Six teams are set to pay penalties under the newly restructured competitive balance/luxury tax for their 2022 payrolls, per a report from the Associated Press. Each of the Mets, Dodgers, Yankees, Phillies, Padres and Red Sox is currently over the threshold. That marks just the second time since the luxury tax’s inception that six teams will pay the tax.
This will be the second straight year paying the tax for both Los Angeles and San Diego. Each of the other four clubs was under the threshold in 2021 and thus counts as a first-time luxury tax offender.
The 2022-26 collective bargaining agreement not only saw the tax thresholds increase by a relatively significant margin — it also implemented a newly created fourth tier of penalization. For a reminder, the new thresholds are as follows:
- Tier One: $230-250MM (teams pay a 20% overage)
- Tier Two: $250-270MM (32%)
- Tier Three: $270-290MM (62.5% for first-time payors; 65% thereafter)
- Tier Four: $290MM+ (80%)
For second-time payors (i.e. Dodgers, Padres), those rates jump to 30%, 42%, 75% and 90%, respectively.
While those sound like substantial penalties at first glance, the actual amounts to be paid by most teams in excess of the luxury tax is relatively minimal. Those clubs are only taxed on dollars over the threshold, leading to often trivial sums of money (by the standards of a Major League franchise, anyhow). The Padres, for instance, are less than $3MM over the threshold, per the AP, so even with an increased 30% tax rate they’re only set to pay a bit more than $800K. The Red Sox are roughly $4.5MM over the threshold, putting them in line to pay about $900K in fees. The Phillies ($2.6MM) and even the Yankees ($9.4MM) are also looking at generally small sums, relative to their annual payroll marks.
The only two teams set to pay substantial sums are the Dodgers, who fall just shy of the fourth tier of penalization, and the Mets, who exceeded that tier by nearly $9MM. The Mets are in line to pay as much as $29.9MM in taxes, per the AP, while the Dodgers check in just slightly behind that sum at $29.4MM.
What the AP’s report does not delve into, however, are the other penalties associated with the luxury tax — which some teams view as more detrimental than the fiscal penalizations. Any club that exceeds the first tax threshold by $40MM or more will see its top pick in the following year’s draft pushed back 10 slots, for instance. With regard to the 2023 draft, that applies to both the Mets and the Dodgers.
Tax payors are also subject to stiffer slaps on the wrist when signing free agents who have rejected a qualifying offer and to diminished returns when losing such free agents. CBT payors who sign a “qualified” free agent stand to lose their second- and fifth-highest selections in the draft as well as $1MM from their league-allotted bonus pool for international free agency (which typically represents anywhere from roughly one-sixth to one-quarter of the total pool). That’s in contrast to revenue-sharing recipients, who forfeit only their third-highest pick, and to non-revenue sharing recipients/non-CBT-paying teams, who lose their second pick and $500K from that international pool.
More interesting with respect to this year’s group of luxury payors is the fact that a CBT-paying club who extends a qualifying offer to a free agent only stands to gain a compensatory pick after the fourth round of the 2023 draft. For a team that does not receive revenue sharing and does not pay the CBT, that pick would fall after Competitive Balance Round B — roughly 60 picks higher.
For a team like the Red Sox, who exceeded the tax by just $4.5MM, that means they’ll see their potential compensation for Xander Bogaerts — a lock to receive and reject a qualifying offer — shrink considerably. It also lessens the incentive to extend a qualifying offer to a more borderline candidate like Nathan Eovaldi, who’s been shelved for more than a month due to shoulder inflammation.
It also further welcomes scrutiny of Boston’s decision to hang onto veterans such as Eovaldi, Rich Hill and J.D. Martinez at the trade deadline. It’s certainly commendable that the club sought to remain in the Wild Card mix, but the Sox sent some mixed signals by trading Christian Vazquez (and to a much lesser extent, Jake Diekman) while simultaneously acquiring Tommy Pham and a paid-down-to-league-minimum Eric Hosmer. The Red Sox didn’t really commit to shattering the threshold in the name of an all-out postseason push in 2022 but also didn’t take the necessary steps to maximize their return in the event that Bogaerts departs in free agency. The result could be that their compensation for losing Bogaerts, a four-time All-Star who’s received MVP votes in four different seasons, will be a single draft pick somewhere in the 135 to 140 vicinity next summer. That’s not necessarily a franchise-altering outcome, but it’s also far from ideal.
