Earlier today, we learned that Shohei Ohtani’s $700MM contract with the Dodgers has a stunning deferral structure: he’ll earn a mere $2MM in each of the ten seasons he’s agreed to play baseball for the club, and then $68MM per year from 2034-43.
Based on what I’ve seen on social media tonight, a lot of baseball fans think the purpose of these deferrals is for the Dodgers to “dodge” the competitive balance tax (yes, t-shirts are already being drawn up). Here’s why that’s wrong.
The collective bargaining agreement has a section for calculating the CBT hit for a contract that includes deferred money. According to reports, that calculation works out to a $46MM average annual value and accompanying CBT hit for the Dodgers and Ohtani. As you can see here, $46MM tops Max Scherzer’s previous AAV record of $43,333,333.33. It’s $6MM beyond Aaron Judge’s $40MM AAV, which was the highest for a player on a deal of more than three years.
Not only is $46MM a record AAV, but it’s entirely in line with expectations. MLBTR predicted a $44MM AAV for Ohtani. Most other prognosticators were in that range. In fact, the median Ohtani AAV prediction of the other six outlets we’re tracking was $45,984,849. It would be almost impossible for Ohtani’s luxury tax AAV to have met expectations any harder.
The problem is the initially reported $70MM AAV. That was the first number people saw, and it gets ingrained for fans after being seen in thousands of headlines. The agent certainly didn’t mind. Though news of significant deferred money quickly followed and ESPN’s Jeff Passan narrowed it down to $40-50MM yesterday, more precise numbers weren’t known until today.
There was enough time for the shocking $700MM and $70MM figures to take hold. So it’s logical for some fans to say the Dodgers are paying Ohtani $70MM a year but “getting away with” just a $46MM CBT hit. However, I’d argue that the $70MM figure was never “real,” in that it dwarfs expectations and there’s no current indication that any team offered anything close to that AAV without huge deferrals. The $46MM AAV is what matters. Ohtani moved the AAV record forward as expected, but only by about six percent rather than an insane 62%.
MLB does have the power to stop teams from circumventing the CBT, but this doesn’t qualify. In fact, it is explicitly allowed. As Passan explained tonight, the CBA specifically says, “There shall be no limitations on either the amount of deferred compensation or the percentage of total compensation attributable to deferred compensation for which a Uniform Player’s Contract may provide.” This is just my opinion, but perhaps if the deferrals led to a luxury tax AAV below $35MM or so on Ohtani, MLB might have considered it a tax dodge, but not for a record $46MM.
Ah, but what about Jon Heyman’s report a year ago about how the Padres “were contemplating” a 14-year offer for Aaron Judge that would’ve taken him through age 44? About that, Heyman noted, “sources say they would not have been allowed, as MLB would have seen the additional years as only an attempt to lower their official payroll to lessen the tax.”
MLB would’ve been right – there would be no other reason to pay Judge through age 44. Teams are loathe to pay players that far into their careers, and of course the vast majority of players do not have MLB careers at age 44. Our MLB contract tracker goes back to 10-1-10, and the only contracts of three or move years that even went through age 41 were for Albert Pujols and Yu Darvish. So there’s simply no precedent for paying Judge three years longer than that. Furthermore, even based on Heyman’s reporting, none of this actually happened: Heyman did not report that the Padres made a 14-year offer or that MLB actually tried to stop something. Just that they would (I’d say “might”) have stopped it. As I was contemplating how long Ohtani’s contract might go, I think you could at least make a case to go through age 42.
All that said, Ohtani’s contract structure does present a big advantage to the Dodgers. I mean, they’re actually paying him $2MM a year. Many arbitration eligible utility players or relievers make more. Paying Ohtani so little seems ludicrous in that sense, even if it is within the rules. A team’s CBT payroll uses the average annual value of each contract, and that determines their luxury taxes. But teams also operate off real payrolls, where a player on a two-year, $20MM deal might actually be paid $5MM in the first year and $15MM in the second despite his $10MM CBT hit.
The Dodgers have a certain budget or target with that real payroll, and instead of paying Ohtani $46MM on that payroll, they’re actually paying him less than Austin Barnes. That means, in theory, the Dodgers can more easily afford to add more quality players, such as Yoshinobu Yamamoto.
So, is this a problem? Does deferring 97.1% of a huge contract mean baseball is broken, and does it represent a major point of contention when the CBA expires after the 2026 season? Lindsey Adler of the Wall Street Journal wrote tonight, “According to league and union sources, MLB has proposed limiting deferrals in prior CBA negotiations, but the MLBPA has declined those limits because deferrals allow a player flexibility that allows a contract to be worth, let’s say, $700 million instead of $460 million.”
When this came up previously in CBA talks, it was probably more of a “nice to have” for MLB, but not something for which they’d actually make a concession to the MLBPA. The MLBPA won’t want to give this up, for the handful of players who actually want their payment deferred 20 years into the future. As you know, money is worth more now than it is in the future, so players have not exactly been clamoring to wait until retirement age to receive 97.1% of their contract. I’m sure deferred money will come up in the next CBA talks, and may even be eliminated, but one player doing it does not translate to a hot button issue or something where billions of dollars hang in the balance. They’ll find more consequential things to fight about.
Ohtani can do this because he is not a normal MLB player, and he rakes in significant endorsement money every year. And as The Athletic’s Fabian Ardaya and Evan Drellich explain, Ohtani’s choice on deferrals gives the Dodgers payroll flexibility to add other players and may give him a tax benefit if he isn’t living in California when the $68MM salaries start rolling in.
As Jack Harris of the L.A. Times notes, Ohtani “took this approach…with all the teams he negotiated with.” Given that Ohtani’s contract roughly equates to a 10-year, $460MM deal, I’d argue that he’s chasing rings a lot more than he’s chasing every last dollar. Any team could have done this deal, but Ohtani wanted to play for the Dodgers.
The combination of Friday’s shaky reporting suggesting Ohtani was heading to the Blue Jays, plus an unprecedented contract structure, seems to be leading some fans to villainize him. I think that’s a shame, because he has been squeaky-clean off the field and remains a generational and thrilling player.
gardyparty
Finally.
all in the suit that you wear
Are all teams financially capable of making this type of deal? Can all teams afford to start paying one player $68M per year for 10 years starting in 2034? If not, the rules need to be changed so the richer teams don’t get a break on their CBT calculations because their higher revenue streams allow more deferred payments. Maybe all teams can afford to do this, but I don’t see it at the moment.
Habitual Truth Teller
You don’t even need to do that.
You could offer 120 mill over the course of 40 years and for 40 years a player receives 3 mill.
120 mill is more than 68 mill and it’s guaranteed income for rest of your life.
gammaraze
I’m sorry, did you just compare the two by comparing an entire $120M contract to a SINGLE YEAR of a $700M contract??
Yes, 120 > 68, but 120 < 680 … it helps if you use the right numbers.
divac7
See Bobby Bonilla contract.
MLB Top 100 Commenter
Jobu
Your logic assumes a 0% loan rate and interest rate and 0% inflation.
The last time I check, homes sell now for more than they did 30 years ago. Milk costs more. Gas costs more. Generally, a dollar today is worth more than a dollar in 30-40 years.
The best comparison is the lottery winner. They can take the full payout over decades or get maybe 50%-60% in a lump sum up front. Just think of most MLB players as toaking the lumpsum and Ohtani took the payout over time.
I have an undergraduate degree in economics which qualifies me to drive a taxi and also to make this post.
Ignorant Son-of-a-b
@Manny You and me both buddy! Right on. Microeconomics is rad.
MoneyBallJustWorks
it’s been reported his contract has no interest being calculated so your comparison isn’t exactly correct since regardless of if house prices go up or down, he’s getting the same money. it will just go further or (in all likelihood) less far in the future.
the major benefit to Shohei is that by the time he gets the biggest chunk, he may be back in Japan saving on tax dollars.
but for right now, while it’s good for him, good for the Dodgers, it’s still bad for the league and renders the CBT essentially useless.
slydevil
lol- you haven’t worked in multiple states. You have to abide by the state the company that is paying you at (not the same as where a company is from, so like a Target in NY is making you pay NY taxes not MN) Live in say Nevada, but work in CA and you’re paying Ca taxes.
Yeah, if the dodgers move to Japan he’d save tax money.
I one time had to pay four state taxes. The IRS and state govts didn’t care which state I resided in, just where the check came from.
Fever Pitch Guy
Manny – Your lottery winner reference is a fantastic analogy.
Bottom line is if Ohtani refused to have any of the contract deferred, he wouldn’t have gotten anywhere near $700M.
Fever Pitch Guy
Money – THANK YOU for mentioning the tax aspect which nobody had.
For tax purposes, he’s earning $2M a year from 2024-2033 and that’s all he will ever get taxed on in California if he decides to retire as a player and move out of state after 2033.
If he for instance decides to retire as a player and move to Texas or Florida after 2033 then he wouldn’t pay a dime in state or local tax on the $68M a year he will earn from 2034-2043. I’m sure the state of California is aware of this and is probably fuming about it.
Fever Pitch Guy
sly – You’re right about working in another state, but you seem to be confused about the amount that would be taxable while he’s playing.
While he’s playing he’s earning just $2M a year, therefore that’s all he’s getting taxed on.
He won’t get taxed retroactively on the $68M, he will get taxed on it when he actually gets the money which won’t be until 2034-2043. At that time he will get taxed according to wherever he’s living.
I.M. Insane
Did Bonilla’s contract violate the luxury tax? Oh, right. They didn’t have one then.
OIC2021
Sorry, but Ohtani got taken on this contract.
showman
He can’t legally evade taxes by moving to Japan. The money was earned in the United States
showman
Wrong
showman
Wrong. California and the United States will tax him regardless
Fever Pitch Guy
OIC – Ohtani is a nice guy, but he’s also intelligent. He’s making out better financially than you realize.
Fever Pitch Guy
showman – You never provided a source.
I provided a source that says you’re wrong, if he moves to another state in the US after 2033 then he doesn’t pay Cali taxes.
Not a coincidence Ohtani’s deferral payments will be over ten years.
Now you provide a source or admit you’re wrong.
turbotax.intuit.com/tax-tips/tax-payments/strategi…
• If you take your deferred compensation payments over a period of 10 years or more, those payments will be taxed in the state where you reside, rather than in the state in which you earned the compensation, possibly reducing your state income taxes.
Fever Pitch Guy
sly – You are 100% wrong!
You know why so many people are flocking to Texas and Florida?
Because you can work 100% remotely while living in those states, and not have to pay any state income tax.
You can work for a Cali employer, while living in Florida, and not pay a dime in state income tax.
If you’re thinking of the Jock Tax, which does go by where you compete athletically, that’s a whole ‘nother type of tax.
You people really need to get your facts straight.
Fever Pitch Guy
showman – If you’re thinking of Federal taxes only, then please say so.
Federal taxes is very different from state taxes.
Red Sox fan Eric
I don’t think any one realizes he’s going to be making 50 plus million in sponsorship and advertising. And I’m sure he has a good tax accountant so he will be paying much less in taxes than you think.
showman
I showed you the California tax code. Just take your L and move on. “California taxes compensation received by a nonresident for performance of services in California.”
MoneyBallJustWorks
yes but he’s not providing a service after he’s retired
Fever Pitch Guy
showman – I already educated you on the definition of “source”.
I already pointed out your source didn’t mention ANYTHING about deferred payments.
And I already asked you nicely to behave like an adult by stopping the namecalling.
If you think I’m wrong, PROVE ME WRONG. So far you have failed to do so.
Fever Pitch Guy
Eric – Tim references the sponsorship and advertising income in his above article. Although he doesn’t attach a dollar amount to it, he does call it “significant”.
milts plums
I have a physiology pre-med degree. I am not a doctor, nor do I work in any capacity near my degree. I did, however, stay in a Holiday Inn last night. So I guess I can hang a shingle.
Fever Pitch Guy
showman – Just as I figured, you know you’re wrong and can’t come up with anything to dispute my source on DEFERRED INCOME.
Did you even read Tim’s article? You gonna tell him he’s wrong too? So you’re saying I’m wrong, Tim’s wrong, the TurboTax CPA is wrong, Fabian Ardaya is wrong, and Evan Drellich is wrong.
EVERYBODY BUT YOU THE GUY WITH NO DEFERRED INCOME SOURCE are wrong, THAT’S what you are saying?
Carry on dude, keep digging that hole.
Provide something to dispute all of us, otherwise I’m done with you.
“And as The Athletic’s Fabian Ardaya and Evan Drellich explain, Ohtani’s choice on deferrals gives the Dodgers payroll flexibility to add other players and may give him a tax benefit if he isn’t living in California when the $68MM salaries start rolling in.”
TBaggins
Japanese tax rate is 45% on his 100 Billion yen.
Fever Pitch Guy
Money – He’s clueless, he probably doesn’t even realize traditional IRA’s are a form of deferred income that are taxed based on where you’re living when you retire.
showman
Ah, but I have proved you wrong. 1) “Your ‘source’ didn’t mention anything about deferred payments.” Well, I guess you didn’t read any of it because the very first line states “This publication provides information on the current method for computing tax if you are a nonresident or part-year resident of California and how to calculate loss carryovers, deferred deductions, and DEFERRED INCOME if you: Have always been a California nonresident. Change residency from California (move out).Change residency to California (move in).” So yes, this document does cover deferred income. And the tax board made quite clear that nonresident income is taxable by California if the services were performed there, as in the present case. Thanks for playing. 2) “I educated you on the definition of a source” Well let me educate you, son. When discussing law, sources are legal or government publications- the relevant code or statues or applicable case law. Some guy’s blog or random website you found with no citations is not a valid source on what is or is not the law.
showman
The source I gave you literally is on deferred income. You just don’t know how to read. “This publication provides information on the current method for computing tax if you are a nonresident or part-year resident of California and how to calculate loss carryovers, deferred deductions, and DEFERRED INCOME”. Do me a favor, son. Stop quoting blogs and Tweets and TikToks and quote me a legal statue, government publication, or case law that backs up your argument. “California taxes compensation received by a nonresident for performance of services in California.” It doesn’t get much clearer than that. Good game. Thanks for playing.
ckc12537
Well, duh. Japan taxes on income worldwide, regardless of source.
A'sfaninLondonUK
@pretty much everyone on here
Do you think that, if the contract had been announced, as carefully and delicately as all the “meetings” leading up to it, and had been announced at $460 million with deferrals rather than as $700 million – essentially none of us – myself included – would have reacted other than to say “that’s about right given his injury record.”
And not really give a toss?
ckc12537
What about the net present value of that?
Habitual Truth Teller
No I was talking about deferred money
ckc12537
Yes, what is the net present value of $3 million annually for 40 years?
Wisdom shared
Nice double talk, but Ohtani’s contract isn’t 10 – 468M. The Dodgers are paying him 2M a year for 10 years or 20 million. Even if the luxury tax hit is 46.8M per year, it is just over half and the team is fiddling the books to justify the expense so they can sign even more top name free agents. To be blunt, the 700m is from 2023 until 2045 or a 22 year contract, not a 10 year deal and when San diego wanted to do that with Judge, it was vetoed. Either all players are seen as equal employees or they aren’t where some can exploit the system and for 99 percent of the players, they have to live within the rules.
Ron123 2
Wrong.Only if you’re working not retired
PittPirate22
The source he cited was reviewed by a CPA. Are you a CPA?
biff_pocoroba
I am. You want to blow everyone’s minds? It’s not even all allocated to CA. Athletes have to split their income between states in which they play. Six games in Arizona? Allocate 6/162 to AZ. Three in Atlanta? 3/162 to GA. There’s more to those allocations, but you get the point.
greenbaygiants
Don’t be so sure. California is already working on an “exit tax” that would lay claim to 10 years of income tax after a California resident moves out of the state. Their justification is that living in California made it possible for the former resident to earn a high income. I don’t think such a law would pass legal muster, but never underestimate California politicians’ thirst for increased tax revenue.
FatnHappy
California is passing an exit tax.. if you leave and make wore than 15 million your gonna get taxed. Deferrment is an accounting game.. the rich are getting richer…. this was all to get around the League limits… Ca Franchise Tax does not play games. I bet tax rates will be much higher in the future than today.
FatnHappy
1099 . shohei isnt a 1099
Phree4u
Not really
He basically got a 10yr/460 million dollar contract
Instead of taking that, he opted for 680 million paid later
Phree4u
He will pay federal income tax and then any state/ country(of in Japan or elsewhere)taxes depending on where his residence is at the time the check is cashed.
Halo11Fan
FatNhappy.
Two million a year with the rest deferred? Unless there is more going on here, that stinks to high heaven.
Unless something else is revealed, Ohtani has tarnished his image for millions of fans.
HankHollywood
He wont be in California to perform any services when that deferral pays…. if he is he will have to pay the tax.
PoisonedPens
Absolutely, and game checks are broken down to reflect as such; so if you’re being paid weekly and the previous week includes a road trip to say, Seattle, Chicago and Houston; your paycheck for that week will show the appropriate state income (or lack thereof) deductions for each of those locations.
Hexbreaker
@OIC2021
The contract was Ohtani’s idea.
gardyparty
I have no idea except to say that the deferral options are the same to every team, as long as the player agrees to accept a less-valuable dollar in the future lol. Most don’t!
all in the suit that you wear
Deferral is not an option if you can’t afford it. How many teams can start paying one player $68M per year for 10 years starting in 2034? How many teams besides the Dodgers can afford to defer this much money?
Habitual Truth Teller
How many teams could afford 200 mill in deferred payments over 40 years? A lot actually
Tigers3232
@all in, they won’t just all of a sudden start having to come up with $68M in 2034. The MLB requires teams to fund the principal needed for projected growth each season on any deferred $. So they will be paying out quite a bit more than $2M annually to fund the deferred monies. And the $46M AAV luxury tax figure is true value when shrinking all the money being paid put to its value over the next 10 seasons.
The issue here as was very well articulated in this article, is that people are clinging to the $70M figure without understanding how finances are accrued $ works. It also seems quite clear many don’t understand the rules MLB has in place for when and how these deferrals have to be funded
Fever Pitch Guy
suit – I think Tim is awesome and I agree with him 99% of the time, but he’s dead wrong about any team being able to give out a contract like this.
If teams like Cincy and Pittsburgh can’t afford more than $85M payrolls now, they sure as heck wouldn’t be able to afford paying one person $68M annually to NOT play for them from 2034-2043.
Tigers3232
@Fever, the true cost of this contract had had no deferrals and the $ paid upfront for Ohtani to invest himself would be roughly $460M/10 years. True some teams might not be able to afford this or are unwilling to. But when broken down to true value it is not all that egregious compared to other mega deals.
Tim Dierkes
Yeah, that’s reasonable pushback. I do think it’d be a stretch for some clubs, although we kind of have to take their word for it.
Fever Pitch Guy
gardy – Most don’t because they are all Freddie Mercurys …. they want it all, and they want it now!
Fever Pitch Guy
Tigers – I completely agree with you and had already posted Ohtani wouldn’t have received anywhere near $700M if he had refused to defer any of the money.
But still, realistically at least a third of MLB couldn’t afford to give Ohtani this sort of contract.
The additional revenue to go against the contract wouldn’t be there in cities like Cincy, Pittsburgh, Cleveland, etc.
LA is a massive market with the largest Japanese population in North America, therefore revenue from his signing will be substantially more than many other markets.
nukeg
This is a :very: unique circumstance for a very unique player. He’s basically Michael Jordan in Japan and will be paid as such. He doesn’t :need: his MLB salary right now. Very few players will ever be in this scenario.
That being said, because it is so unique and has such high figures attached to this contract, it just doesn’t come off right to the average non Dodgers fan. It feels slimey, like some used car salesman devised this plan. Right or wrong, Shohei and the Dodgers are going to have to wear it.
iml12
Like you said, they are paying the Michael Jordan of baseball nothing for a decade. This is allowing a team that already has the ability to spend more than every other team an extra 40+ million dollars a year to commit towards payroll. It’s also saving them 30 million CBT value a to avoid that third tier where the penalties start to hurt. It’s certainly legal but it’s also ridiculous, stupid, and probably bad for baseball.
