Freddy Peralta.
Right. I think that Dominguez has real value. Jones has much less and will get you a mid rotation at best.
Dominguez is not worth a stud starter. Would have to be in a package along with 3-4 others.
Someone isn’t going to give you something for nothing.
Jones and Dominguez have little to no value.
Both have a ton of potential. You are mistaken.
Only Boone and some Yankee supporters think so.
rh
“You are mistaken.”
More likely a troll.
BTV values Dominguez at $23 million and Jones at $18 million
That’s not a ton of value for either one, but it’s not none either. So, we know what DfH and Astros are wrong
Sorry but that’s just Yankee hate talking.
They have trade value, but for now have even more value to NY
Yeah I wouldn’t trade either one, for all the garbage being discussed. Easy pass.
That’s a dumb thing to say. We see trades go down for lesser lesser and players. Would you say the rookie Smith with the Astros has little to no value?
Awwwwwwwwwwwww.
Hopefully Hal had a soft landing after he learned this and fainted.
Why does my head feel like it’s spinning?
Need a law degree to understand the contract stipulations and payroll calculations.
Great reporting though. Leave it to the exceptional mlbtr writers to describe the intricacies of such a complicated deal.
Perhaps a little arcane but something NY should know. Not like they don’t have contract lawyers. Makes me wonder about the strategy from the team’s perspective though.
The strategy was basically to sign the player, and that is what it took to get it done.
The Yankees spend a smaller portion of their gross revenues than most of the big spenders right now.
@NyyfaninLAA
They don’t do deferrals. It’s their business policy.
@Carver
Why would you ever think that??How many teams are over the 3rd threshold and just signed a guy who’s going to earn $42 mil next year and they’re paying a 110% tax on to of that? Other than the Dodgers and Mets who is doing that?
@knicksfan – Just look at the numbers; google it. Mets / Dodgers / Blue Jays / Phillies at the top; Yankees around 1oth for payroll as a % of gross revenues at last look.
Probably all that salvia you smoked earlier.
That is basically just huffing. Might as well get a can of metallic silver spray paint and a paper lunch sack.
You now may resume whatever you were doing before your head exploded.
Sounds pretty reasonable.
Well, duh, who didn’t know that!
Only a few of us idiots.
I think Jason Heyward’s CBT hit for the Cubs way back when worked liked Bellinger’s will since he could have opted out after three years, $78 million guarantee. Though, Heyward’s $20 million signing bonus was deferred until after the term expired. The Cubs are in the process of paying it now.
Paying luxury tax on $44.75M when his salary is essentially $42.5M.
Seems like the contract structure almost begs Belli to opt out. But in a system light on position player prospects not sure that strategy is optimal
I think owners will look for major changes in salary system at the next negotiation.
Should have deferred
Deferred $ will be one of things disallowed likely after a strike. Let’s face it there’s only one deadbeat team out there really does it.
Doubt that. 78% of pro athletes go broke within five years after retirement. That percentage is lower for MLB players. Deferrals act as a safety net for some of them. They’re also mutually beneficial when agreed upon.
According to this, Bellinger will cost the Yankees $98.75 million in 2026 and 2027 including the CBT fines.
That is interesting. The newest rule to my iteration of Dizzy Bat is any correct explanation of the Valley Charge per CBA Terms is an automatic win at any point of the game, with the caveat that you must keep spinning if that’s when you choose to explain it
Just dumb in general. I don’t like the system anyway, but this is nonsense–tand it’s even counterintuitive, because after this, teams will find more reasons to go squeeze and wiggle and play the system.
Makes sense. Basically a way to discourage teams from front loading contracts and adding opt out years with low salaries to keep the AAV and traditional CBT calculation low.
You seem to be the only one so far that actually understands what’s happening here. Kudos my friend 👍
It’s not the brightest group
Yup the cheap ones will
I bet they start regretting this contract by June.