At one point, the Padres might have faced similar considerations with regard to their own free agents, although they’ve sorted themselves out more organically. Joe Musgrove’s extension keeps him in San Diego and renders moot any considerations regarding a qualifying offer, though. Meanwhile, fellow starters Mike Clevinger and Sean Manaea looked like potential QO candidates at the time of the trade deadline but have struggled considerably in the second half, lessening the likelihood they’d receive a QO in the first place.
That diminished draft compensation, while not a deterrent for the Mets with regard to their roster construction, will be a reality they face this winter. With as many as four potential QO recipients — Jacob deGrom, Edwin Diaz, Chris Bassitt and Brandon Nimmo — they stand to see the return for those potential departures undercut in a meaningful way. Ditto the Dodgers, who’ll assuredly make a QO to Trea Turner and could at least ponder one for Tyler Anderson. The Yankees, too, have a slam-dunk QO recipient in their lineup (Aaron Judge) and borderline call in their rotation (Jameson Taillon). The Phillies don’t have much to consider with regard to potential qualifying offers.
All told, the six teams in question will pay a combined total of about $73MM in luxury fees, with the Mets and Dodgers accounting for the vast majority of that sum. The luxury tax will hit the Mets the hardest both in terms of actual dollars paid and in terms of return for recipients of the qualifying offer. Both the Padres and Dodgers were content to pay the tax in consecutive seasons, and given the extent by which the Mets exceeded the threshold this year, that’ll likely be the case for them in 2023 as well. Time will tell whether San Diego and Los Angeles are willing to incur an even steeper set of tax penalties as a third-time offender, and it’s certainly plausible that any of the Red Sox, Yankees and/or Phillies could look to dip back under the first tier of penalization next season, when the first-tier threshold increases to $233MM.
It’s amazing how mediocre this Red Sox team has been for being one of the top six in payroll
Is there still a way for a club tip-toeing on that first threshold line to get under it? If not, the decision not to get under it/trading away their chips at the deadline must have been an ownership decision. If not, it’s Bloom’s worst decision so far. I’ve been overall supportive but to lose draft spots and to be potentially penalized in ISM is inexcusable.
Dewey, there is no way at this stage. A very surprising set of moves/non-moves at the deadline.
Thank you
The penalty itself isn’t much. Being a potential repeat offender next season could throw a wrench into a rebuild on the fly strategy. This has been a long season. next year maybe as well.
Agreed on the repeat but I’m also concerned with the international slot money penalty as so many finds are coming from Latin America.
Until they get under the tax, any type rebuild end game will be drawn out. The potential loss of international slot money is definitely going to slow the process.. Good point. We’re going to need to embrace the shuttle bus rides back and forth to Worcester next year, Going over budget in order to finish fourth makes little sense.
When NESN ratings come out, I see Henry opening his wallet to generate excitement but with Bloom in charge it will be if it’s not re-signing their own, it will be big but younger fish that hit free agency early do they will mesh with the farm. Diaz to close comes to mind. Such is not something they’ve been known to do but ratings and fannies in the seats are important to ownership.
IMO, there is no way I would offer JD or Eovaldi a QO. I would not want either back. Plus JD had $6,500,000 remaining on his contract if traded at the deadline. As bad as he has played since the end of May, if I was a GM, I would have asked the Red Sox to pick up a significant portion of the salary or not give anything of value in return. Eovaldi had just just come off the IL and was pitching like $hit. He had almost $6,000,000 remaining on this year’s contract. They each would have fetched a NON prospect in return at best! Hill, was on the IL with $1,600,000 left…the Red Sox would have had to pay part of the salary for a team to take him and received a bag of used baseballs.
@JC#1 That NON prospect would have been leagues better than costing the Sox $6m down the stretch to hurt their draft position (both the position of their first rounder and the position of the Bogey comp pick), make them have to pay the highest penalty if they sign any QO free agents this offseason and potentially deter them from exceeding the luxury tax threshold in 2023. Sox should have taken what they could get for JD, Eovaldi and Hill. And never traded for Tommy Pham. And no, this isn’t just hindsight.