Ma4170
Then the simple question is why not just a 10/460 contract? Its clear this was a way to get him more money and lessen the tax hit. Of course their whole goal was blow him away financially, have the MLBPA use “10/700” as a reference point for other elite players in the future, and minimize the luxury tax hit so they can buy more players, which mlb and mlbpa have a vested interest in them doing.
filihok
aitstyw
“How many teams besides the Dodgers can afford to defer this much money?”
Probably all of them
filihok
nukeg
“it just doesn’t come off right to the average non Dodgers fan. It feels slimey, like some used car salesman devised this plan. Right or wrong, ”
The average fan, though, is pretty ignorant about things like finance and present value
The Dodgers aren’t “wearing” anything
It’s like saying a biologist has to wear the results of their research because the average person doesn’t understand it
filihok
Ma
“Then the simple question is why not just a 10/460 contract? Its clear this was a way to get him more money and lessen the tax hit”
How is the team being charged $46 million towards the CBT on a $2 million dollar payment lessening the tax hit? Seems like a big increase to me
It’s also not really more money. The value of $700 million paid out on the time table Ohtani is being paid is $460 million. Those are equivalent numbers.
ckc12537
The Dodgers are gambling $2 million per year that their success 2024 to 2033 will pay for $46 million per year 2034 through 2043. And tbh? The Dodgers probably have large assets stored in investment banking, so they’re probably well hedged to exceed inflation through the next ten years.
nukeg
@fili, just in one day the Dodgers have sent the internet ablaze. I’m a Shohei fan, but I realize there is now and will continue to be pushback on this. As Spring Training approaches, everyone will move on and focus on their teams, but this will follow Shohei and the Dodgers throughout the season.
Ma4170
@fili yes charged $46m on 2m annually now, then charged no tax hit on 68m over 10 years later so they definitely make out
Yes, NPV was calculated, but thats also an approximation. We don’t know what interest rates will be like over the next 10 years – will they be low like the 2010s or high like the last few years? But again, the bottom line is MLBPA and the players will reference this as a 10/700 contract to maximize money for top players from here. Its also clear the dodgers are gaming the system a bit bc theyll now go sign another top FA, so they clearly have the money currently.
Halo11Fan
Fil… It’s smart.
Forty six million is more than fair. What ticks me off is the two million a year.
I’ve said this before, it makes a mockery out of CB portion of CBT.
People have made up their minds about this, but at the very least, it has alienated millions of baseball fans against both Ohtani and the Dodgers.
I think to most fans, this stinks.
JoeBrady
it has alienated millions of baseball fans against both Ohtani and the Dodgers.
=========================
They are alienated because they don’t understand it. There is nothing that can be done about that.
DroppedThirdStrike
How many teams could afford to pay him $46 million/ year in todays dollars? Only a handful. The Dodgers are paying him $46 million a year in tomorrows dollars, which aren’t worth as much, so had to tack on some to make them equivalent. That’s Ohtani’s market value and always has been his estimated value since before he was a free agent. It’s not an overpay in deferred dollars, it’s an equal pay, compensating for decrease in dollar value over time.
Bottom line: if you can’t afford $68 mil a year in 10 years, you can’t afford $46 mil a year today, and were always out of contention for Ohtani
DroppedThirdStrike
They were never in on him.
Real easy:
10/$70 mil per season structured like the Ohtani deal = 10/$46 mil normal.
There’s no witchcraft here
filihok
DTS
“year in todays dollars? Only a handful. The Dodgers are paying him $46 million a year in tomorrows dollars, which aren’t worth as much, so had to tack on some to make them equivalent. That’s Ohtani’s market value and always has been his estimated value since before he was a free agent. It’s not an overpay in deferred dollars, it’s an equal pay, compensating for decrease in dollar value over time”
They are paying him $46 million in today’s dollars. They are paying him $68 million in tomorrow dollars to make up the difference
“Bottom line: if you can’t afford $68 mil a year in 10 years, you can’t afford $46 mil a year today, and were always out of contention for Ohtani”
This is correct, though
Aiden Awe
I think more teams should do this tbh. I said wtf when the contract was announced. Now I understand the contract a bit better.
gww4488
Not too many players would accept these terms, as the value of the dollar will be worth less each year, and not too many players can take the deferred money to a place where they
don’t pay taxes on it when they Retire
JoeBrady
Now I understand the contract a bit better.
==========================
You might be the only person on this thread to say that. Congrats!
DroppedThirdStrike
Got it backwards. Thanks
PoisonedPens
Plus the Dodgers have to pay the deferred money into escrow every year; so you don’t end up with the player owning the team when they can’t pay, like Mario Lemieux and the Pittsburgh Penguins (which he did okay on long-term)
bkbk
The point that is upsetting everyone that no one has articulated is that it’s basically leveraged watch disparity. It’s one thing to make a bet on an expensive player, it normally comes with consequences. Large part of payroll, maybe the player doesn’t work out? Now, the rich teams can mitigate half of the consequences that come with signing an expensive player that at least gave smaller market times a chance.
It’s legal, but it definitely compounds the existing gulf between squads.
bkbk
*wealth
The analogy is that the dodgers are taking a loan against the fact that they will always be rich and have a huge spending window.
gardyparty
But we all can do it, man, all our teams. It’s no more inequal than standard regional/commercial economic disparity. Which isn’t a great bar, admittedly, but come on. I mean, it gives us something to argue about tonight, but if people file this among “Actual Grievances,” it’s such a drag. I guess as a neutral in terms of these teams, I don’t have a leg to stand on, it’s just such a gross and unnecessary detour.
iverbure
The point that the upset ignorant people don’t seem to understand, is baseball revenue is driven by the large market teams so nobody in the game wants to handcuff the large markets into not spending. The owners of the small markets want the big markets to spend lots and field a competitive team because they’ll get more revenue sharing, the players want them to spend lots because that drives player salaries up, the league wants the big markets to win and be competitive because the big markets are where they get the best viewership. If you can’t understand it’s better for the game the large markets operate like this then you aren’t that smart as a fan.
Fever Pitch Guy
bk – You are 100% correct.
It’s easier to gamble big when you have a lot more money to gamble.
Michael Jordan would gamble and lose nearly a million dollars in one night at a CT casino, but he could afford it.
Nearly everyone else on this planet can’t afford to gamble that much.
KP23
I think all that needs to be said is that they admittedly are deferring money for the sole purpose of lowering the tax hit so they can add more players.
It’s right there and we all can agree this is the only reason they are doing this.
Fever Pitch Guy
gardy – That sounds like something the real Gardy would write.
Just sayin’ …… ;O)
filihok
KP23
“I think all that needs to be said is that they admittedly are deferring money for the sole purpose of lowering the tax hit so they can add more players.
It’s right there and we all can agree this is the only reason they are doing this.”
Can’t admit that at all. It’s not true
If Ohtani had signed for 10/$460 no one would bat an eye
This contract is equivalent to 10/$460. So, that’s how it’s taxed
KP23
It’s not though, it’s 700 million over 10, that’s pretty clear. Why won’t people just call it 10/460?
If anyone ever gets to see that contract, until then it’s 700 over 10.
KP23
Fili,
So we can’t agree that it’s a deferred contract with the sole purpose of lowering a luxury tax hit?
Gasu1
No, it’s a $460M/10 contract, but the Dodgers took out a $240M loan to make payroll. They did it for cashflow purpose. Ohtani got the record $460M contract he actually, arguably deserved, rather than the silly number that’s reported. Think of it like a mortgage. You take out a $500K mortgage and that’s the money that you get; but the bank gets hundreds of millions in interest.
Tim Dierkes
Well, not for lowering the tax hit. For lowering their actual payroll.
ckc12537
Except it isn’t $700 million over 10. It’s $2 million per year for 10 seasons, then $68 million per year for 2034-2043. Tim’s article is well-written and I feel ashamed that I was initially upset and critical of the contract. It’s actually brilliant.
filihok
KP
“It’s not though, it’s 700 million over 10, that’s pretty clear. Why won’t people just call it 10/460?
If anyone ever gets to see that contract, until then it’s 700 over 10.”
No, it isn’t
It’s $700 over 20
Which has a present value of $460
If your job offered you $700,000 to work for the next ten years and paid you $2,000 for the next ten, would you tell people you were making $70,000 next year? Would you think it was for to be taxed on $70,000 next year?
filihok
KP23
“So we can’t agree that it’s a deferred contract with the sole purpose of lowering a luxury tax hit?”
Nope
norcalblue
Brilliant #filihok. Many, many thanks for taking the time and energy to use the simple financing facts of the contract to correct the disinformation being thrown at the wall here.
Halo11Fan
I think you’re hung up on the word Tax in CBT, and I’m hung up on the words Competitive Balance.
This 44 million dollar payroll flexibility makes a mockery out of the intent of the CBT.
I hope they close this loophole, but then again, who but Ohtani could afford to take this contract.
Fever Pitch Guy
KP – As many have pointed out, it could also benefit Ohtani by his paying less tax.
filihok
H11F
“This 44 million dollar payroll flexibility makes a mockery out of the intent of the CBT.”
1) how about the $68 million they are paying after Ohtani leaves? Doesn’t that also help competitive balance?
2) As I understand, they have to invest that $44 million in order that they can assure that they have the money to pay Ohtani later. So, they don’t actually have it available to pay other players
KP23
Ok Tim, lowering payroll, and why do they have to do that?
To avoid the tax … Occams razor
KP23
Fili,
“2) As I understand, they have to invest that $44 million in order that they can assure that they have the money to pay Ohtani later. So, they don’t actually have it available to pay other players”
Ok the money itself is not the issue. It’s the concept of the luxury tax and the reason it was even created. Why have it?
Hope I’m not to be argumentative, def respectful of the argument you are pitching. The dodgers did no wrong, I know.
teekay
to answer your first question? yes all teams are financially capable of signing a player to a 7yr/700mil contract
to answer the rest of your weird questions? see the answer to the first.
showman
Found the chatter(s) who failed economics class. Best to pipe down on subjects you don’t understand, son.
JerseyShoreScore
Players can do whatever they wish…
Teams have ZERO power to force players to take deferred money.
For Ohtani, he will save over $80 million of state taxes if he moves out of California when he retires.
What a win-win deal for Ohtani and the Dodgers.
Brillant!
Gasu1
They can. Another way to look at this is that they are paying Ohtani a salary of $460M/10, but they took out a $440M loan (they are giving him $20M, or $2M per year, over the playing years). They extra $240M is the interest on the loan, and Ohtani is the lender. All teams can do something like this that, if they want to incur the debt. Any team can go to a “bank” to borrow money to make payroll, and the interest won’t count against the CBT. Ohtani was a willing bank, who didn’t do due diligence, but that’s the only “gimmick”. It was more the specific player willing to take the deferral and the gamble, rather than the team.
A'sfaninLondonUK
@gasu1
Correct. Thus far about 3 people out of 1000 “gets” it. The contract and the deal between Ohtani & the Dodgers has next to nothing to do with MLB
User 1413108128
If the Dodgers default on a Ohtani payment does he get to repossess team equipment? I freaking love this!
A'sfaninLondonUK
@Darth Pug
Yes, absolutely. With delightful symmetry Chavez Ravine is valued at S680 million as we speak. In new parlance “one ohtani”.
Upon any default he’ll immediately and effectively inherit 10% of the ball park every year. There will be healthy snacks, Japanese advertisements, and doggy shows in between innings.
After 9 years he’ll have 90% of the ball park and only 10% of the park will sell beer and hide people like me smoking a cheroot. And we’ll moan about it being not like the old days.
So business as usual…
A'sfaninLondonUK
@Darth Pug
Yes, absolutely. With delightful symmetry Chavez Ravine is valued at S680 million as we speak. In new parlance “one ohtani”.
Upon any default he’ll immediately and effectively inherit 10% of the ball park every year. There will be healthy snacks, Japanese advertisements, and doggy shows in between innings.
After 9 years he’ll have 90% of the ball park and only 10% of the park will sell beer and hide people like me smoking a cheroot. And we’ll moan about it being not like the old days.
So business as usual…
A'sfaninLondonUK
With apologies for the accidential repetition. But I couldn’t agree more with me on that one…
Fever Pitch Guy
UK – You left out the most important thing, what about continuing to invite the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence to Dodger Stadium?
17dizzy
Huh?
Lonniemac
Don’t buy into the narrative from the owners that they can’t afford it. These teams print money, they just have enough fans that buy into it and accept an owner not spending on the on-field product.
JoeBrady
Can all teams afford to start paying one player $68M per year for 10 years starting in 2034?
================================
The amount of the deferral has nothing to do with what a team can afford. If AZ can afford to pay ERod $80M, then they can afford to defer $80M.
If MIL has a total payroll of $150M, they can afford to defer the entire $150M.
ckc12537
In other words, which teams in 2013 could be financially capable of spending $46 million per year for a player not on their roster in 2024 through 2033?
JoeBrady
1-Probably very few.
2-But every team can sign a contract with deferred payment.
Fever Pitch Guy
Joe – You don’t understand the debt ratio, do you?
Last I heard, every team’s debt ratio cannot be more than 8 times their annual earnings.
You DO know deferred payroll is recorded as a liability, right?
JoeBrady
I’d need a practical example of that. If MIL decides to defer 100% of it’s payroll, they can just use the savings to fund the liability. If they get a bank to handle the transaction, they could have the bank take the $150M in current payroll, have the bank accept the liability for the $165M (150 * 1.1), and owe the bank $15M.
Painkiller
I feel bad for any owner that attempts to buy the dodgers within the next 20 years.
Fever Pitch Guy
Pain – I wouldn’t be surprised if the Dodgers are sold prior to 2034.
Win Cor
No… teams are not able to. It’s a circumvention.
PoisonedPens
It all depends, if the Dodgers invest that saved money with Bernie Madoff for the next 10 years….. wait, nevermind…. #bobbybonillaneverforget
norcalblue
Ouch….
Blue Baron
@all in the suit: Rules cannot be changed without agreement by management and the MLBPA, and it can’t do anything to invalidate this contract.
And why must it be a rule that all teams must be able to afford to offer the same as each other. That sounds like socialism.
Are you a socialist?
Van Lingle Mungo
Yes, all teams CAN, because they’re all owned by billionaires. They choose not to.
Fever Pitch Guy
Mingo – Can spend the money? Or afford to spend the money?
There is a difference …..
DodgerBlue217
Good luck on finding a superstar in his prime who is willing to defer 98% of salary.
BrisbaneGreg
There’s no way of knowing who would be willing to, but the top 50-100 guys could “afford” it. If they’ve made 30-40-50 through arb, make a 5 or 10 in endorsements.
I do think this type of deal might become more prevalent, at least with the top handful of guys each year, like the 500m Soto will want this time next year.
nukeg
It’s amazing how many financial advisors we have on mlb trade rumors. Lot of “expert” opinions here.
Bottom line is the Dodgers and Team Ohtani used a legal way to circumvent tax burdens. I respectfully disagree with Tim that that’s exactly what’s going on here. It’s legal. It’s allowed per CBA rules. It’s clever. All that is true.
Are people pissed off because they wish their team had done the same? You bet. Are Angel fans pissed because their girlfriend went across the hall to date their arch rival? Absolutely. Are Blue Jays fans ticked off because of PlaneGate? Yep. That’s why there are over 1000 replies. Lot going on here.
larkraxm
I don’t understand this argument. Each team is currently receiving $110 million in revenue sharing annually. I don’t know know what your local ownership group us telling you, but every team can afford this deal. Not every player wants to play for an ownership group that has a payroll that is less than receive from revenue sharing and cries that their market is too small to compete. Let me rush to sign up for that!
mlbdodgerfan2015
Difference between can and want. All teams can but some teams won’t. You’re also massively profiting off of Ohtani the first 10 yrs by paying him only $2mm/yr. It’s a team friendly way of paying $460mm over 10 years. The financial burden is on Ohtani, and he’s the one that initiated the structure to maximize talent and minimize financial burden to the Dodgers.
BlueSkies_LA
Yeah thanks for writing this Tim, but even before the comments started rolling in you had to know it wouldn’t make any difference to what anyone believes. These days you’re allowed to believe anything if it confirms your own cynicism.
teekay
omg ~anyone believes the media~ is literally at this point up there with ~the woke media~
use your words and not ~tucker carlson’s words~
saluelthpops
Doesn’t make it untrue . . .
Guard the Vogt
Actually it does make it untrue pops. Opinions disguised as facts are not facts thus confirming blueskies own cynicism
BlueSkies_LA
Sad. 🙁
Guard the Vogt
Sure is
JoeBrady
Blue, my friends and I use to kid around and say “Believe nothing you hear and only half of what you see”. We were kidding. Now, folks without knowledge of how it works, still insist they know better than the experts.
iverbure
Fans don’t know what they’re talking about? No way!
gardyparty
I mean … yeah. That is what I mean. Lol. Present company excluded. 😀
BlueSkies_LA
It’s Homer Simpson’s world, we just live in it.
gardyparty
Idiocracy
iverbure
I also like this line from people this is so fstupid it’s unbelievable. “ they will make that back in jersey sales”
You imbeciles, jersey sales all goes into a pot. So the dodgers will get 1/30th of that money generated from that. That’s after the players get their cut so it’s less than a 1/30th. Man people are dumb. Just stop having opinions on everything. When your favourite team wins cheer otherwise shut up.
gardyparty
U wanna know what the funniest thing is? The thing that ACTUALLY pays Shohei’s salary is the widespread distribution of that number: $700M. Bigger than Messi. That’s FRONT PAGE stuff. I.e., the Dodgers number is inflated internally bc they know news outlets will pick it up. Like Messi.
getrealgone2
Yeah I keep seeing that bout merch sales. Glad someone else said that it’s BS.
sirchaseph
Yeah, maybe they won’t make it back in Jersey sales, but you’re making a really good point as to why Manfred and the league were really only ok with Ohtani going to NY or LA and why they’re allowing this insane contract. Ohtani is an asset to MLB as a whole, and him going to a small market like Toronto means there won’t be as much merchandise sales as there would be for him going to LA, one of the largest markets and one that has international fans as well. Merchandise sales that, as you just pointed out, benefits the entire MLB.
I’m sure we’ll never see the truth of this, but I’m sure there were plenty of closed door conversations about how the MLB’s most valuable asset was really ever only going to a team like LA. Call me a conspiracy nut…but business is business. Ohtani going to Toronto or some other smaller market team probably meant about 1/10th of the merch sales of him going to NY or LA.
Zerbs63
What am missing how is the AAV 46 mil a year? $700 mil / 20 years = $35 mil a year
AHH-Rox
The AAV is not computed over 20 years; it is computed over the 10 years he is under contract. And then $460 million is the real value of the contract in current dollars because of the huge deferrals. $68M won’t be worth as much 10 years in the future as if he gets it now.
It’s like if you win the million dollar lottery prize paid as $50K annually for 20 years, that isn’t really worth a million and if you opt for an immediate lump sum payment it will only be $700K or something.
Or the house you might be able to buy for $500K in cash today where you might end up paying twice as many total dollars if you get a 30-year mortgage, but that doesn’t mean the house is really twice as expensive for you because future dollars are worth less.
Lanidrac
Are you sure about those lottery options? I thought you get paid the full amount (minus taxes) either way, while some people suggest taking the lump sum precisely because it’s worth more in the present.