All for a guy that is over-priced and declining. A guy that needed the NYY far more than the NYY needed him. All started wrong when Cashman issued a QO to Grisham and Grisham, gladly took it. Cashman offered too long a contract to Bellinger, too high an AAV, a no trade clause, and multiple opt-outs. Cashman rating for off-season “D”.
You need a hug or something?
@baseball
Yanks led all of verbal with an OF that had the most WAR by a margin of +7. They got Grisham as a throw in on the Soto desk and got 34 homers for $5 il. The suggestion that running it back is a bad thing is comical. How do you think they would go about replacing him and his 34 homers and glove this winter and what would that cost? The Yanks strength is their money and there’s almost no such thing as a bad 1 year deal for the Yanks. I’m sure they knew there was a great chance that Grisham would accept the QO and they were chill with that. Ppl expect Grisham to turn into a pumpkin like hitting 35 homers was “lucky”. Asmuch as i have faith in Dominguez, how much worse would things have been if they had to replace the LF and CF and their 63 homers?
-BaseballGuy1,
I think you’re spot on with the Grisham situation. I think Cashman and co were somewhat surprised that he accepted the QO over hitting the open market. Bc even as a NYY fan myself, I have to say there is a slim-none chance that Grish comes anywhere close to having another season like he had last year. I also think another bad FO decision that has really handcuffed them this offseason was the McMahon acquisition at last year’s TDL. He’s a glove first, LHH .220(sub 100 OPS+)hitter who is owed $32 million over the next 2 year. So there’s no chance anyone will is going to take him off their hands. That means the Yankees are going to have the SAME black hole in the bottom 3rd of their lineup again this year in McMahon-Volpe-Wells. And I don’t care how good the SP has the potential to be, it’s going to be very tough to win games in the playoffs with those guys making up for 1/3 of your line up. This years projected line up is very LH heavy, and if(which is the highly likely) Grisham goes back to being the hitter he’s been throughout his career, we could be in for a LONG season. They’re going to live and die by the Homerun even more than ever before. It’s just not a very solid hitting lineup. Hopefully the starting rotation can stay healthy for the most part to keep them in it. Only time will tell
Guy, Bellinger’s performance improved in 2025, that performance was worth $50 million plus, and the Yankees have no one to replace his performance. Cashman and the Yankees offered what it would take to sign Bellinger. That is the market rate and is the actual definition of what he is worth on the free agent market. If I was giving a rating for your comment it would be an F. Other than spelling, you got everything wrong.
Comment section for this post feels a little slow today. What gives? The Yankees paying extra not a big draw on an otherwise slow day? I think the odd idiosyncrasies of the CBA are interesting as heck.
Not necessarily, an excellent signing for Bellinger & the Yankees. Still shocked Belli got 2 opt outs in his contract. Tucker was definitely overpaid with his illegal contract. Off season grade “B-“
Bellinger signed an interesting contract to be sure.
I don’t believe next season will be impacted by a lockout. Fans want salary changes because they think that will bring the mythical “parity” into play It won’t. They will probably tinker around the edges but end up doing nothing about a cap or floor. They may increase tax penalties. They may also look to doing away with guaranteed salaries
terryg, I think you are right about most of that. In CBA situations typically major changes don’t happen. They don’t tear down to the foundation and build a new one, they tinker around the edges.
The owners locked out the players the last time, but only the owners lost money. The players got paid 100% because they played a full 162 game season. the owners had to pay for schedule changes and lost money from doubleheaders and TV changes. I don’t believe that are willing to do that again.
I do think that the union is going to require a much higher CBT threshold and tiers because so many teams exceeded it in 2025 and will in 2026. For that concession the owners are going to require much harsher penalties at the higher ends. Losing high end draft picks and more.
I think the higher revenue owners are going to push for a floor or at least a spelled out penalties for teams that don’t follow the rule to spend revenue sharing on the field. They are getting tired of guys like Sherman, Nutting, and Fisher using that revenue sharing to pad their bank accounts without adding to the product on the field.