The Sox blew it at the deadline. I really like Bloom but I don’t know what the hell the plan was at this years deadline.
Bloom own words said they would not have gotten under the CBT. That tells you trade partners wanted the Red Sox to pay part or the majority of the remaining contracts ( unless you think Bloom lied!).
Trading Bogey would have gotten them under the CBT. And no one was demanding the Red Sox pay part of Bogey’s contract. The GM’s didn’t get to where they are today by insulting the other GM’s. If I’m Bloom I trade ALL the rentals.
Yeah Bloom is definitely a head scratcher. Don’t get that guy.
It’s also not the first or even second time this has happened with the Red Sox in recent years.
I think the Red Sox made a pretty large mistake by not trading away their potential free agents (Bogaerts, Martinez, Eovaldi etc) which to me is surprising considering their PBO came from the Rays. I understand there may have been some NTCs to consider and their record wasn’t as dire at the trade deadline as it is now but no one thought the Sox were a playoff team and they should have purged for prospects. Aside from Bogaerts, I cannot see any of their free agents declining a QO either.
With that said, they are not in a horrible spot, lots of payroll coming off the books, some farm hands are close to being ML ready and of course Sale, fingers crossed for Red Sox fans, being healthy. The Sox grab someone like Rodon and Turner, re-sign Martinez for a substantially lower sum and you right back into the mix.
Aren’t the Sox still holding the bag on David Price?
Price comes off after this year.
Half of it
Who are the other six?? Didn’t see it in the article
Cohen is a animal
Meow
You weren’t ever one of those posters decrying the Dodgers and Yankees for buying a winning team, right? =))
Where does this tax money go?
I could be wrong, but I believe under competitive balance, it gets split among the smaller market teams. I could be thinking of something else though.
I think it’s distributed 50/50 between mlb retired players fund n teams under the cap. Not significant at all for teams under cap.
It’s the 48% of the tv revenue that impacts the little revenue sharing mlb considers at all.
Da money goez to da gobmint fer edjukashun.
@puigpower Bob Nutting’s pocket
What I’m curious on, is in the case of the Mets and Dodgers for their top draft pick, is if they don’t sign a free agent that costs them their first round pick, does that still mean that their picks would fall to the 2nd round, seeing as how they’d be at the bottom of the first round anyhow? Just curious, seeing as how based on their record, they’d be at the bottom of the first round anyhow.
Will the past two years be refunded to the Dodgers if Trevor Bauer is not allowed to play?
Would that fall under the insurance policy they typically have?
No. He is on the Commissioners list, I believe. The decision on him has not been made yet..
He was suspended for two years and the Dodgers got off the hook.
By rights the Dodgers should receive a CBT credit for the salary paid to Bauer while he was placed under administrative suspension by the Commissioner’s office.
They do. according to Jeff Passan, it will not count against the CBT. As I undestand it, once suspended, he doesn’t count against the tax.
I mean from before, when he was on administrative leave but still being paid.
Nope. They aren’t getting back the money they paid him while he was on administrative leave and they haven’t paid him one cent since the suspension was issued so there is nothing to refund there.
The issue is not a refund; it’s a credit against their CBT total expenditures. It’s not fair to deprive the Dodgers of Bauer’s services while requiring them to both pay his salary and that of his replacement on the roster. Either let the Dodgers deduct Bauer’s salary from the CBT total, or at least the salary of his replacement. Otherwise the Dodgers are essentially being taxed twice.
Bauer’s “replacement” could then just be the lowest paid pitcher on the roster so that wouldn’t matter very much.
It does matter bc there are CBT ramifications this year and going forward as long as they’re over the threshold.
Where are the Yankees? That team that always spends more than every other team in baseball?
They haven’t been for awhile.
Read 0; post twice. Bold strategy
That is a bold strategy cotton! Let’s see if it pays off for him!!
It’s a bug. I post once and sometimes it will post my message as many as 3 or 4 times. I keep contacting MLBTR but it keeps coming back.
@pinterman. It’s time to update your profile on the Yankees. We call them the Mets now! =))
Where are the Yankees? That team that always spends more than any other team in baseball?