JoeBrady
It’s a preset value calculation. At its simplest, it is the present value of a string of payments, discounted at 4.43%, divided by the number of years his contract covers.
gww4488
Ok, I’m just a little confused on 1 part here. I just want to know if the Dodgers cap hit is going to be $2M per year for 10 years or $46M/10 years. If it is 2M, I have a HUGE problem with this. $46M I can live with. Smart move by Ohtani taking the bulk of the pay when he heads back to Japan so he won’t pay any taxes on it.
dan-9
@gww4488
The cap hit will be $46M per year for the next 10 years, and then nothing after that. The actual cash flow is a separate thing, and that is the amount the Dodgers will pay each year ($2M/year for 10 years, and then $68M/year for the next 10 years.)
Also, I’m fairly sure that the deferrals won’t help Ohtani avoid taxes because he will still be taxed by the state/country in which he actually performed his job at the time he performed it. (USA/California). It won’t matter where he happens to be living at the time he collects the deferred payments.
DanUgglasRing
But is it 70$ million being taxed or 46? Would you say they “dodged” 24 million in taxable AAV? Get outta here with this trash. It’s a dodge and you know it.
DanUgglasRing
All the teams he negotiated with is also a BS take. It’s been long known that he was going to be a dodger all along and frankly it verges on tampering.
A'sfaninLondonUK
@Dan – first of all I think Ohtani is a symptom and certainly not the problem.
As Yankee Clipper points out the dollar amount is devalued in 10 years time. Quite how you can calculate it quite so accurately is open to question, but if $70 million becomes worth $46 million if stuffed under your pillow in 2033/2034 well so be it.
As far as I’m concerned at least $46 million is on their “budget” for the next ten years. And that, given Ohtani’s injury history is about what they should by paying for him anyway.
The actually detail of the arrangement is between Ohtani & the Dodgers. It is allowed, it is common place and it isn’t cheating.
Do I like it? No. Can I see why both parties would make such an arrangement. Absolutely….
DanUgglasRing
To claim it’s not a dodge is blatant lies. He’s going to be paid 2$m a year until he retires. That 2$m comes with a tax hit as if it were 46$m. Ok so it’s still 2 of 70 plus only the tax penalties for 46. It’s not like he just loves making a very small percentage of what he signed for until he can no longer play baseball. The his was specifically designed to avoid having to pay a larger tax.
myaccount2
A player wanting to play for a specific team is not tampering. I’m not a fan of this contract, but the Dodgers did nothing wrong.
DanUgglasRing
It is if it’s been known the whole time then he flies around leveraging teams anyway. Just go be a dodger if you want to be a dodger. Or at the very least have them actually pay up. This contract could only work with one or two of the biggest players in the game too. It’s not like every team and player can do this because most players don’t make huge money off endorsements like he does. You can’t just say why doesn’t everyone do it then because most players need to get paid from their contracts.
johnrealtime
“It is if it’s been known the whole time then he flies around leveraging teams anyway. Just go be a dodger if you want to be a dodger.”
You come off very naive here about negotiations
Blue Baron
@DanUgglasRing: What’s wrong with negotiating for the best deal he can get? What damage has that caused you?
When you buy a car, do you just go to the dealer and pay the first number he or she quotes, or do you go to a few different dealers and negotiate for the best price you can get?
Same thing.
tstats
Verges with tampering!
Wanting a team isn’t a test of tampering.
Yankee Clipper
It’s not though…. Think of it this way: because they are deferring money into a future where it’s less valuable, they had to anticipate the devaluation of the dollar and make up for it by paying him more in that future. So, they would’ve paid $46MM regardless if it was 10 years unaltered, or this way. But Ohtani requested this per the report.
haighwiser
Yea, I am sure it was all ohtani’s idea…Lol.. My thinking is this was mutual due to his own taxes. He is willing to take a small sum and at the end of 10 years start collecting the big checks in Japan. Otherwise he is paying income taxes in CA, Fed, and Japan. At the end of the day though, the Dodgers are skirting the luxury tax and the author was just repeating everything that’s already been said. Why is everybody protecting both? One last thing, why did it take an additional $50 to $100 million dollars for the Dodgers to get Ohtani. If he wanted to be a Dodger so bad they usually just want a team to come close to the highest offer.
showman
This guy wins dumbest take. Every word you wrote here was wrong, including “the”
Catuli Carl
As far as I’m concerned, you just explained why it IS tampering.
“No, no you don’t understand. They signed him for $700M, but they deferred it into the future so that only the present value of that future $700M counts against their CBT.”
Yeah that’s super sketchy and unfair. Small market teams are being scammed out of that remaining $24M/year that they should be paying toward the CBT.
filihok
RE Cat Carl
“As far as I’m concerned, you just explained why it IS tampering.
“No, no you don’t understand. They signed him for $700M, but they deferred it into the future so that only the present value of that future $700M counts against their CBT.”
Yeah that’s super sketchy and unfair. Small market teams are being scammed out of that remaining $24M/year that they should be paying toward the CBT.”
“I don’t understand anything happening here” would have conveyed the same meaning with less effort
Catuli Carl
““I don’t understand anything happening here” would have conveyed the same meaning with less effort”
Thank you for the well reasoned rebuttal showing exactly how I was wrong. It was very well thought out an thorough. You must be the inventor of finance itself.
filihok
Cat
“I don’t have time to teach you middle school, high school, ECON 102 and Business Law 101”, sorry
Come back when you’ve taken the pre-reqs
Habitual Truth Teller
So apparently you can offer players 10 years 460 mill and then as an owner/franchise offer to pay the player 240 mill off the books after their contract expires. Who knew circumventing the cbt was that easy.
I can’t wait for teams to push deferred money 30-40 years into the future and make arrangements if the player passes away before deferred money is paid out.
steelerbravenation
They already have it’s just not this big of money. Look at Bruce Sutter’s contract & Sparky Lyles’
gnomon
Absolutely, And they’ll be entitled to do it. But good luck finding a player that would agree to the kind of deal Ohtani signed. It’s just an outlier for a one of a kind player who was willing to sacrifice a ton of money to help the team win. Perfect storm for the Dodgers.
showman
Deferred compensation is taxable where it is earned, fool
For Love of the Game
No, showman, differed comp. is taxed when it is PAID, not when it is earned. He will earn it next year, but get paid in a decade.
Fever Pitch Guy
showman – You got a source?
I have a source that says you’re wrong.
Just a coincidence the contract is deferred for exactly ten years, right?
turbotax.intuit.com/tax-tips/tax-payments/strategi…
• If you take your deferred compensation payments over a period of 10 years or more, those payments will be taxed in the state where you reside, rather than in the state in which you earned the compensation, possibly reducing your state income taxes.
showman
Wrong
showman
“California taxes compensation received by a nonresident for performance of services in California.“
ftb.ca.gov/forms/misc/1100.html
Don’t quote me some AI-generated TurboTax article just read the law. Nonresidents are taxed for services performed in the state.
showman
Looks like you’ve confused “when” and “where.” It’s taxable when it is paid, but it is still taxable in California, where it is earned. Get rickety rickety wrecked
Fever Pitch Guy
showman – I’ve had enough of your unacceptable behavior.
I don’t care how young you may be, resorting to namecalling gets you nowhere. Cut the crap and act like an adult.
A “source” is where you hear or read something, regardless of whether it’s right or wrong.
Your “source” mentions NOTHING about deferred income, therefore it’s irrelevant to this discussion.
If you had read my source, you’d have seen it states “Written by a TurboTax Expert • Reviewed by a TurboTax CPA”
Now stop with the namecalling and provide something related to deferred income, or you’re going on mute.
CF
You could just pull up the Federal and California tax codes and stop using a program that was written for non-lawyers….
Turbo Tax is NOT law, its a condensed synopsis of the law spoon feed to people who do not understand Federal code or state law.
This is what the Cal. State says (what the other guy posted):
Total Taxable Income
The entire taxable income determined as if you were a California resident for the current taxable year and for all prior taxable years for any carryover items, deferred income, suspended losses, or suspended deductions.
Notice Defferred income is taken into consideration. Income includes defferred income in its calculation
As a nonresident, you pay tax on your taxable income from California sources.
Sourced income includes, but is not limited to:
Services performed in California
Rent from real property located in California
The sale or transfer of real California property
Income from a California business, trade or profession
Meaning, California source, California tax code. Ohtani will be paying California State taxes on his defferred money.
That is from the California State Franchise Board, which knows more than Turbo Tax…trust me…they do.
Best of luck
Travis’ Wood
Nice point Jobu I’m sure tons of players will be agreeing to 40 year deferrals. Lol absurd exaggeration
Habitual Truth Teller
Why not? Guaranteed millions in incomes all the way into your 70s every year.
Sign a mega extension
Play into your 30s
Retire
Collect millions every year for 40 years in deferred payments until your 70s
Travis’ Wood
Why would you want to collect millions over 40 years when you could get it all upfront? Again, absurd argument. No player prefers deferrals lol they request it to get higher overall contracts and to help the team win
phattboy4 2
Because a team could tack on $10 million more than you would otherwise make to add the deferral years
ctst
And if I got the money every year without deferrals, I could invest it at a modest rate of a 5% return and make way more than the $10m in the same amount of time it would take for the deferrals to end.
Deferrals get you “more” money tacked on at the end of a contract, but if you have a good money manager or a general understanding of investment, you end up making less than you would have otherwise. Basically trading the work and toil of growing that money in exchange for a lower guaranteed payment.
BrianStrowman9
@ctst
Yeah. Ohtani is an ultra high net worth individual. He would’ve had significant investment opportunities at his disposal. But he’s getting paid out $700MM and this is the highest AAV deal of all time. If Ohtani wanted to maximize every single dollar he wouldn’t have taken Pennies now and a big payoff down the line.
He wants to win now and get paid a fortune later. Good for him. Good for the Dodgers. Maybe not good for the Dodgers in 10 years if they don’t find other guys who wants to take deferrals in 10 years. But maybe they’ll win 3 chips in that time.
Baseball Babe
He’s going to be paid many millions more in endorsements over the next 10 years.
showman
Brother you are wrong. Just take your L gracefully. My source is the California tax code, the tax board responsible for collecting the tax: ftb.ca.gov/forms/misc/1100.html This is explicitly titled “Taxation of nonresidents and persons who change residency” and you bizarrely say it is “irrelevant?” This is literally the governing law, son. Again, as stated there “California taxes compensation received by a nonresident for performance of services in California.” You lose. Good day, sir.
CF
I just showed him the same thing. ITs obvious Ohtani will pay taxes in California.
Take the W and move on. He refuses to read.
A'sfaninLondonUK
@showman
By the time the $68 million is due, in 2034, will Ohtani still be performing in California?
showman
The services he is being paid for were rendered in California, yes. That will not have changed.
Habitual Truth Teller
Cause athletes go bankrupt at alamaribg rates. They’re athletes not financial wizards who know how to manage money properly.
You do realize they only play till their 30s right? Meaning they have 30-40 years of 0 income afterwards unless they get a job somewhere but that’s not nearly as much income as they once had.
So why would an athlete take yearly income over lump sum? Cause you don’t have to rely on yourself budgeting a lump sum for 30-40 year if you get yearly payments
JoeBrady
but if you have a good money manager or a general understanding of investment, you end up making less than you would have otherwise.
======================
But that’s not guaranteed either way. From my accounting perspective, it is the equivalent of investing in 10-year risk-free Treasuries. I will theoretically make less than investing in equities, but be far safer..
BrianStrowman9
@jobu
You know what the great thing about contracts are? Both parties have to sign. Both parties have legal counsel too!
DanUgglasRing
They can’t though. This only works in the case of a player who makes enough off of endorsements that they’ll be ok with not getting paid most of their money until they retire. Probably only means judge and Ohtani.
filihok
Jobu
“So apparently you can offer players 10 years 460 mill and then as an owner/franchise offer to pay the player 240 mill off the books after their contract expires. Who knew circumventing the cbt was that easy.”
Let’s say you get offered a job at $46,000 a year. You’re like, “that sounds good”.
Then the company says, “ok, we will give you $2000 this year and $44,000 in 2033”.
You good with that?
Or would you want maybe $68,000 in 2034 instead?
Tigers3232
Jobs the Dodgers will never pay Ohtani $760M directly out of their bank accounts. The principal of deferred $ is funded annually throughout the contract to accrue value to be paid out at a later date. The financial illiteracy the comments on this contract show is astounding. It is no wonder the average consumer debt in our country is so high.
JoeBrady
Who knew circumventing the cbt was that easy.
================================
1-Everyone already knew this.
2-Everyone is already doing it.
3-The only way it works is to have a player willing to wait ten years for his salary.
Jabronie23
Not really. If this much money wasn’t deferred so far into the future, no team would offer him anything close to $700m. They would have offered something in the $450-500m range, meaning the luxury tax hit would be…the same as it is now. It’s just basic economics.
gardyparty
@DanUgglasRing Come on, man. You know the same options were (and are) available to your Giants, and my Yankees, and everybody’s everybody, and they always have been. It bums me out how clownish ppl look with these takes.
gardyparty
To be clear, the player has to be OK with it. Most players aren’t. Shohei is different.
sirchaseph
Yeah but was it really available? Is this same option really available to teams who aren’t heavily invested into outside assets and conceivably worth 100’s of billions? It’s not, and it really goes against the entire purpose of the CBT.
I, like any reasonable person here, thinks the contract is brilliant, but it’s still really against the competitive nature of the game. This absolutely opened a Pandora’s box and will probably make the rich vs poor aspect of the league more lopsided than it already is.
I’m a Padres fan, and I was even excited to just get to see Ohtani play against us, I knew he was never coming our way. But this whole thing just makes it all feel dirty. If you have a player that you’ve stated is worth 70 million a year, you should use 70million a year of your payroll to show for it. Otherwise, they should have just handed him a 460/10 and called it a day. Then nobody would be upset.
Travis’ Wood
Because the $70 mil AAV isn’t real…. Did you even read the article? Or use your brain?
gammaraze
actually, it very much *IS* real, otherwise, the contract would have been listed as 10 year/$460M with large deferrals, and the customary interest. Deciding that the value was $700M in total without interest means it is $70M AAV. It’s a blatant luxury tax dodge.
tstats
10/460 with large deferrals means he get 460 million valued somewhere around 300 million in today money. 10/700 with large deferrals means he gets 700 million valued at 460 million in today money. Now why does CBT calculate in today money with deferral? I don’t know but it’s something any team could exploit and will get patched in the next CBA. As a dodger fan I think the dodgers should be taking a 35 M tax hit yearly for 20 years logically. But the CPAs and Lawyers for both the dodgers and CAA saw this and said hey we can build a winning brand so let’s do it. I’d bet in 2034, once ohtani has retired and is moving his way to a lower tax state, the dodgers venture into seeing if ownership stakes help pay that 68 million a year in a .5% (or something) stake in the dodgers per year along with lump sum. Is it kind of scummy what the parties did? Yeah. But is it allowed and available for any team? Also yeah.
User 401527550
It’s a blatant U.S. tax and California tax Dodge. It’s got really nothing to do with baseballs luxury tax.
filihok
Tim, MLBTR
“actually, it very much *IS* real, otherwise, the contract would have been listed as 10 year/$460M with large deferrals, and the customary interest. Deciding that the value was $700M in total without interest means it is $70M AAV. It’s a blatant luxury tax dodge.”
Imagine if you’d been reporting all long-term contracts with present value numbers for the last few years.
Your readers might not be this clueless
showman
Yeah it’s so blatant that maybe the tax code doesn’t work like that. There are ways of evading taxes but it isn’t this easy. If it was, no one would pay any taxes
Tim Dierkes
Yeah, I’ve thought about this. Or at least doing another largest contracts list where it only shows NPVs.
JoeBrady
Tim,
That would be awesome! Apparently, about 90% of the BB fans out there don’t know that this even exists and how it works. I know my RS have done it with Devers & Sale, but I never looked to see how many others have it.
Can I suggest you start a new poll?
1-Guess the number of teams with deferred liabilities.
2-Guess the total number of players with deferred payments.
3-Guess the total amount of deferred payments.
norcalblue
Brilliant suggestion!
Jabronie23
Lol, no team was going to sign him to a straight 10 year, $700m deal. If deferrals were banned, they’d have just signed him for 10 years, $460m and the luxury tax hit would have been the same. It does save them payroll space in the short term, but not for luxury tax purposes.
Fever Pitch Guy
Joe – Maybe you’ll know the answer to this question. Why isn’t the AAV for CBT purposes adjusted for NPV when it’s a 9-year contract with zero deferred money? Surely $40M today isn’t worth as much as $40M in 8 or 9 years from now.
JoeBrady
Theoretically, they could, but then the argument would be that they are getting less value. And I’ve made this argument many, many years ago.
If we pay YY $250M/10, it shouldn’t be thought of as $25M/year. It should be thought of as (in accounting parlance) Double-Declining Balance (DDB) Depreciation. Without going into the details, it means you recognize more of his salary earlier, because you will get more of his value earlier.
In your example, the $25M that YY receives in his 10th year might only be worth $12.5M for PV purposes, but his value in WAR might also be only worth half of what it is in his first year.
sirchaseph
The available for any team arguement just doesn’t work for me, man. Or really anybody else. LA isn’t just any team. You know, and I know, that only LA or NY could have pulled something like this off. I can respect it, but I don’t have to like it.
JoeBrady
The net salary is still only $46M. There are probably 9 teams that can afford it. But this is no different that the original ARod signing. His $22M salary in 2000 is probably less than the $46M when accounting for inflation.
Fever Pitch Guy
sir – Not true.
The Red Sox, Cubs, Braves, Giants and Astros all grossed between $398M-$513M last year.
None of them had a payroll higher than $203M this year.
Fever Pitch Guy
Joe – Shouldn’t it be the opposite?
If you pay a guy $25M a year for 10 years, you as an owner are getting more value as time goes on because $25M 7,8,9 years from now is not worth nearly as much as it is today.
When I began my career 35 years ago I was making $50K which was good money back then. Today, it’s peanuts. Back then you could buy a house with $50K, today it’s not enough to buy many vehicles.
JoeBrady
Keeping it simple, suppose you sign a 5-WAR player to an 8-year contract for $200M. In the first year, you get 5 WAR for $25M. By the 8th year, you might only get 2 WAR, but the $25M you are paying him might only be worth $15M.
User 401527550
They do. Why do you think people move out of state after retirement to better tax states. It is that easy.
kscheer
Cry more.
LeMike
It is 46 with luxury tax included, thus they are dodging quite a big chunk of luxury tax, instead of taxing the 70 millions of average salary per season they are taxing a smaller amount.
Travis’ Wood
The $70 mil AAV isn’t real dude… he was never gonna make anywhere near that
gardyparty
Thank u.
Catuli Carl
Yes it is. That’s the exact amount of dollars they are paying him. You shouldn’t be able to just defer that money and pay less toward the CBT because the currency will probably by inflated by the time you actually give him the cash. That’s absurd..
The whole point of the CBT is that if these big market teams want to pay out massive contracts and get all the best players, they should have to pay a penalty which goes back into the pockets of the smaller market teams.
If they could only afford to pay him $460M in present dollars, then there are teams like the Blue Jays, Giants, Cubs, etc that could match or exceed that in present dollars.
The Dodgers are basically getting all the benefits of that fake $700M number and paying none of the consequences. They are eating their cake and having it too.
Travis’ Wood
Catuli I’m sorry but you have no idea what is going on. No team was willing to pay him more than $46 mil AAV on the luxury tax. His contract was always going to be around that. Just because it’s structured with deferrals doesn’t mean it’s a tax dodge…. And certainly doesn’t mean that $70 mil AAV number was ever real because it obviously wasn’t
Catuli Carl
No, you don’t know what’s going on. Or you do and you’re trying to rationalize it.
Firstly, you have no idea what other teams were offering. I would not be at a ll surprised if they hit $500/10 or $550/10.
Regardless, if the Dodgers weren’t willing to pay him $700M and were only willing to pay him $460M, then they should not be allowed to write down $700M on the contract. They should have to write down $460M.
The fact of the matter is they are contractually obligated to pay him $700M for 10 years of work. When precisely they hand over the cash to him should be irrelevant.