Low end revenue teams are going to push for a reinstatement of compensation for free agents lost.
There is absolutely no way that the MLBPA would agree to an end of guaranteed salaries. That and a hard cap are something they will not even discuss unless the owners are willing to give up something just as huge.
Beyond that everything else will be minor.
Yankees policy of non-deferrals should go the route of the facial hair policy. If you’re going to pay more upfront for Bellinger, then balance it out by deferring on other players.
Thats a pretty mediocre team for 320 million. Money isn’t really an issue in NY but they are going to have to get it straightened out at some point.
Cashman is good at putting together teams that have much less value for the money then good GMs are able to do, If there’s some type of salary cap imposed in the future, he will be severely exposed if he’s still around and doesn’t retire. Hopefully replaced by someone better.
2027 gets a luxury reset.
Boras screws another sucker
Yeah, but I would gladly pay him 15% to negotiate a multimillion dollar paycheck for me! You?
Who ends up lying his salary?
The fans and TV viewers
“We pay their salary” works here about as well as it does for police, firefighters, etc. You can choose whether or not to support the team with your time and money, but you don’t get a say in how the team operates.
I get charged by my cable company for sports that I don’t watch
Cut the cord.
Hmmmm
Very interesting idea
On the one hand, that’s neat. On the other hand, what the heck?
Seems like a very isolated scenario that could be expanded to actually impact a legit portion of beefy contracts? We’ll see what the next CBA yields
Anthony,
Thank you for this explanation of the Valley Charge. Does this apply to Kyle Tucker’s contract? What about Juan Soto’s?
gbs
Here’s the relevant info for Tucker’s contact
Bonus: $64 million
2026: $1 million
2027: $55 million
Opt out
2028: $60 million
2029: $60 million
What a useless article. Higher Luxury Tax Hit doesnt mean anything to the yankmees.
What a useless comment. This article is an opportunity for many people to learn new information. Maybe take that opportunity next time instead of being so dismissive.
Why do we have to have all these complicated calculations and special cases for the luxury tax calculation.
The amount of money you are paying a player for that season should be their luxury tax hit. The only complication then is how do you handle signing bonuses? I think for those you just spread it out evenly for the life of the deal, even if a player opts out/is traded etc.
So simple case:
5 year 100MM deal, with 20MM salary each year. Luxury tax hit is a constant 20MM.
5 year 100MM deal, with 1MM yearly salary and 19MM each year deferred, luxury tax hit per year is still 20MM.
5 year 100MM deal. First four years at 10MM, last year at 60MM. Luxury tax hit for the first 4 years is 10MM, last year is 60MM.
5 year deal 50MM deal with 50MM signing bonus. 10MM salary each year. Luxury tax hit each year is 20MM.
5 year deal 50MM deal with 50MM signing bonus. Player is traded after year 2. 10MM salary each year. Luxury tax hit years 1 and 2 is 20MM. Years 3/4/5 is 10MM (remaining luxury tax hit).
It can be that simple.
Joemo,
You just provided five examples of how a contract can be structured, and there are countless other possibilities, so no, it’s not that simple.
The base idea is that simple. Whatever you are paying them for the season is the luxury tax hit.
What else complicates it? Yearly awards / all-star game appearances? Those are just modifiers to their yearly salary. Trade kickers, so if a player is traded they get paid an additional whatever? That just impacts their yearly salary and adjust that years luxury tax hit.
Besides the signing bonus and finding out how to spread it out, it’s really not that complex.
RE Jomoe
First, we could have that. But what’s the benefit of it? What problem are you solving?
Second, you’ve ignored any type of option
Third,
“5 year 100MM deal, with 1MM yearly salary and 19MM each year deferred, luxury tax hit per year is still 20MM”
this penalizes the players. If you don’t understand why 1) ask. 2) you probably shouldn’t be engaged in these types of conversations
Accounting. Fun. Now tell us how they funnel billions of taxpayer dollars to these franchises.
That’s easy, politicians.
Such a bloated mess there.