Teams like the Yanks and Cards always seem to have a competitive team! Winning a championships in today:s pro sports is a crap shoot with all the playoffs rounds. In the old days it would be the Dodgers and the Astros in the world series. Think about that, they are the best teams., buy the world series would already have been decided.
5 of the 6, as of right now, are playoff bound. Speaks volumes to me! Will/does this reality push other owners in to using the model!
No, because it is not feasible for most teams to do it with far less lucrative TV deals than the likes of Dodgers and NY teams. The economic imbalance is intentional to help major markets get in playoffs nearly every year so networks/advertisers okay with paying the big bucks. Most baseball fans are diehards for their own club, but don’t glue themselves to playoffs when they are not participating. Tougher model than nfl that gets huge casual fan viewership where they are all elimination games.
Sweet take! Thanks cws. And yes agreed “tougher model than NFL…”. But disagree because of why. Not because of “elimination games” angle but because of huge gambling activity/interest..
I understand your point, but the “economic imbalance” is not an imbalance at all, for two reasons:
1) Small market teams have their entire payrolls bankrolled by market/shared funds, and *choose* not to spend any more, or else they would be much closer in payroll to large markets; and,
2) They’ve been loaded with prospects, extra draft picks, and other compensation benefits that large markets don’t get, *forcing* large markets to keep spending on FAs to remain competitive, while many of these teams *voluntarily tank/rebuild for years* – a luxury the large markets don’t have. Then, to keep their costs nil, these small markets unload their arb guys for more prospects.
So, I’d argue that you’re argument of imbalance is slanted toward the smaller markets, if anything, because any and all spending by large markets results in substantial benefits (financial and prospects) to smaller market teams. Bottom line: small market owners are making money and have more interest in that than being competitive every year, or else they would be.
You highly overestimate the amount of revenue sharing money the small markets receive. There are arguably some exceptions, but in general, the small market teams don’t make any bigger profits than the large markets do.
Correct if so you would not see the struggles small market teams have – saving profits for years in order to get the right stadium for those corp suites and sponsorships. Large market teams do not have a problem cutting out a big check as down payment plus the larger support from their cities. Mlb is structured for big markets to make the playoffs. Keep the rich richer. It is sad when those big markets don’t spend as they should instead of pocketing extra cash for the owners. Dodgers n Padres aside
I understand your point, but I’m not speaking about revenue sharing – rather, I’m speaking about revenue sharing plus the amounts generated from the billions in television rights that get divided amongst all teams, when clearly, the large markets draw the most fans. It’s a huge money-maker for small markets.
I believe it was something like 60% of their revenue sharing profits were used to pay for the Pirates entire payroll. Other tanking teams have done the same for years. So, they’re not even using 100% of revenue sharing to put back into their roster and that’s *not* including the other profits generated by the team. It’s not nearly as dire as fans believe for “small markets.” Again, the term, “small” market is incredibly deceiving because they *all* share the biggest pot of money equally.
It’s still overall not all that much (not even the majority of any team’s total payroll), as only certain national TV money gets divided, and that’s only a 30-way split.
By far, the biggest sources of revenue are local TV rights, ticket/ballpark sales, and merchandise sales.
I understand your point n 3 things to consider – there will always be in every sport owners who are not as committed to winning as others and u can’t punish the group for those outliers! 2 – it’s 48% of tv revenue that is shared last know figure was a little over 100mm where some teams have a bunch more spend on international scouting and signing, saving for a stadium and other more important priorities – we can’t judge an owner n their management team cause they have a plan to compete. 3 – if you do that then top 8 teams should also be blowing thru luxury tax by a significant every year. Mlb is not equal income the rich are that much richer and that’s fine but small market teams have spend double on player development to compete
That has to be paid for too
Trust that each owners balance is properly managed – the Yankees lack of spending is as obvious as the pirates to me. Both outliers
Yes, but I think you’re missing the money – again EVERY SINGLE CLUB will receive a minimum of $100MM dollars from TV deals alone! Dude, that’s nearly double what teams roster payrolls are! So they are banking money. And they get top selections, literally every single year, stocking their farm systems. That’s not including all their other income sources, like the CBT money, and then merch, etc.