Are you following? The Dodgers shouldn’t be able to skirt $24M of CBT money because they elected to not hand over the cash until a later time when that cash will presumably have less purchasing power. That’s absurd.
Jabronie23
That doesn’t make any sense. Why couldn’t the Jay, Cubs, etc do the same thing? And the CBT is still doing its job. $46m is the highest CBT hit ever for a single player
Travis’ Wood
You don’t understand time value of money. Period.
Jabronie23
Ok, and if they did sign him to a straight 10 year, $550m deal with no referrals, the CBT would only be marginally higher than it is now. Present day value would be like $490m
Balk
Exactly Danugglasring…this is nothing but a bunch of trash! Straight up tax DOdgers
Enrico Pallazzo
No it’s not a dodge you moron. It’s a misrepresentation of the total contract value. Read a book. It’s called the time value of money
gardyparty
I keep thinking, what if they announced to “the world” that it was $700M, but announced to “us idiots here” that it was $500M, and the $700M number was just for headlines. And also, the CBT won’t be compromised. It’s just a future number vs. a present number. Would anybody care?
gardyparty
And incidentally $46M to the CBT is a massive number!!!!
Balk
So we’re supposed to be ok with it because max scherzers was lower? 46 isn’t 70 no matter how you look at it. Whether it’s light or not, it doesn’t pass the smell test!
gardyparty
I don’t have a philosophical stance on this. I’m just saying it’s not novel or new.
filihok
Balk
“So we’re supposed to be ok with it because max scherzers was lower? 46 isn’t 70 no matter how you look at it. Whether it’s light or not, it doesn’t pass the smell test!”
Try using your parietal lobe instead of your nose to interpret numbers
A'sfaninLondonUK
@Balk
Balk – honestly it is. They are (rightly or wrongly) calculating that with inflation that $46 million over ten years from 2024-2033 will equate to $68 million from 2034-2043. It is as simple as that. So that is why $46 million is being added to the CBT.
Now personally, I wouldn’t trust my employer to hold onto $460 million for 10 years and turn it into $680 million and deliver it annually on time with a smile. But again, I’m not getting approximately $30 – 50 million a year in endorsements already.
I applaud Ohtani for this – he knows how much he earns already, he knows how much decent dog food costs for his cute puppy, and he knows (especially from the Angels) how difficult it is to create a balanced 26 team roster.
JoeBrady
Since Americans are involved, what they should have done was to announce it as $460M/10, and Ohtani was lending the LAD money at 4.43% interest.
Then they could’ve complained that Ohtani was getting paid too little.
norcalblue
Sweet prose my friend!
Jabronie23
Again, the “$700m” is not real. Present day value is $460m. CBT is calculated based on present value
Balk
Yeah sure, keyboard warrior. Like I said moron, tax DoDger! Period. There’s only one type of person who would be good with this cheating bs, and it’s a doyer fan. Keep hitting your own like button
gardyparty
I’m a Yankees fan, genius.
Balk
I don’t know who your responding too, and really don’t care who you root for. My response was to Enrico up there. Genius
gardyparty
Lol sorry man. Lololol. I read my notifications wrong. Sincere apologies.
Balk
I think Nightengale said a portion of it best: Shohei Ohtani’s decision to earn just $2 million a year certainly is a great benefit to the Dodgers’ payroll, but also a stroke of genius for tax repercussions.
If he’s not living in California once his deferred payments start, he will not be subjected to heavy California tax.
That’s a tax Dodger.
gardyparty
A Dodger nonetheless! 😉
User 401527550
And he avoid us tax’s when he is back in Japan.
showman
He doesn’t though
JoeBrady
Are you a tax accountant? I only ask because I am an accountant and was wondering how this worked.
In NYS, for example, if you are a public employee, they tax your pension benefits as you earn them, and it becomes tax-free as you receive them. This is precisely because they don’t want you moving to Florida without paying tax on your pension.
math
Enrico, he doesn’t even need to read a whole book, he just needs to read one specific article, which conveniently is located on this very same page!
Balk
Math, read up two comments and try again. The dudes dodging taxes. Use your math brain lil dude. In fact if he chooses to go back to Japan he’s taking American dollars and using it for Japan’s economy.
math
Balk, read up zero comments and tell me where I addressed you. I would engage with you but I’ve read the whole thread and my doctor has advised me to cut down on sodium.
Balk
You addressed me by saying I need to read a specific article. Do you even read a thread before you open your mouth? Enrico was talking to me sidebuster. You’re right you need to follow your doctors advice
math
That’s not the same as addressing you. I was agreeing with Enrico that you are a moron with little to no reading comprehension. By all means continue proving it.
Balk
“I was agreeing with Enrico about what he said about you but it’s not the same as addressing you”….you sound like a genius! Move along sidebuster…you have zero input.
showman
Balk, use your brain and realize taxes don’t work like that. If they did , no one would pay taxes .
MLB Top 100 Commenter
Uggla
The best comparison is the lottery winner. They can take the full payout over decades or get maybe 50%-60% in a lump sum up front. Just think of most MLB players as taking the lump-sum and Ohtani took the payout over time.
DrDick
The author is an idiot. He starts out saying if you think this is a dodge you’re wrong. Then goes into a long dissertation that shows that the transaction was indeed a dodge in every way. The fact that it isn’t against the rules doesn’t mean it wasn’t specifically down to circumvent the CBT.
Tim Dierkes
Nope. Said it’s not a LUXURY TAX dodge. It’s definitely a regular payroll dodge. Gotta read the whole thing.
JoeBrady
It is certainly not a payroll dodge. Our entire economy is built on the time value of money. Let’s say you wanted to sell your house to me. I can pay you $500k today, or $550k ten years from now. You will take the $500k today, because you can invest it risk-free and get 4% interest, and have $700k ten years from now.
Catuli Carl
It is a luxury tax dodge. If you put the number $700M/10 Years on the contract, you should have to count $70M/year toward the CBT.
I don’t particularly care when exactly you hand over the cash. That’s between you and him. But if you signed the guy for $70M/year, that is what should be recorded in your team payroll.
Travis’ Wood
Drdick you are clueless and clearly didn’t read the article. It’s obviously not a luxury tax dodge to anyone with common sense
showman
Look up “interest”
filihok
RE DUR
“But is it 70$ million being taxed or 46? Would you say they “dodged” 24 million in taxable AAV? ”
The finance understander has logged on
Gasu1
It’s $46M salary, plus the Dodgers took out a huge $440M loan to make payroll. The extra $240M is interest on the loan.
James Midway
So good when the Dodgers do it and bad if anyone else does. Got it. MLB just let the genie out of the bottle and there is no putting it back.
Yankee Clipper
This has been going on for decades. It’s not new and the teams that have done this the most are the O’s, Mets, and Nationals. Colorado has done it with multiple players, Reds have done it, SD tried to do it (Albeit improperly), SF Giants did it recently, Boston has done it with multiple players, and many other teams have done this as well.
It’s actually fairly common, which is why it’s specifically addressed in the CBA.
Habitual Truth Teller
It’s been done for year. But no one has abused it so egregiously.
Can of worms is open. Mlb allows this mlb has to allow teams to offer pushing deferred money 30 40 50 years into the future. Spread it out stretch out the payments
Yankee Clipper
Jobu: to make sure we are speaking apples to apples, what do you mean, no team has done this “so egregiously?” Are you referring to the total? The percentage deferred? The AAV? Boston literally just deferred over $100MM of Devers’ contract. Bonilla had his deferred in 1991 and will be paid until he’s 72 (literally). And it’s at the players’s request.
Habitual Truth Teller
Pushing almsot a quarter billion into future payments.
I mean what’s to stop teams from offering higher interest rates on deferred $$ but spreading out those payments over 30 40 50 years to reduce how much money they pay out after the contract ends.
As a player I’m sure that’s enticing receiving at least 1 million dollars every year rest of your natural born life.
Wadz
Nats deferred half of Scherzers 210M deal and all they got was 1.4M AAV savings… and 15M payout 22-28..
Nothings ever done so close to the degree of this deal.. it’s unprecedented.. it’s legal.. but nonsense at the same time.
FredBlassie
So you wouldn’t say the difference between $100M and $680M is egregious? You’re not great at math or vocab are ya?
Yankee Clipper
Fred: You are looking at the amount deferred which is irrelevant to the CBT, as the article explains. Why is the total amount deferred egregious? Why does it matter when he’s paid? The CBT is calculated at $46MM AAV, which incorporates $460MM of that into the 10-year luxury tax evaluation for LAD.
But insults work too, if that’s how you want to play the game.
Habitual Truth Teller
So what’s to stop a team from offering 400 mill deferred over 40 years?
The problem is deferred money isn’t counted against salary implications.
As such what’s to stop an owner from just paying out certain players or making off the books deals to offer significant deferred payments?
There’s literally no ramifications for deferred payments other than you owe someone money.
Yankee Clipper
Jobu: Yes, you’re correct, there’s no ramifications because it’s an agreed upon rule by the players, the league, and the owners. As far as off-the-books deals, nothing would surprise me – this involves large sums of money and people have killed loved ones for far less money. The Nats tried to complete a large deferral just recently (2019?) with Soto and $440MM.
I’m not arguing for the rule’s efficacy, or it’s morality, I’m simply saying this shouldn’t surprise anyone because relative approximate percentages of contract totals have been deferred by other teams. It’s also permissible to defer contracts in the NBA, NFL.
LeMike
Give Yamamoto a 10 year contract with a yearly salary of league minimum and 99 millions of deferred money from 2034 to 2054. Teams should go to absurd amounts so MLB acknowledges it is a way to circunvent luxury tax.
LeMike
MLB blocked ARod from negotiating something similar for the redsox back when the Yankees acquired him once the league and MLBPA vetoed it.
Yankee Clipper
LeMike: ARod was different because he was trying to reduce his salary as part of a trade, which MLBPA would not permit either. It would violate contractual negotiation agreements.
gnomon
Sure, and good luck with him accepting such a deal.
BrianStrowman9
@jobu
What’s to stop an owner from offering $400MM over 40 years?
Nothing. Both parties agree to a contract.
“There’s literally no ramifications other than you owe someone money”
That’s the ramification of every contract. You now owe money to the same player for a longer period of time.
DrDick
“So egregiously” would be $1.2 million to $68 million in future annual payments. “So egregiously” would be a wealthy team currently paying the best player in baseball only $2 a year for 10 years so they can suck up many other top players in an attempt to dominate the sport. Where is the competitive balance in this? The Dodgers and Ohtani have taken a little loophole and blown it up.
filihok
RE LeMike
“it is a way to circunvent luxury tax.”
It’s not a way to circumvent the luxury tax
Only people who have a very limited understating of finance think that
They aren’t paying him $70 million a year now. They are paying him the equivalent of $46 million a year.
There’s 0 reason that should count as $70 million. It’s not $70 million.
How much would you pay to buy Ohtani’s contract? Would you pay $699 million today to get a million dollars? If you would, you’re an idiot. His contract is worth about $460 million. That’s how it should be taxed.
filihok
DrD
““So egregiously” would be $1.2 million to $68 million in future annual payments. “So egregiously” would be a wealthy team currently paying the best player in baseball only $2 a year for 10 years so they can suck up many other top players in an attempt to dominate the sport. Where is the competitive balance in this? The Dodgers and Ohtani have taken a little loophole and blown it up.”
You’ve conflated two things because you don’t know what you’re talking about
Ohtani’s contract doesn’t count $2 million against the CBT. It doesn’t count $70 million. Neither of those would make sense.
$46 million makes sense. That’s what’s being counted.
Tigers3232
@Jobu, there is no true reduction. The amount of principal anticipate to accrue(grow) to $68M at time each deferral payment is due is collected annually during the life of his contract. The Dodgers will never get to right off $70M against their profits. The interest gained on the principal will be income Ohtani will be responsible for.
Gasu1
The interest rate basis that’s used for the AAV calculation is apparently specified in the MLB contract rules– something based on Prime or Treasury rates, for example. You are right, if teams could make up their own interest rates, they could do pretty much anything. But that’s Finance 101; it would be obvious to anyone who has even the slightest knowledge of finance, which is why it’s pretty safe to assume that was written into the MLB rules surrounding deferred payments.
Gasu1
You need to get the order right. First, learn about the time value of money; THEN, insult other people’s math skills.
Gasu1
As in ANY financial transaction, the time value of money needs to be taken into consideration. $1M 20 years from now is not worth the same as $1M today. Sure, a team could offer $400M over 40 years, but that isn’t worth nearly the same as $400M over 10 years. If the two parties agreed to $400M over 10 years, and then decided to defer part, the nominal amount of the contract wouldn’t be $400M; it would be much larger, $400M PLUS a huge amount of interest. Without bothering to calculate it, I’d guess the nominal contract would be close to a billion $.
Gasu1
The Dodgers took out a loan to make payroll. Anyone could do this, in theory. In this case, the lender is Ohtani. It’s really not about what the Dodgers did, which is not unusual at all; it’s that Ohtani wanted to make this unusual arrangement and act as a “bank”.
iml12
Exactly. Ohtani is essentially playing for free for an entire decade. The dodgers have 40 + million more to spend per year and are taking a significantly smaller cbt hit. You pair the no actual money out of pocket and the 40 percent lighter cbt hit, it’s a really big deal.
Gasu1
The simplest way to look at it is that the Dodgers took out a $440M loan to make payroll, and Ohtani is the lender.
LordD99
It was actually the MLBPA who had issue with A-Rod because he was attempting to reduce the value of his existing contract. That’s not the case here.
Habitual Truth Teller
Most fan know deferred money is part of the game and allowed.
What most fans probably didn’t know including myself is there’s no limits.
No limits on amount you can defer no limits on how far you can defer into the future
And deferred money doesn’t count towards cbt I think shocked a lot of people.
It’s bad for baseball if there’s no restrictions. Dodgers fired the 1st shot. We will see other teams try to play the deferred money game and spread it out as far as they can or pay off the books.
Yankee Clipper
Dr. D: You are misconstruing competitive balance to mean equitable selection of players. The former is occurring because any and every team had/has the same right to do the same thing with any player who desires to do such. The latter, however, can never occur because the player is in control of where the player goes and under which terms.
You are seeking equity, but the competitive balance (or opportunity in this case) existed.
StreakingBlue
Here is a tissue
DrDick
We’ll see how you feel about the contract around 2038. I know Met fans who hate Bonilla more and more every year, and that’s only $1.2 million… not even a utility infielder. In 2038, $68 million will still be a star player you’re paying who ain’t playing.
bag o ballz
It is more degrees. 2mm is barely over the major league minimum. Even if a fair chunk goes to the CBT it is a way of effectively negating the penalty as paying additional money to contacts over the tax become absorbed by the lower payroll
Yankee Clipper
The article explains this at length…. They aren’t negating anything. Here’s what LAD did: essentially they said, “Ohtani, we are offering you $46MM for 10 years; will you sign on?”
Ohtani says, “yes, but I want ‘x’ amount deferred until after, but I want to retain the same value.”
They do math magic and figure out that $700MM deferred will the the equivalent (in the future) of $460MM in today’s dollars.
Halo11Fan
No one knows what inflation is going to be, but I’d bet if you gave me 700 million dollars I’d easily double it in ten years.
Unless you’re an idiot, Keeping 680 million makes the contract virtually free.
It’s not the 46 million that bothers me, it’s the 2 million a year.
xtraflamy
But it is not the same in state and federal
tax, which doesn’t consider AAV or CBT. He’ll pay income tax on 2MM per year until 2034 (unless they all find some way to avoid that too).
And…the luxury tax is meant to benefit smaller market teams that can’t afford to pay out huge deferred wads of cash.
It’s not ethical, and not fair, which is what people are complaining about – not arguing the rules, but the spirit.
Just more rich people gaming the system.
Yankee Clipper
Halo11: That’s freeing up real money for the LAD to spend, despite the CBT hit, so I get that. It’s a very unusual request from the player or whatever.
But, I caution all the people who take issue with what he’s doing because it’s exactly what players in the NFL/NBA do to establish super teams. Yet many of the same people want to model baseball economics after those sports – well, here’s the reality check that it may not be sunshine and roses if they do that.
showman
Hey, can I have 68 million /year USD from 2034-2045? It’s “virtually free”. Thx
filihok
RE YC
At least a few people get it
filihok
RE H11F
” if you gave me 700 million dollars I’d easily double it in ten years.”
LMAO
No. You would definitely not.
LOL
This is that happens when people who have no idea what they are talking about talk
filihok
xf
“the luxury tax is meant to benefit smaller market teams that can’t afford to pay out huge deferred wads of cash”
LOL, no it’s not
It’s meant to restrict player salaries and keep more money in the owners’ pockets
The players negotiated for the ability to defer money so they could make more money.
Tigers3232
@Halo the principal needed to accrue the $68 million deferred annually has to be deposited annually to start accruing value. The notion that Dodgers will simply be paying $2M annually and worrying about the rest later is unequivocally false.
Tigers3232
Using the rule of 72, it would take roughly a 7% annual ROI to double the $. That is actually very doable.
bag o ballz
no it isn’t – you are referring to the cbt value, the actual value is still 2mm on the books – ohtani is taking 2mm in payroll space right now so it is basically in interest free loan that allows the team to spend whatever they want and figure it out later –
Jabronie23
Who else tried to do it? The Padres-Judge isn’t all that comparable, as the article explains
Tim Dierkes
Well, no. Is there someone else who did it and I said it was bad?
phantomofdb
This is the biggest nonsense article you’ve ever written, among many. There is 0 actual logic behind an argument that says paying someone through age 44 to be on the roster is bad because it’s luxury tax manipulation, and paying someone through age 50 to not be on the roster is good because it’s not luxury tax manipulation. At least paying someone to be on the roster has the downside of handcuffing your roster. Deferred money is FAR. WORSE.
Not even mentioning the fact that it gives the dodgers unprecedented financial flexibility now paying him only 2 million a year.
And the reason for “villainizing” Ohtani is knowing he wanted to go to the dodgers the whole time, being a diva trying to say who could talk about what, and then signing this unfair contract.
You’re clueless. I’m done with your site
Tim Dierkes
” says paying someone through age 44 to be on the roster is bad”
Didn’t say that, said the CBA allows for MLB to stop it. Not making judgments on good/bad.
“paying someone through age 50 to not be on the roster is good because it’s not luxury tax manipulation”
Also no. It’s just A) allowed very clearly under the CBA and B) in this case not luxury tax manipulation. And also didn’t say it was “good.”
“Not even mentioning the fact that it gives the dodgers unprecedented financial flexibility now paying him only 2 million a year.”
You definitely didn’t read the whole article, where I wrote:
“All that said, Ohtani’s contract structure does present a big advantage to the Dodgers. I mean, they’re actually paying him $2MM a year. Many arbitration eligible utility players or relievers make more. Paying Ohtani so little seems ludicrous in that sense, even if it is within the rules. A team’s CBT payroll uses the average annual value of each contract, and that determines their luxury taxes. But teams also operate off real payrolls, where a player on a two-year, $20MM deal might actually be paid $5MM in the first year and $15MM in the second despite his $10MM CBT hit.
The Dodgers have a certain budget or target with that real payroll, and instead of paying Ohtani $46MM on that payroll, they’re actually paying him less than Austin Barnes. That means, in theory, the Dodgers can more easily afford to add more quality players, such as Yoshinobu Yamamoto.”
“knowing he wanted to go to the dodgers the whole time, being a diva trying to say who could talk about what, and then signing this unfair contract”
Lot of assumptions here, but I mean sure, I’m stopping you from wrongly villainizing him. Just saying it’s a shame
JoeBrady
phantomofdb
You’re clueless. I’m done with your site
============================
Your comment was clueless on almost every level.
1-You clearly don’t understand how deferrals work.
2-You clearly don’t understand the difference between deferrals and duration.
3-You seem to have an issue with Ohtani refusing to keep you in the loop about which team he will be working for.
I don’t recall having ever seen you on this site before, but if you are quitting, because you don’t like the concept of deferrals and present-value accounting, then the site is probably better off without you.
Jabronie23
In practical terms, you’re right about the first part. They are both essentially luxury tax manipulation. However, the CBA clearly bars the league from doing anything about deferred payments, whereas they WOULD have the authority to block, say, 15 year deals. It’s silly, but thems the rules.
You’re basically wrong about everything else, though. While the $2m salary does give the Dodgers a degree of payroll flexibility, it’ll still be listed as $46m for luxury tax purposes. Also, in the long run, (even with inflation) the $68m a year they’re paying Ohtani from 2034-2043 really mitigates any short term payroll flexibility the Dodgers get.
Lastly, you have absolutely no way of knowing whether Ohtani was always set on joining the Dodgers. Pure speculation on your part. Reports say he offered similar contractual arrangements to the other teams he negotiated with.
JoeBrady
Tim,
You should probably stop trying to explain how the system works. The folks that understand it don’t need the explanation. The folks that STILL don’t get it, will never get it. It is simple math and economics, but they will take it personally that it doesn’t work according to how they think it should work.
I don’t understand rocket science, so I refuse to believe in satellites.
JoeBrady
While the $2m salary does give the Dodgers a degree of payroll flexibility, it’ll still be listed as $46m for luxury tax purposes.
=========================
Correct. The way it should be phrased is that it gives the LAD “cash flow” flexibility.
Slibb
Yeah well, “wrongfully villainizing” is like, just your opinion, man.
SD_Jon
i have to agree with phantomofdb, this article has lost you a lot of credibility, both as a TRADE rumors site and it reads like you are defending something that is clearly against the spirit of intention while defending MLBs actions in OKing it.. Youve been pushing certain agendas this offseason and its clear. Your unbiased writing is a thing of the past.
JoeBrady
Dude, it is simply an explanation of how deferrals work. If you have a complaint, you should write to the players’ association and the MLB and tell them to change their agreement.
Jabronie23
Lol, how? The league couldn’t stop the deal if they wanted to. The CBA explicitly prevents them from doing so. No matter what, the CBT tax was never going to be more than, like $5om a year. If rules were in place that banned deferments, then the Dodgers would have just given him a straight 10 year, $460m deal, and the luxury tax would have been…the exact same as it is now.
UncommonSense
What are you even talking about? Stop looking at this through fan goggles and and read the article
Appalachian_Outlaw
I’m not even a Dodger fan, and I don’t have any issues with the contract. I honestly don’t understand some people’s outrage. As Yankee Clipper pointed out, this isn’t some new thing the Dodgers and Shohei just invented.
I’ve heard people say: “well, it isn’t fair.” Ladies and gentlemen, I hate to break it to you, but even if you made all of the money equal, he wasn’t going to sign with Milwaukee or Kansas City. What people consider “large markets” are large markets because they have things that draw people there, and that isn’t going to be any different for the majority of players.
JoeBrady
People also don’t understand that almost all of them do the same thing.
They pay money into a social security fund, and receive a far larger payment 40 years later.
Yankee Clipper
Excellent article/explanation, Tim. This will hopefully clarify the issue.
haighwiser
Why is it if people don’t agree with it you assume they don’t understand what they are doing. I don’t care if he deferred all of it and played for free it shouldn’t get the Dodgers off the hook for the full value of the contract. Otherwise this defeats the whole purpose of it, they should just do away with it.
Yankee Clipper
Okay, I agree, but I don’t see the LAD as getting off the hook. They are paying more per year AAV than any other player on any other team.
If you’re asserting that no referrals should be allowed, that’s a different discussion. I’m merely saying it’s not dodging anything, and it’s not something unique to LAD.
JSC Cubbs
@yankeeclipper just because “46 is a big number” doesn’t mean they aren’t getting off the hook.
They are getting off the hook of having 70 count against them for 10 years, or even doing the aav of 35 but for all 20 payout years.
ctst
Brother, the fact you are implying that the Dodgers get “off the hook for anything” shows that you don’t actually get anything.
showman
People don’t ASSUME you don’t understand, haighwiser. We read your comments and SAW that you don’t understand. You could have replaced all of your comments with “I don’t understand the concept of interest,” and they would have been essentially the same.
Gasu1
Time value of money is a real thing.
JoeBrady
for the full value of the contract.
====================
They do pay taxes on the full value of the contract. But the full value of the contract is not $700M, it is $460M.
UncommonSense
Unfortunately, people don’t read the article, and they look at this through the view of a fan and use their hearts not their heads
CardsFan57
I wonder how much of this is Ohtani leveling his income over decades for tax purposes.
Blue Baron
Quite shrewdly.
gardyparty
The dude will be able to buy a COUNTRY when all is said and done lol. As long as he’s got some decent ppl in his corner. And I hope he does.
TrumboRedux
Shohei4Prez2028!
Blue Baron
@TrumboRedux: He’s ineligible to run.
haighwiser
100%.. This lovey dovey doing it for the Dodgers is a crock, if he can dodge Fed income taxes and state its at least $300 million in taxes. Then Japan takes another 40%.
BrianStrowman9
You realize that Ohtani will make far too much in endorsements + on field salary to move down a tax bracket? He’s going to be taxed at the highest rate.
Why the motherF would he defer his salary out to $68MM PER year in 10 years if this was a tax dodge? Just lunacy you guys type. Generic lines that you’ve heard before.
Daniel Youngblood
No one should be suggesting that Ohtani trying to dodge personal taxes. That’s silly. This discussion is about the league allowing Ohtani and the Dodgers to structure his contract in a way that allows the club to avoid the intended consequences of the competitive balance tax and maintain flexibility their payroll wouldn’t support without an absurd amount of deferred money.
showman
Wrong. Taxes don’t work like that
JoeBrady
Most tax treaties work on the basis that you pay taxes in the country where you work, even as an ex-pat. Then you pay taxes in your home country, at their tax rate, using the taxes you paid overseas as a credit against your home taxes (this is similar to living in NYS and working in NJ).
It also depends on whether you are considered whether you are overseas full-time or part-time. If you move to Singapore for two years, then you simply pay Singapore taxes, no US taxes. If Ohtani is in the US for 8 months, it is likely a combination of the two.
LeMike
He could change his address to a state with lower tax hits when 2034 rolls around.
showman
It’s not where you cash the check. It’s where you earned the money. The money is earned in California regardless of Ohtani’s address now or present
Gasu1
That leads to a more interesting question. My understanding is that an athlete pays state taxes based on where he place the games; in other words, a CA athlete, for some portion of his salary, pays taxes at TX rates. But what happens if they are paid deferred, many years after the games have been played?
DarkSide830
Counterargument: no
Travis’ Wood
Nice counterargument. Solid points made
User 3014224641
Nope. It’s a dodge.
Travis’ Wood
How is it a dodge if it still counts $46 mil towards the tax?
xtraflamy
Because of the rest. And the state and federal income tax will only be for 2MM a year.
ctst
Is this the IRS forum, what the hell should any of us care about what Ohtani pays in income tax?
xtraflamy
People who live in the city/state/country that he’s working in. Taxes pay for infrastructure and services that he’s going to use and the rest of us will fund instead.
Blue Baron
And what do you suggest be done about it? He’s not required to accept a larger salary out of some civic duty to pay more taxes.
showman
Nah
LeMike
Because otherwise the Dodgers would have to pay 95% of tax of those 70 millions (66.5 million), so they are in effect “saving” almost 20 millions of luxury tax.
Travis’ Wood
They aren’t saving anything, that $70 mil AAV was never real as explained in the article
filihok
LeMike
“Because otherwise the Dodgers would have to pay 95% of tax of those 70 millions (66.5 million), so they are in effect “saving” almost 20 millions of luxury tax.”
Non-understanding on your part
They were never going to pay him $700 million between 2024 and 2033. That’s a fiction
They might have paid him $460 million between 2024 and 2033
And praying him $700 million between 2024 and whenever this runs out is equivilant to $460 million
So, that’s what’s counted.
MadBum14
It’s a dodge for both ohtani and the dodgers. Dodgers are paying him $240 million with no CBT tax and ohtani is earning $680 million after he’s done playing and can leave California. I bet he actually makes more when all’s said and done from this concoction than he would’ve on a straight $700 10 year contract.
Travis’ Wood
What do you mean dodgers are paying him $240 mil?
gnomon
What are you talking about? He’s getting paid $2M for ten years with the remaining $680M over the next ten years. The Dodgers are going to take a pretty substantial $46M per year hit on the CBT for ten years. That’s not peanuts. And I’m sorry, but as far as I understand it, any income made in the US is subject to US income taxes so it doesn’t matter where he goes.
Gasu1
He’s making only $460M in salary. He’s also lending the Dodgers a huge pile of money, and getting paid interest on that. But that’s just him acting aska bank, not a player.
MLB Top 100 Commenter
Guardians
The best comparison is the lottery winner. They can take the full payout over decades or get maybe 50%-60% in a lump sum up front. Just think of most MLB players as taking the lump-sum and Ohtani took the payout over time.
Does that choice for the lottery winner upset you? Most people choose the lump-sum but I have no problem with the lottery winner who accepts his or her payments over time.
filihok
MBMVP
“The best comparison is the lottery winner. They can take the full payout over decades or get maybe 50%-60% in a lump sum up front. Just think of most MLB players as taking the lump-sum and Ohtani took the payout over time.
Does that choice for the lottery winner upset you? Most people choose the lump-sum but I have no problem with the lottery winner who accepts his or her payments over time.”
Solid analogy
Bigtimeyankeefan
So do the dodgers get hit with the 68 million a year when they actually pay him the $?
gnomon
Nope. It’s not counted against CBT. But it’s still $68M per year…
filihok
Btyf
“So do the dodgers get hit with the 68 million a year when they actually pay him the $?”
Sigh. No
They are paying tax on $46 million a year now. Not on $2 million. Not on $70 million.
brenden_m
Just because it’s within the letter of the law doesn’t mean it’s within the spirit of the law. Or in the sport’s best interest
SheaGoodbye
And we have MLBPA to thank for that.
shoewizard
This is my thought.
Captain K-Midd
Although some of the best players have and will continue to add deferrals onto their contracts, what he is saying is it is highly unlikely that anyone would defer their contract to this extreme as they are actually losing that money in the long run. Ohtani will be making more in endorsements than any player in baseball history, due to the fact he is an international star, and not just an MLB star. So even if you take out the present day value as an argument, even the best players say Mookie Betts or Freddie Freeman, are not going to want $2 million salaries with the rest deferred because they are not taking in the endorsement money Ohtani is taking in, and cannot invest money to make interest in the future. That’s why signing bonuses are such a big deal, it is money that you get up front, and can invest immediately to earn interest on your income. When players are retired, there are less investment opportunities because you are no longer within the public sphere, your brand is worth less except in very specific cases, like a Derek Jeter. Would you care to buy a product being sold by Tom Glavine if you lived in Philadelphia or by Greg Maddux if you lived in St. Louis?
SheaGoodbye
Good point re: branding post-career.
Blue Baron
The letter of the law is the law. No successful attorney will try to win a case based on the so-called spirit, and no court will consider that as relevant.
It’s like the infamous unwritten rule. If it ain’t written, it ain’t a rule.
JoeBrady
No successful attorney will try to win a case based on the so-called spirit,
========================
It is a moot point anyway. It is within both the letter and the spirit of the law. The union and the owners wanted a device to properly value long-term contracts that have deferred money in them. They agreed that some mid-range government number would suffice for this purpose.
Neither side cares that how much it is used for, how many players use it, etc., because it is completely fair. The only people that have an issue with it are those that don’t understand that the present value of $700M under these terms is $460M.
theonlydynasty
@brenden
This is my feeling exactly. If that’s within the rules, then fine, but that loophole is garbage. As stated, a 2 yr 20 mil deal is a 10 mil CBT hit, regardless of how it’s paid out over the 2 years. Well played by LA, Manfred should be ashamed. As far as it being good or bad for baseball, I would think the fact that this article had to be written in the first place tells you what the fans think
SheaGoodbye
It’s amazing the number of people still blaming Manfred for this when the article clearly states it was the Player’s Association that shot down the idea of a limit on deferred money. I don’t like the guy, but facts are facts.
ignasis
Yeah, it’s pretty ridiculous. Because obviously the Players want deferrals to be discounted for CBT purposes. It allows them to go to teams and say, “Shohei Ohtani got 700 million” and the team will come back and say, “Yeah but there are all these deferrals, it’s not really 700 million”, and the agent will just say, “C’mon GM, you’re not going to pull a fast one on us.”
The agent knows they won’t get the full value, but… they’ll use it raise the tides… It’ll have an upward effect on player salaries… That means it’s bad for teams and the commissioner represents the owners, not the players… Pretty nuts.
Blue Baron
@ignasis: In other words, it enables agents to more effectively do their jobs as advocates for their player clients.
Funny thing is, the rising tides of player compensation haven’t been so bad for teams. Franchise values have exploded exponentially in recent decades.
There are reasons for the saying that rising tides lift all boats.
ignasis
I think we’re generally aligned… but… I don’t agree that there is any relation between franchise values increasing as a result of player compensation increasing… I do believe the opposite is true though… Player compensation has definitely increased as franchise values have increased and more revenue has entered the equation…
People can question this about other aspects of the economy, but… Professional sports is 100% a trickle down economy. There’s really no debate to be had there. Owners completely control the purse strings, period.
Blue Baron
Owners control the purse strings, but not as tightly as they illegally did under the reserve system before Marvin Miller came along and organized the players to gain more equitable compensation for the revenues they create.
ignasis
Definitely. Players receive more now than in the past. They definitely have more leverage. And, I’m in favour of it.
My point is simply that if the Los Angeles Dodgers had the same team on the field and spent 10% on salary to do so, it would be worth even more money than it is now. Not less.
And, at the end of the day, owners commit to spending money they don’t want to. They may regret their commitments later… But… Teams make revenue, revenue is used to pay players… If team makes more revenue, there’s more revenue to pay the players… But… Players don’t get raises until teams make more money. Always.
filihok
Tod
” I would think the fact that this article had to be written in the first place tells you what the fans think”
This article had to be written because fans are ignorant
They don’t understand finance. They don’t understand present value. The don’t understand investing.
Gasu1
It’s not a “loophole”. The Dodgers are just borrowing money to make payroll. The only oddity is that Ohtani is the lender. It works out just the same for the Dodgers as if they borrowed that money from a bank.
Tim Dierkes
I didn’t claim it was in the sport’s best interest. There are only two entities with power in MLB and neither has a mandate to operate in the sport’s best interest.
Blue Baron
Excellent point.
Tim Dierkes
I agree, but there’s also no entity here with power that works in the sport’s best interest.
vonjunk
With the DODGErs did we expect any different outcome?
DeusSexMachina
The fact that the padres tried to circumvent the CBT with the Judge contract, yet fans of other teams will still sit there and cry foul on the Dodgers for this is the cherry on top. The Dodgers are just smarter. They are incredibly well-run and it shouldn’t surprise anyone that a player like Ohtani wants to play there and chose to do this.
FredBlassie
This crosses the line from smart and savvy to unethical. It’s absolutely terrible for the sport. Ohtani goes from hero to villain overnight. Hope it’s worth it.
gnomon
OK, so the guy who decides to offer of his own accord the most team friendly contract in the history of baseball becomes a villain? Jeez, would you rather that he take $50M a year no deferrals?
FredBlassie
I’d rather that Uber-wealthy people pay their taxes.
Travis’ Wood
Ohtani a villain? Only if you’re a low IQ troll who has no clue what’s going on
Hammerin' Hank
Low IQ trolls who haven’t a clue what’s going on? You just described about 75 percent of the people on here. The ones whose knee-jerk reaction to any player getting a big contract and not signing with their favorite team is that it’s all bad and that it’s going to ruin the sport. These people won’t be happy unless baseball goes back to using the reserve clause because it’s just not right that these ballplayers are getting paid what they’re actually worth.
Travis’ Wood
I’m amazed at how atrocious the comment section is on this site lol it’s pretty wild
Blue Baron
@Hammerin’ Hank: Best comment on here!
MLB Top 100 Commenter
Fred
I just don’t see it as unethical or villainous.
The best comparison is the lottery winner. They can take the full payout over decades or get maybe 50%-60% in a lump sum up front. Just think of most MLB players as taking the lump-sum and Ohtani took the payout over time.
Daniel Youngblood
Except it’s the opposite in this case. Ohtani made his contract significantly less valuable by deferring.
It was a manipulation tactic, plain and simple. This contract isn’t good for either side if you take out the CBT implications. So why would both agree to it? Hmmm …
Blue Baron
@FredBlassie: If it’s within the rules, it’s not unethical.
FredBlassie
That’s not the definition of ethical.
Blue Baron
What specifically is unethical about it other than you not liking it?
FredBlassie
It’s designed to allow an extremely wealthy individual the ability to avoid paying tax. And as you can see by the volume of comments, it’s pissed off a lot of people. That’s not great for baseball.
Blue Baron
Crap. He won’t avoid paying taxes, he will pay taxes on his income in the years of receipt. This is perfectly legal and not the least bit unethical.
People like you who get pissed off because you’re ignorant of economics and the mechanisms of finance and taxation are much worse for baseball and society in general.
FredBlassie
He’s going to avoid paying California state tax, saving perhaps $90M. You’re the ignorant one.
Blue Baron
He will pay all federal and state taxes as required on his income.
I happen to be an Enrolled Agent with the IRS, so I know a bit about taxes.
At your level of ignorance, you should keep your piehole shut and quit while you’re ahead.
FredBlassie
So you can confirm that even with deferring the payments for 10 years and leaving the state of California, he’ll still need to pay tax on all the deferments to the state of California? He won’t be paying state tax on his deferments to his state of residency, which may be a state with no income tax? Is that what what you’re saying Baron? That seems to fly in the face of tax law. It’s a common practice that even Bobby Bonilla took advantage of.
But maybe it’s just my piehole talking.
Blue Baron
He will be liable for tax in his state of residence for income received.
While playing for the Dodgers, he will be liable for tax on his income in California and any other state he plays games in, just as he has been while playing for the Angels.
It’s not that complicated and he’s doing nothing wrong or illegal.
If you don’t like it, write to your representative in Congress.
FredBlassie
I didn’t say any of it was illegal. I said it was unethical. I’m not surprised that an attorney doesn’t understand the difference.
While playing for the Dodgers, he will pay taxes to California on $2M/year. Not coincidentally, by deferring the rest of the money by 10 years, he can move to another tax free state (or out of the country) and pay no state tax on the remaining $680M – thus saving roughly $90M as I originally stated.
What are you disputing?
disadvantage
This is a complete whataboutism. People claimed the Padres spending a lot of money was “bad for the game”, do you really think nobody would have cried foul on that contract? Not to mention that there was talk MLB was actively ready to step in if that contract was awarded.
So no, the Dodgers are not the victim here.
Tim Dierkes
Why does it matter what “people claimed” about the Padres?
CNichols
Because it exposes the double standard in the sport. Ken Rosenthal is out here writing articles about how this is great for the game that Ohtani signed with LAD and not Toronto. But Buster Olney called the Padres crazy when they spent on Machado and Heyman said the league might have vetoed a Judge deal. There is talk that behind the scenes that MLB is selectively enforcing the debt service rules on SD.
It’s clear the narrative is when big market teams spend = good. Small market teams spend = bad.
Blue Baron
CNichols: Talk specifically by whom behind what scenes?
Sounds suspiciously made up.
Travis’ Wood
Nobody thinks it’s bad when small market teams spend dude. What an absurd red herring
disadvantage
@tim
It matters in the context of @deux stating, “The fact that the padres tried to circumvent the CBT with the Judge contract, yet fans of other teams will still sit there and cry foul on the Dodgers…”.