To pretend that these teams can’t compete is ridiculous. That’s precisely why their value (every team’s) has gone through the roof, including the perennially non-competitive Angels, whose value went up tenfold.
To say small markets don’t have the money, or that they can’t keep up with scouting, or whatever, is splitting hairs. They get to poach the annual draft class for its top talent and reap return on that, which is why teams keep doing it. It’s. A. Money. Maker.
What fans don’t realize is that these owners simply don’t care about winning as much as keeping a certain profit margin. They say poor and fans believe it, but it’s simply untrue. The largest percentage of money in MLB (TV contracts) get split between teams evenly – they’re splitting profits. Yes, Wen the Yankees lack spending because they should be spending more comparatively. But Hal’s profit margin won’t allow it. And, he’s not even the wealthiest owner. There are several teams’ owners wealthier than Hal.
dodgerblue.com/mlb-teams-receive-at-least-100-mill…
Wait, there are fans that think MLB franchise business owners put winning ahead of profit? Noooo……..maybe Steve Cohen right now, but he might be the only one.
Here you go:
‘So how does revenue sharing work?
‘Teams presently contribute 48 percent of all local revenues, including gate receipts, local TV revenue, concessions, parking, sponsorships, etc, and the funds are then divided equally among all 30 teams. Part of the rationale is that it takes two teams to put on a game, so both teams should share in the revenue generated by those games.
‘As a result, in 2018, each team received $118 million from this fund, according to baseball_reference with larger market teams putting in more and smaller market teams less. About half of teams are net recipients and the other half net payees. Teams also receive a share of national revenues, which were estimated to be $91 million per club in 2018, and they still have kept 52 percent of their own local revenues. And their payroll is how much?’
blessyouboys.com/2021/12/16/22831008/mlbs-revenue-…
I don’t know how the latest CBA may have altered this arrangement.
Yes, but you still can’t buy a championship! Injuries can put a wrench into any model!
True Slider, very true.
The Harlem Globetrotters pay the Washington Generals and everyone is happy.
Yeah but look where it got them…
Stranded on Gilligan’s Island
don’t worry, Scooby Doo and the Gang saved them
This just shows how much money these teams are making in profit in 22. The new streaming and next year the adds on uniforms adds to the pot. Yanks make over 700 million in revenue, and most teams have revenues of 400 plus.
Exactly, that’s precisely why the terminology, “small market” is such a misnomer when speaking about the financial aspects of this sport. It actually lends credibility to the false argument that these owners don’t have the money to spend and be competitive.
I know, I know, everyone is screaming, “Revenue is not profit!”, but there’s no indication these teams aren’t making money hand-over-fist, and I believe they all are.
We only know the profits for the two 2 teams owned by publicly traded corporations and both are over $450 million in revenue and both had a profit of 23% of greater in 2021.
Because of the new national and local TV and streaming deals and the new national sponsorship deals, no team will have revenue below $290 million this season. There is no excuse for any team having a payroll south of $140 million.
When a team like the A’s or Pirates has a payroll of $60.8 and $74.6 million respectively, that is an owner pocketing profit.
That does not mean that every team can spend $230 million. About half have the revenue to do that consistently. That there are only 6 that passed that relatively low number speaks volumes to how much profit the owners are making.
Pads Fan: Very well said. Great job with the numbers too… Really helps paint the picture regarding the monies *not* being put back into the teams.
slider32;
Revenue – Player Payroll = Money In The Owners Pocket
MLB…..the only business in America that has no expenses.
Vast generalizations always make me laugh.
Teams do not have uniform expenses on coaches/FO, debt service on their loans, RE taxes etc.
not only that but the owner gets a yearly 6 figure salary as CEO and President, his wife as a President of the fan club, his kids as Vice Presidents of marketing or social media or concessions, his sons in laws, his nephews and nieces… and they buy the team for $10 million and sell it 50 years later for $10 billion.
the players are making less of a percentage of the money the teams make now than they did before free agency started
After it’s all said and done, five of these six teams will head home WITHOUT a championship to show for their spending. Kind of makes you wonder…
Maybe all 6, if ATL or HOU or STL have a say in it.
Exile, that’s a great point, and further proof that the purported lie of economic inequity is misdirection.
If it were true, none of those teams would remain competitive each year because they’d be crushed by the “large markets,” yet Houston has run the AL since roughly 2017(?), STL is always competitive, & ATL are the current champions….. ‘nuff said.
That just shows that competitive balance is healthier than some people think, not the economics. Those are still mid-market teams that can spend pretty comfortably compared to the small market teams, and whenever a small market team has a competitive window, it’s in spite of their economics. In general, though, the teams that can spend more still have a big advantage over the ones who can’t
If course it is. Look at the big spenders this past off season with trades and signings. San Diego and Atlant (Texas should always be able to spend). Also teams like The Brewers and Cardinals always seem to find a way to pull off something big. Only a few teams like Oakland and the Florida teams truly are behind the eight ball.
…and Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, Cleveland, Kansas City, Baltimore, and even Milwaukee and Arizona to a degree.
Stros are #8 in payroll and Braves are #9, and Stros have usually been within the top 5 in payroll, but got Correa and Greinke off the books this year. For the most part you do need to spend, but there are exceptions such as Tampa Bay or Cleveland.
Again, they *can* spend, they just *choose not to.*
There’s a big difference – Lanidrac, you’re muddying the waters between the teams’ owners who voluntarily choose to spend as little as possible, with those other teams who choose to spend a significant amount. That’s not a “can’t spend,” that’s a “won’t spend,” and that’s the difference.
In terms of economic equity, you’re essentially admitting that there’s competitive parity, just not economic parity – who cares then? As long as the competitive balance is there, what’s the difference if one team spends more than another? You say they have advantages but I say teams that are permitted to load up on top prospects have a greater advantage.
No, aside from rare accusations that may or may not be true, most small markets indeed can’t spend more than they do and still make a decent profit. The shared revenue sources only go so far.
Yes, I said that competitive balance is still pretty good, so there’s no need to overhaul the system, but the fact remains that the small market teams are still at a heavy economic disadvantage and would be able to compete even better if they could spend more. The prospect advantages are far less in comparison, and they’re only able to do that by sacrificing any chances of winning for years at a time.
I would counteract this statement, by saying the vast majority of these teams spending will make the playoffs, bringing in a ton of profit of giving themselves a chance to win it all. Kind of makes you wonder…
This is no disrespect to excellent organizations like Atlanta, but there’s clearly a correlation to spending and winning. It’s just not the ONLY correlation.
For all there spending the Phillies are free falling now.
Where spending?
Yes. Looks like a nightmare, but they still have time to right the ship. And keep in mind they’re in a division with 2 teams that are going to have close to 100 wins.
I hope it stops soon.
29 of 30 go home without one too – championships are not the measure of success for billionaires – only for the fans… everyone complaining the Yankees have only won once since 2000 or haven’t won one in 13 years are ignoring the fact that half the teams in the majors haven’t won any championships this century. 1 championship every 30 years is the average.
They get bigger tv deals, charge more for everything and bring in more money. They all still win.
Wow. I had no idea the pick for Bogey would be so horrible. Terrible job by the Sox FO in managing the payroll. Terrible!
Expecting Houston vs Dodgers to the WS,, at the end,,, Atlanta is the champions
@Frankie Bani
I think the Blue Jays can upset Houston but I don’t see them winning the WS. The NL has far too many decent teams right now.
Interesting. Wasn’t the luxury tax the Padres’ excuse for why they paid Eric Hosmer’s contract down to the league minimum and attached two prospects to get Boston to take him rather than simply DFAing him? Clearly that was a lie.
I thought it was fairly well out in the open that the Padres did not want to give Hosmer 5 and 10 rights, which would have allowed him to veto any trade for the rest of his contract. He had a partial No-Trade clause at the time of the transaction, and Boston was a permissible destination. The date for 5 and 10 was coming up near the trade deadline, so SD acted to get him off the roster to clear his spot, and to get a once-favored draft pick in return (Jay Groome, whom the Padres coveted before the Red Sox snatched him away in the 2016 draft). They are only saving the league minimum for the next three years, but they have roster freedom from Hosmer w/o having to just drop him at full price for nothing in return. I think that was the incentive for the trade from SD’s end.