He is gesturing at imagined hypocrisy, as in fans will only “sit there and cry foul on the Dodgers” while other teams get away with it (in this situation, the Padres). That is not the case. But even if you’d still take exception to what “people claimed” regarding the Padres, and even if people were softer on a team like, say, the Giants or Angels, attempting that same contract (although you as well as anybody should know they would not be), the CBT would’ve still been involved, which only further makes the claim “…cry foul on the Dodgers” even more laughable.
CNichols
@Blue Baron the debt service issue has been reported on by multiple people. Don’t really appreciate the insinuation that I’m making things up, but I’ll give you the context.
The debt service issue was reported on in the Athletic Nov 1st article from Evan Drelich that discussed the Padres finances and stated that anywhere from 25-33% of teams are out of compliance with the debt service rule at any given time. The way the league approaches it varies. The article says most of the time the league does nothing, but sometimes they put teams on informal or formal plans to get in compliance.
The SD Union Tribune has also reported that SD was lowering their payroll to get in compliance with this debt service rule. Darren Smith on SD AM760 has subsequently said multiple times on the radio that it appears MLB essentially told SD they needed to get in compliance with debt service rules by lowering their payroll.
There’s not a lot of transparency on the internal dealings between MLB and its franchises so we don’t know exactly what MLB is doing, but basically the concern here is that up to 1/3 of the league is out of compliance with these debt rules, but we’re really only hearing about them being enforced on SD, which is a small market team with a huge payroll.
Dennis Boyd
Nob Bightengale was all bent out of shape when both Mets (big market) and Padres (small market) spent gobs of money and failed. He has no issues with obtain contract, so now I know the contract is bad for baseball
Blue Baron
@Dennis Boyd: Obtain contract?
Dennis Boyd
Lol, typo that I didn’t catch. Thanks. Should have read ‘ohtani’s contract’. Just a dig at Nob, er Bob.
Gasu1
I think we can be pretty sure that Ohtani’s side proposed the structure. It seems unlikely a team would suggest a player do this.
SheaGoodbye
This is what playing for an inept franchise for so long does to a player of Ohtani’s caliber. Gotta maximize those championship odds at all costs. Literally.
So don’t blame him or the Dodgers for this ridiculous contract. Blame the Angels. It’s always the Angels.
bag o ballz
But it is still a Dodge because 2mm comes out of the budget meaning if you do exceed the luxury tax you end up paying a reduced rate overall since the money is not allotted to payroll, effectively nullifying penalties incurred from the tax. In addition the deferred money is at the higher rate of inflation and 10 years of CBT raises so effectively the later payments become negligible
ilikesports
Yes, this!!!
gnomon
Sorry, but an annual $46M CBT hit is not negligible by any means. Sure, it’s not $70M, and it shouldn’t be. They just happened to find a player willing to take that kind of deal.
ilikesports
Dude check the future value. That’s what the original post is referencing. If you optimistically assume 2% inflation per year, 46 mil today is going to be worth about 36 in 10 years. And then you have to consider that the tax thresholds are going to rise far more than 2% annually. So yea, this is a Dodger Dodge, and it’d be the same thing if anyone, team or player, did it (albeit with likely less alliteration).
gnomon
Sure, then let’s extrapolate this even further. Shohei’s $2M in 2024 is going to be “worth” less than $2M in ten years. Why stop there? Let’s just place real world values on every existing contract to factor inflation so we can drive down the AAV? So in essence, every team would be “dodging” the CBT by offering a long term contract?
Don’t buy the argument. With the inherent risk in the sport, even factoring in inflation, a 30-40M tax hit is a substantial amount of money that cannot be dismissed like it’s nothing.
ilikesports
Ok, fair enough. I was defending the original post in terms of the “negligible” argument.
But to call the structuring of a contract in a way that hides full tax implications for the term of that contract anything but dodging would be false.
Or you just have a very different definition of “dodge”.
gnomon
I only object to the use of “dodge” because it infers that they did something wrong. The truth is that any team could have (and probably would have) if they had the opportunity to do the same. Do you not think that the Reds (bad example, I know) wouldn’t have jumped at the chance to sign this kind of deal if they had the financials to do it?
As some posters have already mentioned, this is nothing new in sports, it’s been done in the NBA, NFL, and yes, the MLB for years now. It’s just never happened to a player of this kind and for this kind of money. It’s an outlier. It’s a perfect storm of a team with the financial strength and structure of the Dodgers matching up with a player willing to defer an unheard amount of his contract because he wants to help the team build around him. We’ll probably never see this happen again. And if it does, then more power to the next guy and team.
xtraflamy
But it also allows them to initially stay below the luxury tax threshold, and retain the ability and choice to blow by it by signing (an)other big player(s). They know they’re forfeiting draft picks and placement, so they reduced the tax to be able to sign more top 50 free agents. If they hadn’t dodged the CBT, they’d be more limited to signing additional top free agents and also not lose international signing money.
This is what the competitive balance tax was trying to avoid. This doesn’t accomplish parity.
Gasu1
The Dodgers are going to be paying out $68M in 10 years. I know you understand the concept; but trust me, you really need to get out a spreadsheet, get hold of the term structure of interest rates, and calculate it all year by individual year over the 20 years of the deal. It’s the summation of a series; there’s no way to figure this out on a napkin.
bag o ballz
except that the cbt value will most definitely outpace the 46mm value so even if you want to say that the $46mm is a lot of money in 10 years (it isn’t because of the ownership structure) the hit to the cbt becomes fairly nonexistent
bag o ballz
it is a dodge though in a literal sense because they are literally pushing off the cbt restriction penalties into a future where the cbt level will be higher thereby allowing them to dodge penalties. it also allows them to dodge because they don’t face the normal punishments since any current tax penalties are absorbed by the lower payroll /WAR payments
Travis’ Wood
Nope they aren’t pushing any CB restriction penalties into the future…. Did you read the article? $46 mil per year every year based on the value of the contract…
gnomon
Well, using that logic, then ANY long term contract should be considered a “dodge” of the CBT since the hit diminishes over time. Don’t hear many people complaining about that, do we?
Is it exploiting a loophole? Yes, but then so are these long term contracts such as the 11 year deal signed by Trea Turner, which would pay him until he’s 40. They don’t truly expect him to play 11 more years. It’s just a way for them to stretch out the payment over a longer period, thus reducing the cap hit. Didn’t hear many people complaining about that one other than the ones complaining that they shouldn’t be paying Turner for his late 30s-early 40s.
People need to stop looking at the $680M number as some kind of interest free loan. It’s the interest adjusted number for the deferred amount of money over ten years. MLB rules require that the deferred money must be funded by the team within two years of the season in question. That said, you have to look at it for what it is. The Dodgers are “borrowing” $440M over the next ten years, which with interest, amounts to $680M due for the years 2034-2045 under the MLB’s calculation.
We can debate all day about how only big market teams could afford to do that, but that’s an entirely different issue. You want true parity? Harp for a hard cap/floor. But that wouldn’t solve the separation of the haves and have nots. Large market owners would gladly accept a hard cap because it suppresses contract numbers whereas smaller market owners would revolt against being forced to spend. And let’s not forget that the MLBPA would never ever ever agree to it.
Admittedly, I’m a Dodger fan so I love the deal, but I wouldn’t have crushed the Padres, Giants or any other team for that matter if they had signed Ohtani to the same contract. Honestly, I don’t think we’ll see this kind of deal again, where a player of his skill set defers 97% of his contract because he wants to play for a specific team. Both parties got what they wanted out of the deal, and I have no problem with it, even if he signed with another team.
Travis’ Wood
Nailed it gnomom. But also remember that MLB still has just as much parity as other sports, if not more once the playoffs are included. 16 different title winners since 2000, 3 more than any other major sport. Plus the top 3 payrolls all missed the playoffs last year while the team with the second lowest payroll won 100 games. Money certainly helps but it’s not a guarantee of winning
SeibuLionsNPB
I get the argument and if it had been any other team besides one of the top 5 spenders would it really be an issue. Ok so he is making $2 million but the luxury tax hit is $46 million that is still a lot of money to pay for a season. If the hit is only $46 million a season for 10 years that still is a detriment long term for the Dodgers in a sense of ducking under the luxury tax line. Maybe they don’t care about ever being under the line, I don’t know. They just have the financial ability to spend on the players they want and I am jealous that more teams can’t do it. But what they did is within mlb guidelines and apparently ohtani is OK with it or he wouldn’t sign the contract.
Look the man makes a lot on endorsements yearly and likely more now that he has the Dodgers machine behind him. Even if he does never pitch the way he has in the past a $2 million salary is palatable for a team like the Dodgers. The real thing is if he gets injured in year 2 or 3 and is unable to play, well he still gets paid $68 million a year for the next 10 years after he is done with this contract. Whether the money is worth $460 million or $700 million that is enough money to live on for the rest of your life. Maybe he just goes back to Japan and lives his life and doesn’t worry because he has $68 million reasons to wake up every day for the next 10 years. I’m sure taxes will come out but even half that a year is more than a lot of people earn in a career.
SheaGoodbye
As Tim said, it took a perfect storm for this type of contract to come together. Fine. I don’t blame Ohtani nor the Dodgers for pursuing it. And it’s not likely to be a significant problem moving forward with very few players likely willing to do this type of contract.
With that said, the CBA is designed to be able to handle “what if” scenarios, and in that sense it failed to do its job thanks to the Player’s Association. There’s no question that there should’ve been a limit to deferrals in place with an eye toward competitive balance. To not have one is malpractice. So I do understand the frustration many have with this type of contract, even if that frustration is misplaced at times.
Blue Baron
@SheaGoodbye: The CBA is an instrument negotiated and agreed to by both MLB owners and the MLBPA.
If it “failed to do its job,” as you assert, then that’s thanks to both the owners and the players’ association.
And saying it failed to do its job is fallacious. The CBA exists to set forth terms of the relationship between labor and management, not to produce a particular outcome for a specific player’s contract.
The CBA did its job as required.
FredBlassie
This is gross, Tim. Seriously disgusting. I can’t think of many things worse for the sport.
amk1920
Every central team but the Cubs and Cardinals being ran like Mom and Pop shops is worse for the sport than anything the Dodgers do
Travis’ Wood
Why? It still counts $46 mil towards the luxury tax, the highest of all time? What’s wrong with pointing that out?
El Niño
Because it should be 70.
Tim Dierkes
Why?
FredBlassie
Accounting games and felony levels of tax avoidance aren’t great.
Travis’ Wood
Should be $70? So you either don’t understand basic math or didn’t read the article. Congrats
Catuli Carl
It should be $70M because it n the contract that both parties signed, it says the Dodgers are paying him $700M for 10 years of work.
When exactly they actually hand the cash over to him should be irrelevant.
If you can’t afford to pay him $700M and can in fact only afford $460M then that is what you should have to put on the contract.
Travis’ Wood
That is what’s on the contract if you understand time value of money. Which you don’t
Catuli Carl
Everyone in here understands that $700M in 20 years will have less purchasing power than $700M today. Everyone understands that.
We’re saying the Dodgers shouldn’t be able to take that into account for the CBT.
I get the impression that YOU didn’t understand the time value of money until you started reading through this comment section and now you’re very excited that you do and are trying to condescend to everyone as if they “just don’t get it.”
They do. They’re saying it should be irrelevant as far as CBT dollars are concerned.
Travis’ Wood
Dude. The only reason the contract is $700 mil is BECAUSE of the deferrals…. The time value of money means his $46 mil AAV is worth $68 mil AAV from 2034-2043…. Stop thinking he was ever going to get $70 mil AAV. That’s just made up
Catuli Carl
“The only reason the contract is $700 mil is BECAUSE of the deferrals”
We. Understand. That.
We are saying that that is an unfair loophole. if the Dodgers want to pay a player $700M for playing on their team for the next 10 years, (starting next year), then that should count as $70M per year against the CBT regardless of when the money actually changes hands.
Travis’ Wood
They aren’t paying him $700 mil the next 10 years…. They’re paying him $460 mil over the next 10 years…. That’s equal to $700 mil over 20 years…. Come on man
Blue Baron
@FredBlassie: You disliking it for some vague, nebulous reason doesn’t make it bad for the sport.
What specifically do you mean?
Baez Caught me Sleeping
Was I supposed to read all of that and walk away not thinking it’s bulls**t?
Seems like a pile of garbage to me.
Tim Dierkes
I mean, yeah, I’d hope you’d be able to read 1,200 words on something and offer some sort of valid counterargument before judging it.
Baez Caught me Sleeping
A fair point. Just feeling tired after an exhausting day in my personal life. On a surface level it just feels wrong and bad for the sport.
Travis’ Wood
The highest luxury tax hit in mlb history feels unfair?
xtraflamy
Yes. Because it should be the whole thing.
Daniel Youngblood
Precisely. I don’t understand why this is so difficult for some to understand.
filihok
RE Tim Dierkes
Can’t help but think the [mess] that we are seeing in the comments here could have been at least partially avoided if readers had had an existing understanding of present and future value
For example, if the site had run yearly articles explaining those concepts and then describing long-term contracts in terms of total value and future value (10/$300 $205 FV).
Tim Dierkes
Yes I do think we could do more on that topic.
Catuli Carl
Future value should be absolutely irrelevant as far as the CBT is concerned. You agreed to pay him $700M for 10 years of work.
You waiting longer to actually hand over the cash and saying “well it will probably only have about $460M worth of spending power by then” shouldn’t allow you to lower the CBT hit
You keep saying that people don’t understand present vs future value. They do. They understand why the CBT hit is only $460M, but they think that’s absurd and just a way to avoid a $70M/year hit, which it is.
splooz
Garbage explanation for garbage tactics. Reminds of of NFL void years or the Ilya Kovulchuck deal the NHL said nyet to.
amk1920
This isnt a salary cap league so who cares. There are no limits in baseball as long as your owner isnt frugal
bambat
So the rationale in the article claims that MLB is okay to allow teams to bring the AAV down for CBT purposes using deferred money but not extra years. Sure, the $46M is a record AAV but then it should be okay for teams to do this with other players. Why not give Yamamoto a 10 year / $200M deal but defer $50M of it to keep the AAV under $20M/year?
Are we suggesting the Padres would have been fine to give Judge a 10-year/$400M offer with $58M deferred but not a 14-year/$400M offer (with the idea he may get released after year 10)? In both cases, the player gets $400M and the team gets 10 years of service at least. Or maybe they should structure it as 10-year/$342M with a 4 year team option or $58M buyout.
Travis’ Wood
Players have to agree… you have to significantly overpay for them to do so. That’s the point. Ohtani doesn’t get anywhere near $700 mil if the contract isn’t deferred
Baez Caught me Sleeping
This is a lot of writing to get us to be alright with garbage. A contract should not be *this* nuanced.
I choose to be frustrated. Glad my money can support Tim being a b*tch. Still love him, and still love this site, but this is some hastily written nonsense.
Tim Dierkes
Both your comments to this point are mostly just complaining about how you weren’t willing to read the full article.
Baez Caught me Sleeping
Yep, I’m just mad and it’s the internet haha.
Travis’ Wood
Lol none of the addresses anything in the article. You didn’t even attempt a counter argument. $46 mil towards the salary cap, the highest cap hit in history. What’s wrong with pointing that out? Ohtani was never gonna get anywhere near $700 mil without deferrals
Baez Caught me Sleeping
As I said before, I’m just frustrated lol. I didn’t address anything in the article whatsoever. It was way too late at night for me to be reading through this when I’m so tired.
On most other social media sites I can just delete a comment after seeing what others have to say and taking a second to breathe. I can’t seem to find a way to do that through this platform.
My original goal was to vent then delete. Whoops. Looks like I have to just own the garbage I put out into the world. Ugh.
Travis’ Wood
You’re good bro
Baez Caught me Sleeping
Thanks homie. I felt bad for going on a multi-comment tirade. Tomorrow is a new day lol.
Tim Dierkes
Yeah we probably both came in a little hot, it’s cool. And I am not saying people shouldn’t feel a certain way or anything.
JoeBrady
I’m just frustrated lol.
===========================
This is more a generic question than directed at you, but why would you be frustrated.
1-Both the owners and players agree to the treatment of deferred payments. That should be good.
2-The factor of using a 4.43% which is roughly what the 5-year treasury yields, seems reasonable.
3-Even with the signing, I believe that the LAD are still only #5 in payroll, and they can sign Yamamoto and still have a lower payroll than Philly (COTS). That seems reasonable.
MLB Top 100 Commenter
Baez
The best comparison is the lottery winner. They can take the full payout over decades or get maybe 50%-60% in a lump sum up front. Just think of most MLB players as taking the lump-sum and Ohtani took the payout over time.
How is Ohtani nuanced and the lottery payout choice routine? The simple answer is because most players would never go for this. People generally like their lump-sum payment and I would want the lump-sum were I ever so fortunate.
ignasis
I see people in the comments still don’t understand… If you feel it is a tax dodge, please answer these simple questions.
Do you consider 10/700 million without deferrals and 10/700 million with deferrals to be the same contracts? Which contract would you rather have? Why would you rather have that contract? Why shouldn’t MLB account for the difference in the CBT process?
filihok
ignasis
100
People commenting on things that they don’t understand.
Thank_God_Im_Not_Tim_Dierkes
Dude. Tim.
That’s a tax dodge brother. You literally just wrote 1223 words of nonsense that could be summed up as, “they didn’t hide $680M, but they did try to sneak out with a Cody Bellinger each year under their jacket!”
You literally spell out how they are paying Shohei Ohtani $70M, but only having to be Competitive Balance Taxed for $46M/year. They are literally squirreling away a Cody Bellinger each year for the next decade.
What’s next, you’re going to piss on my head and tell me it’s raining?
Tim Dierkes
Time value of money
Thank_God_Im_Not_Tim_Dierkes
They are short of the cap by $10M, what is the point if they are going to defer $31M into the future when the cap will inevitably rise, or they can rebuild and slide under it with a decade to prepare?!
Time value of money is not a response, it’s cryptic at best. We aren’t talking about me not paying my rent for 10 years, so my mortgage is less of my paycheck, it’s about them intentionally doctoring their books to avoid a cap hit.
Let’s also be clear, they aren’t doing this about money, they have more than enough of that to pay the cap, this is about acquiring more players through the international amateur signing period, getting better Rule V draft picks (not getting dinged), and other elements that blowing through the cap is supposed to penalize rich teams to make it a more equitable game for smaller markets. It undermines the whole intent of a salary cap and makes it a 5 team league.
ignasis
@Tim I’m sure you’re well aware of this, but… I’m irritated so I’ll vent into the ether…
There exist people in the world that aren’t interested in the truth. They’re interested in validating and rationalizing their “personal truth”. This realization can be made into an overly political one, but it need not be… I’ve never witnessed any such people being open to conversation on their views. That’s just not a part of their plan.
Try not to waste too much of your life trying to convince them lol…
Thank_God_Im_Not_Tim_Dierkes
Ignasis, you’re a toady and people are justifiably upset with being told “this isn’t a tax dodge”, when it clearly is or they wouldn’t be doing it. Do you honestly think they can’t afford $70M? Do you think they need a decade to save up the money? So if they have the money, why else would they wait to pay him without alterior motives?! See you are so busy trying to kiss the ring, you don’t even look at the facts.
Tim said (paraphrased), “it’s not a tax dodge because they’ll have to pay all $700m.”
I said, “the Dodgers are going to pay $127.42M in salary for the 2024 season to their Top 3 players (Ohtani, Betts, and Freeman), but because they deferred money, it only counts as $96M against the cap, so they’re $10M under the cap in 2024,”
As a result, they don’t have to pay taxes on his salary, they don’t drop out of the 1st round in the amateur draft the following year, and other penalties tied to exceeding the salary cap, will not affect the Dodgers.
If you didn’t this to the IRS, you’d be thrown in jail, you’d forfeit everything, and they’d auction your business and your personal belongings to the highest bidders! This is literally a tax shelter, take a moment, look it up, read it, read it again, then come back and see if you see the parallels.
If you don’t understand the argument or can’t understand the counter-argument, or are so biased you can’t be objective while looking at the information, you probably shouldn’t comment in a way where you take a hard leaning stance on something where you are so clearly wrong.
ignasis
I’m not wrong, and your comment clearly demonstrates you don’t understand this at all. Hilarious.
Thank_God_Im_Not_Tim_Dierkes
Because you said so? Because you used… facts… like me? Remind me again what facts you used?!
How does my opinion contradicting the opinion of someone with an unjustified self-inflated sense of themself, demonstrate my failure to comprehend that which I clearly processed, deconstructed, and then directly debated against with point-by-point analysis in a fair and level-headed perspective?!
I’m not going to get into a intellectual measuring contest with you because you’d probably lie, and from your style of communication, I already know you are firmly tied to the high 90s or low 100s of the IQ chart. More importantly, the people who say another person doesn’t understand, usually is wading too far into the deep end of the pool for them to safely navigate their surroundings.
As for you commenting “hilarious”, it reeks of the time a woman at a drive through window tried telling me “frowny face emoji” when they were out of something. As though you can now speak an emoji into regular face-to-face interactions. To which I’ll say, I can only guess you caught a glimpse of the mirror and forgot you were alone!
ignasis
You can describe your assessment in whatever terms you’d like. You can believe whatever you’d like about the quality of your argument. I don’t have to agree, and I don’t agree.
Your post is filled with so many errors, many of which are pretty unbelievably basic, that I just can’t summon the willpower to even begin to correct you.
Your combative tone also all but guarantees that you’d never be open to a proper discussion on this and would never receive any explanation from me objectively.
So, why would I waste my time trying? I wouldn’t, and I won’t.
PS: Did you mean, “forgot you weren’t alone?”
PPS: Insults are better when you actually get them right!
Travis’ Wood
The $70 mil number isn’t real though? He was always going to make around $46 mil AAV. Nothing you said refutes the article
Thank_God_Im_Not_Tim_Dierkes
Everything I said refutes the article, he’s saying the Dodgers manipulation isn’t a tax dodge because they will pay him $700M. However, they are only counting $96,336,300 towards the cap out of $127,416,667 that they will be paying Ohtani, Freeman, and Betts! That is literally dodging $31M in cap space. They currently sit at $227M in total salary against a cap of $237M. Meaning they have acquired everything they need to compete next year, and still have $10M left to spend before it costs them draft picks, international bonus pool money, and having to pay extra funds towards the competitive balance fund.
This is money from which smaller markets could really benefit. If this becomes an ongoing trend, like when the Yankees extend Soto or other big market team uses this to game the system annually, it’s going to do to baseball what is happening in this country, where the gap between rich and poor is growing exponentially with each passing day. If you’ve got deep pockets and you can pay more for Ohtani, good for you, congratulations, I’m happy for you. But don’t be a shiesty organization that doesn’t pay the penalties for spending recklessly on an old used car because you like the way the seat hugs your butt.
Travis’ Wood
I dont think you understand. Ohtani’s cap hit is $46 mil. His expected contract this offseason was always going to be somewhere around $46 mil. They just pushed it into the future to have payroll flexibility. It’s only a tax dodge if you think the $70 mil AAV number was ever going to be real. And it clearly wasn’t
BlueSkies_LA
You say clearly, as if reality is a thing anymore. The world we live in now can be so depressing.
toptimrubies
there is no doubt that they don’t understand, despite it being clearly defined in the article and over and over in the comments.
Thank_God_Im_Not_Tim_Dierkes
No, you’re not getting it.
He’s getting paid $700 million dollars to play 10 seasons, that’s $70 million dollars a year. He is waiting to get paid, so the cap hit is $46,081,476 in 2024.
If he was getting paid the $70 million dollars he is being assigned for this season in the same year he will earn the money (or not earn it, depending on production), then his salary should be $70 million dollars against the team cap, regardless of when he gets it.
fangraphs.com/roster-resource/payroll/dodgers
As all teams have to be under $237 million or face penalties…
google.com/search?q=2024+MLB+salary+cap
Ohtani’s deferment saves the Dodgers $23,918,524 in cap amount, which matters because they are currently sitting at $227 million in total estimated cap effected payroll, while they should be at $250,918,524.
If they were over the cap again this year, the Dodgers would face the following penalites…
> 50% additional of the above amount making the penalty $11,959,262, if they don’t add or subtract any players from the roster for the next year. This resets back to 20% if they stay below the threshold.
> 12% surcharge ($1,435M) for being between $20M & $40M over the cap.
> If they add $17M more (supposing they weren’t hiding his salary), they’d jump to a 42.5% surcharge of $40M ($17M up to $25.5M in penalties if their payroll reached to $297M.
> If they exceeded a payroll of $297M ($60M over the cap), they’d have to pay a 60% surcharge ($36M in penalties)
> For signing Ohtani (a Qualifying Offer recipient), the Dodgers will forfeit $500K in international bonus pool money, if they exceed the cap, they’d also lose an additional $500K ($1M total) to spend on international amateurs in the coming year. That’s a significant amount, usually equal to a Top 40-50 globally ranked player.
His statement was this is not a tax dodge, it’s not only a dodge it’s a full tax shelter, allowing them to save money, prevent resources owed being distributed to smaller markets, and allowing them to acquire amateur talent that should be only available to smaller market teams in the attempt to keep the game equitable and competitive.
toptimrubies
what you continually fail to realize is that he was never going to be paid a straight 70 million a year salary. it is only 70 million because it is deferred, but gives a value of 46 million per year.
46 million is still by far the highest yearly salary and CBT hit in MLB.
Thank_God_Im_Not_Tim_Dierkes
No, what you are failing to get is they aren’t paying him $70M this year to avoid the penalties. It’s not a contest on highest hit, it;s the fact they value him enough to pay him $70M per season, but they are doing it in a way where it avoids the cap. They are clearly and intentionally holding money aside for the sake of not being penalized.
Simple task…. Answer these questions…
1) Could the Dodgers afford to pay Ohtani $70M this season if they wanted? Yes.
2) Do the Dodgers benefit from staying under the cap? Yes.
3) Does this pay structure keep the Dodgers under the cap in a way that paying him $70M per year with no deferment would not? Yes.
4) Did Ohtani admit that this was his idea, so that it would help the Dodgers to remain more competitive? Yes.
5) If this keeps them more competitive by doing this salary structure, doesn’t that point to deception of the salary cap rules? Yes.
6) If not dishonest, then how does the deferral help the Dodgers in any meaningful way? The only other way is if they agreed to a contract they can’t afford. Which we know they can, so again, it was for deception.
7) Who benefits from this contract structure? The Dodgers, Ohtani, the Dodgers fans.
8) Does avoiding to pay penalties help or hurt the MLB?! Hurts.
The only people who will defend this are people who work for big market teams or support them with their fandom. More specifically every stakeholder in the Dodgers organization, such as the owners, front office, players, coaches, additional staff, fans, and businesses that have revenue streams that are directly effected by his signing. Those people are all biased and their opinions are not fair and balanced.
So if you fall into any of those categories, you should recuse yourself from this conversation. It would be like me saying as a Mariners fan that this was totally above board if Jerry signed this contract with Ohtani. Even if the Mariners did this contract I would be pissed though because I hold myself to a higher standard than to bias my own opinions at the cost of my integrity..
Thank_God_Im_Not_Tim_Dierkes
So, if I lie about how much I made in 2023 and send the government $12K instead of $20K because in my mind I’m not going to account for the money someone paid in a check for my old car this year, until after January 1st when I’ll cash the check. because I’ll be retired next year, when I won’t have to pay as much taxes on it, would that be okay with the IRS?!
You are stating the cap hit as being absolute, but it’s only $46M because he’s deferring money. He’s deferrng money to avoid the team salary cap. The point is, would they be deferring money if there was no cap? No. so you then have your answer, it’s to avoid the penalties.
So it’s a tax dodge. Sure, based on inflation it’ll be worth more money, but he’s signing a contract based on the value and he’s deferring the bulk of that money to create an economic advantage for the Dodgers and that’s wrong regardless of what team you root for personally.
Let’s try something else….
Say we look back in 10 years and Ohtani retires after this deal, he posts 6000 PA, 5200 AB, 500 2B, 100 3B, 400 HR, etc.
As a pitcher he finishes with 125 wins, a 3.20 ERA, 1700 Ks, etc.
How much did the Dodgers agree to pay him for that performance over the 10 years of his contract?!
$700M
How many years did he play to earn that money?!
10 years
How much does that equal per year?
$70M
So if they are agreeing to pay him $700M for that performance after 10 years and that’s worth $46M in current money supposedly… Why not just pay him $460M/10 years?
Because it would screw up their salary cap!
Ignorant Son-of-a-b
@ThankGod I have to commend you for your tenacity brother. I’m still figuring out what to think of everything myself, but I admire the confidence in your stance and can tell you’re not trying to bull$hit us.
BrianStrowman9
@Angels
Can we do some financial transactions together? Because you don’t get money.
You win the lottery—take a look at the lump sum total versus the total you get if you defer the upfront total and take the yearly payment (that’s called an annuity). How is it that the lottery gets to pay mega millions winners let’s say $500MM up front or a total of $700MM if they defer payment?
They agreed to pay out $700MM if I defer?!!???!!? Why won’t they give me $700MM NOW?!!!?!!!
Because time value of money is a concept. I don’t understand how people can’t wrap their head around it.
Thank_God_Im_Not_Tim_Dierkes
@BrianStrawmanIs9
His salary in the 10th year is $2M, his salary in the 11th year is $68M, how much of that is really deferred when paid a couple months later?!
Now how far do you have to separate the deferment from the payment before it’s a noticeable and distinctly quantifiable difference?!
One, if someone is so good at predicting inflation and regression in the economy, they should be working in fiancial futures and money markets.
Two, the fact that it’s not predictable is why I keep refering to it as the 4th dimension or abstract financial effect.
Three, the best way to identify a fool is to look for the person who portends to know more about a stranger than they could possibly determine from the facts being presented.
Four, I guarantee I’ve forgetten more about money and finance in my life than you’ve ever learned or used. I make this assessment by the neanderthalic type responses you give when forced to respond with intelligent arguments and you are left to find yourself wanting.
I imagine you as a guy trying to type with your pinky, some witty retort as you dig in old pizza boxes for a used paper towel to wipe off your Chef Boyardee covered fingers you dirtied eating from the tin without silverware after using a can opener to gain entry despite a pop top lid.
BrianStrowman9
I structure the cap stack for commercial real estate financing. But I’m glad you wrote all of that BS.
But I have plenty of videos that I’ve used to train junior analysts on discount cash flow models and the assumptions that are baked in.
Happy to share that knowledge and make the world just a little bit smarter.
Also, do you think Guggenheim doesn’t employ economists that use predictive modeling?
Thank_God_Im_Not_Tim_Dierkes
I also do real estate there big dog, and I have multiple degrees, mostly in business, but not exclusively. Nice name drop on Guggenheim, your google skills surprise me. As far as predictive modeling, at best you might be able to reach a 70% accuracy at it’s best and that’s barely better than a coin flip. Then you get into a discussion about the benefits of predictive modeling, especially when it should be framed on a case-by-case basis.
Phrase of the day: Error bars
Anywho, I don’t need to get a refresher course on a what a boiler room salesman looks like, but cool on you, if you’ve managed to outgrow your writer’s voice that speaks of an impoverished to at best middle income background, a chip on your shoulder, a need to be the center of attention, and someone who fancies himself a ladies man, congratulations. Now feel free to take your participation trophy in the punch and cookies room, so the adults can talk.
Thank_God_Im_Not_Tim_Dierkes
It’s a concept and an unproven one because it’s always changing and impossible to predict. The dollar could fall through the floor and be worth nothin in 10 years and Ohtani’s deal would be worthless. Or the dollar could triple in value and he’d be trading on financial futures at a rate that would make wallstreet blush.
BrianStrowman9
What the actual funck kinda response is that.
You’re an odd dude.
Thank_God_Im_Not_Tim_Dierkes
The response below is an example of Strawman resorting to his humble beginnings as opposed to his Guggenheim referencing silver-spooned takes that are supposed to indicate his vast knowledge of money that he is only too quick to share with everyone! Then calling me odd, while he’s probably middle aged trying to get a date with the Starbucks barista in the driveup window because she doesn’t know the Mercedes Benz he drives is 12 years old.
JoeBrady
So, if I lie about how much I made in 2023 and send the government $12K instead of $20K because in my mind I’m not going to account for the money someone paid in a check for my old car this year, until after January 1st when I’ll cash the check. because I’ll be retired next year, when I won’t have to pay as much taxes on it, would that be okay with the IRS?!
=================
1-It depends on whether you are an individual or a company. If you are a company, the income applies to the period in which the deal is signed. If you are an individual, you are mostly a cash-basis filer, meaning you account for the money when you receive it.
2-The chances of them checking you out for depositing a 12/27 check on 1/1 is about -0-. But technically, the IRS could force you to amend the return. Let’s say you sold the rights to a book you sold for $200k. You signed the agreement on 10/1 and received the check, but didn’t deposit it until 1/1. Assuming that the IRS audited you, they would deem that income to have been earned on 10/1.
Thank_God_Im_Not_Tim_Dierkes
JoeBrady,
So, this was a really long way of supporting my argument that it would be considered illegal? You just argued whether you could get away with it, I’d care if you get away with a crime, just that it was committed. Thanks.
StraxusD
It is a tax dodge. You are paying $700 million over 20 years but the deferment allows the Dodgers to manipulate the value of their CBT otherwise they wouldn’t need to defer money. It is similar to when a corporation changes the depreciation schedule on an asset to make their balance sheet look better. The money is spent but the GAAP manipulation makes your bottom line look better.
The CBT is supposedly designed to keep large market teams from offering obscene contracts like this and hiding behind time value money as an excuse. It would be better if the league forced the deferred AAV stretch out for the entirety of the deferment to stick a team with dead money then teams wouldn’t be as eager to sign this type of contract.
Still don’t see Ohtani putting the Dodgers over the top since they couldn’t hit their way out a paper sack against the diamondbacks last post season. Expanded playoffs are going to make it more common for wild card teams to Benin the WS.
BlueSkies_LA
No, not this at all.
showman
Look up “interest”
ShooterMcGavin
Unfortunately for Ohtani this will only villainize him. Regardless of rules and regulations this screams of some back room fugazi scheme to beat the system. I hope this somehow comes back and bites them all in their keisters.
gnomon
Yes, that makes sense…. Let’s villainize the player who offered the most team friendly contract in sports history. Yeah, that makes no sense… If you want to blame anyone, blame the other teams who didn’t have the wherewithal and structure to do the same. Any team had the opportunity to do the same, but Shohei picked the Dodgers because he wanted to play there.
Thank_God_Im_Not_Tim_Dierkes
Dodger fan, right?! Only in your world could $700M be considered team friendly, regardless of payout structure!
So one team now has three of the top 5 offensive players by fWAR in baseball; Mookie Betts (2nd, 8.3 fWAR), Freddie Freeman (3rd, 7.9 fWAR), and Shohei Ohtani (5th, 6.6 fWAR). Two of them are on deferred contracts. They are literally only having to pay a cap hit of $96,336,300 for guys who will earn $127,416,667 in 2024. That’s $31M more to spend for a team that sold 3.84M tickets (600,000 more than the NYY who were #2 at around 3.27M), while already holding huge marketing and TV deals. Because of this, they are on course to slide under the Cap by $10M. Defeating the whole point of a cap in general. But yeah, why don’t we just do a silent auction for the WS trophy, so the other 25 fan bases can go do something else besides watch this crap contest!
Thank_God_Im_Not_Tim_Dierkes
By the way, did you ever think that part of the reason he signed with the Dodgers was because other teams with a conscience, morals, and/or ethics decided it was a bad faith contract and that’s why so many teams said they were out?! It’s also why he said nobody should talk about his free agency, because he didn’t want the criticism and the backlash for suggesting this deal before it was done and signed. If he signed for $400M or $500M, nobody would care where he signed. If he signed for $700M and the team had the balls to own the money they offered and took the full hit against their cap, we’d laud them for their bravery and condemn them for their stupidity, all in the same breath, but that’s not what happened!
BlueSkies_LA
🙁 🙁
gnomon
Well, I think you’ve just proven my point. If you truly believe that a $700M deal, which equates to $460M (and probably much less after inflation, etc), isn’t a team friendly deal for the Dodgers then you’re kidding yourself. Would you feel better if he was being paid $500M without deferments because I’m sure that the Dodgers have done that in a heartbeat. The Ohtani deal basically saves them roughly $24M per year against the cap so they can build around him. Now, that’s pretty team friendly in my book. You don’t have to like it, but it’s as team friendly as it gets.
And as for teams with “conscience” are concerned, please… Baseball, and pro sports for that matter, is a business first and foremost. You want to rant about morals and ethics, how about pointing a finger at the A’s or the Orioles, who have a young, affordable team that’s built to win for the foreseeable future, but their owner doesn’t want lift a dollar to help his own team and looking to cash in on them when their value is at an all time high.
Just don’t equate an unwillingness to pay as some kind of moral high ground. ANY team would take the deal that Ohtani offered if they could work it out financially. Just so happens that not every team could afford it, and that’s not the Dodgers’ problem. And yeah, I’m a Dodger fan, but I would feel that same if he signed the same deal with the Cubs, Giants, Blue Jays, Atlanta, Yankees, Mets, etc. Wouldn’t be happy, but that’s baseball.
Thank_God_Im_Not_Tim_Dierkes
@gnomon
I have a really good deal for you. I’ll sell you a used PS5, you can have it now, but you have to pay me $700 in January!
elmedius
I mean it’s team friendly now… we’ll see how team friendly it feels when the Dodgers are paying $68MM a year to a guy who is no longer on the team. I’d imagine those payments will make things more difficult for “the team” at that point.
Halo11Fan
Are you kidding me? It’s basically an interest free 68 million dollar a year loan that they can spend on the team with a 25 million Luxury cap break, and it doesn’t have to be paid back for ten years.
It’s a joke and makes a mockery out of the CBT.
Congrats Dodgers. They made a joke out of the competitive balance provision, but unlike the Astros, they did it legally. The Dodgers are the new evil empire.
This sucks. And I hope there is blowback.
SheaGoodbye
Ohtani was willing to do this deal, so what exactly is the problem? If he could’ve done better he would have. And yet, this is what the market yielded, no different than it would be with any other free agent crazy contract aside. Maybe you should place less blame on the Dodgers and more blame on Ohtani’s agent for not being able to secure more money for his client given those significant advantages for the Dodgers.
To be clear, I think it’s ridiculous the CBA doesn’t contain a limit on deferred money, but it is what it is. The Player’s Association had a chance to address it, but balked at the idea. And here we are.
Halo11Fan
So what? Ohtani has become part of baseball’s problem.
It’s never been a level playing field, but crap like creates a slope steeper than Mount Everest.
I really hope there is blowback. A lot more people are now rooting for Ohtani to fail, and scores of baseball fans second favorite team is whoever is playing the Dodgers.
I thin Ohtani tarnished his image.
SheaGoodbye
Ohtani did what he thinks is best for himself and his family. Why should I fault him for that? It’s not his job to ensure competitive balance. That’s a job for the CBA, the commissioner’s office, and MLBPA.
So my opinion on him is virtually unchanged while my opinion of the latter two can’t get much worse to begin with.
Halo11Fan
Sure he did, he did what’s best for him and told baseball to go screw itself. He didn’t need the money so he sold his soul to create the Mount Everest of playing fields.
He’s part of the problem.
I wouldn’t have an issue if he signed a ten year 300 million dollar contract and gave the Dodgers a discount. It’s this 2 million dollars a year that pissed me off.