They are paying all but the league minimum of Hosmer’s contract. They DID “drop him at full price.” And 10-and-5 rights don’t forbid the team from DFAing you.
Wanna try again?
They got Jay Groome. Not nothing.
What nonsense the luxury tax is. Get rid of it and let the teams spend as they like. Far too many teams tanking as it is so I wouldn’t mind a contraction of some of the teams.
Old York;
Teams are not “tanking”.
MLB is not rotisserie league.
@samuel
I don’t know what that means. Professional sports teams don’t put the best teams they could on the field all the time because the reward isn’t worth the expenditure.
Spending 20 million dollars on a couple major leaguers to win 65 games instead of 62 isn’t really worth it. Youre lowering your bonus pool to acquire good young talent & you’re spending dollars on a team that isn’t going to go anywhere. The good teams will instead spend that money on player development and their infrastructure. But ultimately you could do neither and still get by making money in a monopoly like the MLB.
I personally would like the luxury tax to go away or be severely reduced. Spending 400 million dollars on players isn’t the way to sustainably build a team & I think the market would naturally correct.
Red Sox is hysterical
I’d still argue (and I know this isn’t popular) that, while monetary penalties make sense, draft pick penalties make less sense, especially if you are trying to reduce spending. When a big-spending team can’t draft/develop at a position, a few years later they are bidding up prices at that position.
I heard that Jeff Bezos in buying the Oakland A’s. Their new annual budgeted payroll will be about $500 million.
I hear the new team policy is no more bathroom breaks
I hear once he buys the A’s, the government will shut down the rest of the organizations and force everyone to only watch the A’s
I wonder if the MLB could implicate something where the continued teams to overstep the line where they lose their top prospect. Then the 5 lowest teams get to make a bid on them. Top bid gets them . Or something like that.
Gee the Pirates, A’s and Reds owners must already be figuring out what Yacht they can buy with the money they’ll get plus all the salary they’ll save by not spending any of that money on future talent.
Just curious, but does the Padres number take into account the Tatis suspension?
I believe it does
He isn’t making much money this year anyway.
With one heck of a hole to climb out of, Boston should sign veterans to flip and get under the CBT for 23. Focus on 24 when more of the farm can win jobs coming out of ST. Let the kids play, and don’t spend money on being marginally improved. That won’t cut it.
Seems to me the preventative measures currently in place aren’t working as intended..at least not in the eyes of some fans. Here’s a thought (and trust me, it’s not something I’ve spent a ton of time on..).
Some fans are upset with teams who can or are willing to spend spend spend, while others are upset with those who can’t, or simply refuse to. What about some level of salary matching for trades? If not “equal” salary going both ways, at least say..50%..going back. It will keep the rich teams from spending more, theoretically, while preventing the so called poor ones from just dumping salary (or claiming they can’t afford to sign a pending free agent) so they can get a bigger haul of revenue sharing or whatever.
The only thing that upsets me is that the Luxury Tax Money is supposed to go to the bottom dwellers so they can spend the money on payroll and talent but never does. Goes right from one billionaire to another.
Bob Nutting will be eagerly waiting for his share of the luxury tax, hand outs is all profit to him
Baseball’s biggest problem is the antitrust exemption. It’s prevented Mark Cuban, a Pittsburgh native, from buying the Irates and is the reason why no team has relocated to Nashville, San Antonio, or Charlotte, fresh, growing markets waiting to embrace MLB. It’s kept struggling franchises in dying markets like KC, TB and Oakland.
You hit on some good points here.
Also, MLB has mostly been a good ole boys club which prevents Mark Cuban from being accepted. Remember the deals back in 2001/2002 between the Red Sox, Marlins and Expos? The good ole boys club did the following:
Moved Jefferey Loria from Montreal to Miami…after he destroyed baseball in Montreal. He later betrayed the other owners when he padded his pocket with revenue sharing and refused to sell the team until he could maximize the potential sales return….after he swindled the City of Miami for the publicly funded stadium.
Moved John Henry from Miami to Boston. This is after Henry claimed to be too impoverished to afford to build his own stadium in Miami. He went on to spend more money on the Red Sox than it would’ve cost him to own the Marlins and build his own stadium. Prior to all of this, the NHL rejected Henry from owning the Tampa franchise because he never could give a straight answer about his finances and his intentions with the Tampa franchise…all the while whispers being that they knew a con artist when they heard one.
Prevented Mark Cuban from purchasing any of the three franchises that he wanted to bid on – Red Sox, Marlins and Expos. They even opted to own the Expos until they found someone else.
Prevented Gustavo Cisneros from purchasing the Marlins, even after he showed he had the funds to purchase them and build his own stadium. He also informed MLB and the City of Miami that he was going to make the Marlins his feature sports team on his Latin American media franchise, and would’ve had the team maintain a team branded/named stadium without selling the rights (for example, Marlins Park).
Refused to allow bidders in Montreal to attempt to purchase the Expos.
Good point should definitely move out of the Tampa/Orlando/Sarasota area and move to an area that isn’t as big as either of the 3.
The Cardinals revenues this season should be high, even for them. While their local TV deal is decent ($ 90 million per year, plus they own 20% of BSMW) they projected 2.7 million fans this year and will get closer to 3.3 million fans. That’s probably 40 million they weren’t budgeting for.
Of course, that’s what contending does. And throw in the Pujols 700 chase and Waino and Yadi’s exploits it’s not THAT hard to see them doing better than anticipated there.
We now know which teams ESPN will feature on Sunday night next year. All the luxury-tax teams plus the Cardinals and the Cubs.
Glad the Pirates were able to avoid the list. Probably touch and go but in the end they missed it.
Sad to see all these broke ass Yankee fans complaining about revenue sharing with Tampa when the team is too poor to compete with the Mets and Dodgers.
If that were actually happening you might have a point. I see one poster trying to explan why smaller markets aren’t as poor as they make out, both in dollars and prospects. Hardly what you describe. But you be you.
Throwing this out there as idea to build on maybe.
There is a not a salary floor but instead salary review under certain conditions. If you are eligible for revenue sharing but place say bottom 3rd for multiple years maybe 3 or 4 then revenue/profits must be submitted to either a team/mlbpa council or an independent broker to review if the team is spending a reasonable amount based on profits. If not then remove the revenue share, lower picks, lower bonus pool etc etc. If they are a repeat offender of this review put it up to a vote on if the team needs to be relocated or the owner has to sell in a reasonable amount of time (maybe a year).
I take no offense if you think this is dumb or good idea, but it is an idea. Just thinking of a way to balance out the top end and the bottom end.
This just makes the Red Sox look more incompetent. If you are over the threshold and believe you are in it then trade for pieces you need. If you don’t believe it they should have dealt Martinez and Eovaldi at a MINIMIUM. Get under the threshold and get some more prospects. If they don’t resign Bogaerts it is going to just compound the situation.
They have almost $100 million coming off the books. If they lose Bogaerts it is another $20 million. They have plenty to keep Bogaerts and Devers and use the rest on pitching. You have to figure they will have somewhere between $50 to $70 million to spend next year.
Playoffs baby!
PS:
Phillies, and Brewers fans-
Go to Hell!.
OKTHANXBYE!
Harsh
John Henry & The Fenway Sports Group aught to be embarrassed for their quarter million dollar payroll & overage last place finish. With players like Aaron Judge, Jacob deGrom, Bassitt, Trea Turner & Otani available using various methods not to mention Devers…(let Bogey & JD Go) better spend big…
1 or 2 SP
1 or 2 OF
Bullpen revamp
Devers
Turner
Sign Arroyo to 6yr/12mil
Are the priorities
I have about had it as have RedSox Nation. I may excuse myself from 2023 & put the wallet away for all things touching the RedSox if a serious effort is not made. Embarrassing 100%
The luxury tax should be paid by teams like the cubs because they do nothing to help MLB but benefit from the money spent by the dodgers , Yankees etc.
I wonder if San Diego would be willing to swap Blake Snell for Chris Flexen. Snell grew up in Seattle and Flexen in California. The swap would save the Friars $8M and put them under the cap. Both pitchers are going to be Free Agents at the end of the 2023 season and might be more likely to resign if they were closer to home.