Thank_God_Im_Not_Tim_Dierkes
Desperation can do that to a person. He was so desperate to win and to play for something meaningful, he traded his ethics and his morals. He went to the highest bidder, with the most talent, and for me I’d never want to play for the big market team because it would feel bought and paid for from the rip. It’s one thing if you were drafted by the Dodgers, came up in their organization, signed when they were struggling, or are from that area. However, he went into this offseason with two goals, the most money and the best chance to win championships, and then he doubled-down by pushing all his money to the back of his career, so he could maximize his 10-year window.
MLB Top 100 Commenter
Halo11Fan
I completely disagree that it is like an interest free loan to the Dodgers.
It is like the Dodgers paid him $45-50 million per year and then Ohtani loaned money back to the Dodgers charging them interest.
The only part about this that is made up is announcing the deal as if it is worth $700 million in today’s money to boost Ohtani’s press and ego. They could have announced it as a lesser sum in real dollars calculated and explained how it was being done.
gnomon
I don’t think that announcing the deal in real dollars would soothe the anger of some people because they would point to the $680M due after his contract “ends.” It’s always “bad for baseball” when it’s not their team that does the spending.
Munenori Kawasaki
…I don’t mean to be rude, but the idea that the tax dodge is acceptable because it is “entirely in line with expectations” is pretty illusory at best.
You claim that this is in “in line with expectations” because “MLBTR predicted a $44MM AAV for Ohtani.” I mean, your prediction was 12Y/$528M (no deferrals in your calculation, so a straight average of $44M a year). Shohei blew that way out of the water, with a $70M average. It’s pretty clear — and reasonable to me — that writers and pundits really underestimated Shohei’s contract ability. Folks were talking about numbers under $550M, and he ended up getting well over 125% of that.
Now, you all wound up with the same AAV – but that was because you (and other pundits) lowballed Shohei’s market, while the Dodgers spread a ten-year contract over twenty years with some ridiculously shrewd tactics. That’s totally fine and legal under the CBA. But I expect better than a puff piece from MLBTR that seems to justify the Dodgers’ gamesmanship while working to softten the fact that most pundits were way off on their prediction. Just two cents.
Halo11Fan
I’d have no issue if the Dodgers were actually paying Ohtani 50 million a year But this 2 million a year for ten years is crap.
Tim Dierkes
Dude, he did not blow $44MM out of the water under this contract structure! That is simply not true. Nor did he get $700MM in any typical sense. For you to write that paragraph with zero discussion of the difference between being paid $70MM in 2024 and 2044 is a huge miss.
You actually almost made the best counterargument: that everyone lowballed Ohtani’s market (which absolutely happens). But then to kind of prove that you need evidence of him actually turning down, say, a straight 10/600 deal.
That he took a deal roughly on par with 10/460 suggests teams did not offer something with a significantly better NPV.
But even if they did, I’m still not sure it proves your point, because players take less money to go to teams they want regularly. So if the Dodgers’ ceiling was the equivalent of 10/460 and he really wanted to go to the Dodgers, then converting that to have enough deferrals to get to 10/700 still doesn’t mean the Dodgers circumvented the CBT.
Munenori Kawasaki
Tim, thanks for replying. You’re taking a lot of heat on this article (and rightfully so). But first, please enjoy some laughter at the expense of the best Japanese player to play for Toronto: youtube.com/watch?v=IeDkJx4ajQ4 .
Second, you’re missing the point by fixating on the contract structure. You’re basically pointing at the 97% deferral and saying, “look, look! It all averages out over twenty years so it’s fine!” But the contract is for *ten years of playing time.* The deferral works to the Dodgers’ advantage (and depending on what you think, it works for Shohei too). The contract is literally 10/20 and then 10/680, but he makes 70 per year of actually playing. The fact that the luxury hit matches out to your lowball estimate doesn’t mean that this isn’t a CBA dodge, or that you and other pundits were accurate in your prediction. (Sorry to be blunt. I really hope you pundits aren’t going around saying that you totally got Ohtani’s contract right and can predict the averages of the next 100 lotto winnings).
Relatedly: how do you refer to Scherzer’s original Nationals contract? Do you say it’s 7/210? Or do you say it’s 0/50 (the signing bonus) + (however the heck he broke it down over 14 years – see this MLBTR article mlbtraderumors.com/2015/01/nationals-to-sign-max-s… for more details).
And using the Scherzer example, probably the fairest way to think about this is to ratio the value of the deal for luxury tax considerations vs the actual deal. For Scherzer (see the article above), that was $185M (out of $210M), or 88% of the value. For Ohtani, that’s $460M out of $700M, or 65% of the value. You tell me if that looks great or not.
Third, you’re clinging onto unknown information. Who knows what the Dodgers and other teams were willing to offer? Maybe the Dodgers were ready to go full Steve Cohen, luxury tax implications be damned, and offer $700M/10 years and absorb the luxury hit. They’ve clearly been saving for that result. All of the reporting suggests that Shohei came up with this structure to retain competitiveness (and swap California taxes out for Japanese rates), but that doesn’t mean the Dodgers weren’t prepared to do whatever it takes to land their superstar.
One last bit – you seem to have receded to the “look, this is legal under the CBA” bit. No one is disputing that. But that wasn’t the theme of your article. The “this is legal under the CBA” point took up a paragraph with 95 words out of a 1223 word puff piece designed to, I dunno, increase ad revenue on this website by angering people? Currying favor with MLB and the Dodgers for good future leaks? I dunno. This ain’t it.
Thank_God_Im_Not_Tim_Dierkes
You are arguing with something that has not been defined. What if the dollar is still worth the same in 10 or 20 years, will you go back to these comments and say you were wrong?! How can you argue from the abstract like it’s fact. We have no idea how money will be valued in the future. What we do know is they wouldn’t have signed this deal in this form if it didn’t give them competitive advantage, so the question isn’t whether I can prove the deceit, even if I can recognize it or point to it. The question, Tim, is you explain to me how paying him $680M starting in 10 years makes more sense than paying him $460M now, and if you can’t, then tell me how is that not a tax dodge or a competitive advantage?
Let me make it simple.
He chose $2M/season and $680M starting in 10 years over taking $460M over the next 10 years. Why?
When you figure out that answer, then I’ll tell you how they are cheating the system! (Pro tip: It’ll be the same answer)
Thank_God_Im_Not_Tim_Dierkes
The miss is comparing 2024 with 2044, it’s actually 2024 with 2034, then 2025 with 2035, and so-on. That’s a huge difference because it’s in ten year aggregates, which over that amount of time could be the difference of anywhere from $50-200M.
Again, motivation needs to be established before you can wish it away with editorializing an opinion. With everything you stated, you keep talking about it being worth $46M/year because that’s the number the MLB came up with on their own and the number applied to the cap
We are still waiting to hear why they didn’t just pay him $46M/year for 10 years. That is a critical part of this discussion. If it’s so he doesn’t have to pay California taxes once he retires back to Japan, that’s added value and that’s part of the negotiations. Everything must be factored, right down to 12 round trip tickets to Japan each year.
Even if it was just to say he had the largest deal in the MLB, well $471M would’ve eclipsed Julio Rodriguez deal and $46M is already the highest annual deal. In the linked article, it was said the deal was almost complete when he threw in the deferral element. Meaning it was supposed to be $70M/year and it was used as a tax dodge.
si.com/fannation/mlb/fastball/news/shohei-ohtanis-…
Here it states he did it with the intention of lowering his CBT number…
cbssports.com/mlb/news/shohei-ohtani-contract-expl…
Where is the mic, when you want to drop it?!?!
Travis’ Wood
Lol what?? He was literally always going to get an AAV around $46 mil, definitely nowhere near $70 mil…. You’re crazy if you think his market was anywhere near that
showman
Look up “interest”
Yankee Clipper
Kawasaki: Again, this is no different than NFL (which can defer up to 75% of a player’s contract by rule) or the NBA (which is….50% if I recall? Maybe 25% by rule?) anyway, the point stands that this is definitively common in sports contracts.
Thus, to make an argument that baseball is broken, is to say that all sports are “broken.” If that’s the argument, I’m on board with having the discussion. But it seems to be that the argument is Ohtani is an extreme case, an outlier in process and result, that has never been done, nor ever will again. That’s a misconception, imho.
This boils down to one thing: he is getting $460MM / 10 years, which is being delayed to accrue future value (interest, if you please).
The real discussion comes in with the $2MM real money the LAD are paying him, not the CBT valuation. But Ohtani agreed to it, surprisingly, because he wants to win. It’s exactly what happens in the NBA and NFL, which many love to cite as “better.”
Munenori Kawasaki
The false dichotomy you are presenting is that MLB is similar to NFL and NBA in contract structure. They’re not. MLB contracts are fully guaranteed, unlike the NFL. And the NBA has a soft salary cap.
But hey, enjoy being a Yankees fan and your MLBTR Insider badge…
Yankee Clipper
No, it’s not a false dichotomy. It is the comparable that many of the naysayers have proposed to support their arguments, not realizing both NFL/NBA have the same contingency.
My point is: you are trying to quantify “fairness” with contracts. So, technically, legally, intentionally, these contracts are between the player and the organization. They are also fully supported by the nature of the CBA being agreed upon by all parties in MLB.
You are using numbers out of context (future value) to say the Dodgers are escaping (current value) penalties. It’s simply not true.
Mikey P
Baseball is broken. It shouldn’t be MLB. It is the PTP League – pay to play.
It doesn’t mean the team spending the most always wins because we know baseball has a sense of weird randomness to it in the post season which makes it so exciting. But that changes nothing. It’s an uneven playing field and that kills the integrity of the game.
Travis’ Wood
Pay to play. Where the top 3 payrolls last year missed the playoffs, the second lowest won 100 games, and 16 different teams have won a title since 2000 (most in ANY major pro sport). Take a lap clown
Mikey P
Apparently u can’t read. Ok
Yankee Clipper
So your solution is to mandate players to teams, like schoolyard kickball selections?
Baez Caught me Sleeping
Somehow, this is Tim’s fault. Moderate this!
Munenori Kawasaki
I don’t blame Tim for Shohei’s contract. I do blame Tim for writing what seems to be a puff piece for the Dodgers when quite frankly, this is one of the most ridiculous contracts in sports history.
Baez Caught me Sleeping
Ah damn, I was cranky and want to delete my last comment. I guess I’ve just been in a bad mood and shouldn’t have been taking it out online. Is there a way to delete comments? I shouldn’t have crossed a line. Sorry Tim, that was not cool of me, I’m just feeling frustrated.
Baez Caught me Sleeping
Just delete everything I wrote today. I’m feeling ashamed of how I got upset behind a keyboard. It happens to the best/worst of us.
Baez Caught me Sleeping
DELETE DELETE DELETE WHY CAN’T I VENT AND THEN DELETE SOMETHING 10 SECONDS AFTERWARDS
Baez Caught me Sleeping
I swear, I’m *mostly* a mentally healthy person. Just a bit frustrated.
Tim Dierkes
There’s no reason for me to write a puff piece for the Dodgers. I have no horse in that race. I wrote that because I believe it, and I think the people saying it’s a CBT dodge are flat-out wrong.
I did not say what the Dodgers did is good for the game, or the contract structure isn’t ridiculous, etc. They just…didn’t dodge the CBT.
Munenori Kawasaki
Your paragraph on dodging the legal terms of the CBT was less than 100 words. You wrote twelve times that value. As much as I like to assume best intentions, Tim, I strongly doubt this stated goal of yours aligns with how you presented the piece. (Clickbait, maybe, to generate more ad revenue?)
BlueSkies_LA
Or is it information you can use if you’re remotely interested and have an open mind?
Munenori Kawasaki
Right, “Blue Skies LA” totally has an open mind here.
Thank_God_Im_Not_Tim_Dierkes
Nobody doubts you believe it, but now we ask you to go reconsider until you gain the correct perspective because you are 100% wrong. If there’s smoke, there’s fire, and they wouldn’t have used this structure if it didn’t benefit the team.
Tim Dierkes
Actually the comments on this post have helped convinced me I am correct, and also taught/reminded me some finance nuances.
BlueSkies_LA
🙁
Fever Pitch Guy
Tim – One quick question, why doesn’t AAV get adjusted for Present Value vs Future Value when it comes to contracts such as Cole and Judge?
They are both 9 year contracts, surely the US Dollar in the first year of their contracts is valued a lot more than the US Dollar in the last few years of their contracts.
Does the AAV adjustment apply only to contracts of 10 years minimum?
BlueSkies_LA
I admire you having the courage to take this on. Financial literacy is a real problem, but practically impossible to address when so many people believe that everything is a conspiracy, including arithmetic.
JoeBrady
That’s because kids have too much growing up. If you don’t have to worry having enough money, you get real smart, real fast. One of my kids complained about the same thing. When they got out of HS, they said that probably wasn’t a single kid in her class that knew how to balance a checkbook.
BlueSkies_LA
Well maybe. A big part of the problem is the number of people who refuse to accept anything that doesn’t confirm what they already believe. All new information just bounces right off of them.
MLB Top 100 Commenter
Kawasaki
The best comparison is the lottery winner. They can take the full payout over decades or get maybe 50%-60% in a lump sum up front. Just think of most MLB players as taking the lump-sum and Ohtani took the payout over time.
You want to mandate that everyone takes the lump-sum. That would not bother me but this seems ethical and ok with me until someone makes a rule that it is not. I would want the lump-sum. What if tomorrow the league collapsed. I know it is unlikely but there could be a war, a virus, who knows what. There are not other players out there begging to get 98% of their money deferred.
BlueSkies_LA
You are wasting your breath on this one Manny.
Munenori Kawasaki
Oh, Manny. You keep posting this lottery comment thinking that it’s a genius thought (and maybe will earn you a complimentary MLBTR Insiders subscription). Lottery winners have no skill and earn the money, and they’re given the choice of lump or spread. Ohtani has skill and has earned a massive contract, and then concocted a deal where he spreads and the team benefits.
We do not assess baseball contracts or any employment contract through lottery comparisons (except maybe . . . college stipends). Apples to oranges. Sort of like how claiming that this is really just a $46M contract in PDV is a lemon, when the real issue here is the fact that the Dodgers, Ohtani, and MLB have given the rest of the league a very raw, sour deal that bears no resemblance to a lemon.
Thank_God_Im_Not_Tim_Dierkes
What’s the difference of $2M in 2034 and $68M in 2035?
VS
$70M in 2034?
Everyone focuses on the greatest amount of currency inflation over the greatest period of time, but we don’t know if the dollar will go up or down, nor by how much. So it’s an abstract argument, secondly, many of those years will be paid out shortly after when they would’ve otherwise, so really he’s deferring 1/2 his contract 10-15 years, the others five years will be more or less market value.
showman
Look up “interest”
Thank_God_Im_Not_Tim_Dierkes
Munenori,
I agree and the bigger issue with this analogy is they aren’t taking the lottery winners, creating a league of them and then using their winnings to determine who gets more money based on how they invest it. It’s an independent decision with independent variables and effects.
MLB Top 100 Commenter
Kawasaki
You know what contracts bother me, when NBA players who are really good take the league minimum to play with a superstar to create a mega-team.
But I would not call it unethical or villainous just because those players want to say they player with an all-time great or have a better chance to win.
The concept of lump-sum payments and annuities are common-place. The only unusual thing is when someone does not want the lump-sum.
BrianStrowman9
Manny I just don’t believe time value of money can be taught to some people.
I would love to give out loans to these guys.
filihok
BS9
“Manny I just don’t believe time value of money can be taught to some people.
I would love to give out loans to these guys.”
LOL
100
LA_Smack
Wait what?! Haha! So we should take your lack of proof of background, just your word that you know what you are talking about??? Ahhh, internet hypocrisy at its finest.
Thank_God_Im_Not_Tim_Dierkes
Not when I support my statements with facts, equations, and other “evidence”, say it with me, “ev-i-den-ce!” The only hypocricy I see is you commenting behind a wall of b.s. with just as little supporting documents, information, links, and/or numbers as the last guy that got called on the mat for it. I’ll paraphrase Brian Scalabrine, “I’m closer to understanding the truth, than you are to understanding the lies!”
Thank_God_Im_Not_Tim_Dierkes
Don’t do that…. You saying where he lives and putting him and his family in danger is reckless and stupid. If I ran this site, I’d ban you for life for doxing anyone, whether Tim or someone else. That’s crap.I was with you right up until you put his life in danger.
Baez Caught me Sleeping shoud be banned. Permanently.
Thank_God_Im_Not_Tim_Dierkes
Should’ve talked to Josh Hader before you spewed the nonsense.
Yankee Clipper
Suit: I don’t know honestly, brother. Without the books, I don’t see how we could know for sure.
To make it clear, I’m not arguing for or against the rule itself; I’m just merely emphasizing that this is not special treatment for the LAD, imo, because so many teams have done this with large salaries (relatively speaking), including the small(er) markets. Also, these rules are in the contracts for the NFL and NBA as well, so it seems ubiquitous in N American sports.
Wadz
It’s not special treatment for LAD.. they found a loophole and a rare unicorn of a player willing to exploit it..
You keep saying teams have done this before. Teams have done deferrals yes… but this is next level.. and complete apples/oranges from anything done contract wise in MLB history..
They’re getting 24M AAV relief for a decade and deferring 680M…. That’s insane.. nothing else ever is close to that…
Yankee Clipper
Look, I get what you’re saying but everyone is looking at the future dollar value. This is all simply taking $460MM contract and insuring Ohtani he will receive a specific amount of interest, so when he’s finished in 10 years, it will be worth $700MM. That’s perhaps the best analogy for this. If you look at contracts deferred, it has been done with similar percentages of the total deferred.
Again, not arguing for or against it, but mathematically, financially, it is not nearly as abhorrent as it seems.
Wadz
Yea….
“If you look at contracts deferred, it has been done with similar percentages of the total deferred.
Again, not arguing for or against it, but mathematically, financially, it is not nearly as abhorrent as it seems.”
This is just false and that’s why people are mad.. you will find no comparables or close in MLB history of 680M deferred and 24M AAV saved.. This is unprecedented..
I offered earlier the Nationals Scherzer deal had 105M of a 210M contract deferred and their AAV hit went from 30M to 28.6M a whopping 1.4M savings…. The Otani deal is a 24M AAV savings…. These aren’t comparables
Yankee Clipper
Yes, but you can’t take those numbers out of context. We don’t know how they valued Scherzer’s deferred money, but it’s irrelevant because teams in MLB make more now than they did when Scherzer had that contract.
Put it this way, Scherzer was only getting paid $28MM per year…Ohtani is getting $46MM per year. The value of money has changed. It’s the same reason why 10 years ago you were (likely) getting paid less than you are today. You cannot compare past money to today’s money and expect a direct comparison. Just look at the AAVs now.
I view their agreement as a 10-year $46 MM AAV ($460MM total) contract. Ohtani requested they guarantee interest on his $460MM, while they hold it for him, which will be $700MM value in ten years.
Travis’ Wood
24 mil AAV relief? From where? You’re just making stuff up….
all in the suit that you wear
Clipper: I see this is all clearly allowed by the rules, but I’m wondering if the rules might need tweaking. Hope you are well.
Yankee Clipper
Thanks Suit! Yeah, I think you will see a similar structure to NFL or NBA, wherein players can only defer up to 50% or whatever.
Truth be told, I’m not a fan of deferrals at all, and thankfully the NYY don’t do that (yet). I don’t think we can ever truly know the net impact of these decisions because MLB economics are shrouded in secrecy with most teams.
Be well, my friend.
Soxtel
Your headline is wrong. I’m a lawyer and I’ve drafted hundreds ifnot thousands of contracts. Is this contract within the rules? Yes, it is. But is it a luxury tax dodge? Of course it is and there can be no reasonable argument otherwise.
Any team could’ve done this within the rules but, unfortunately, the Dodgers have both the smarts and the money to actually do it.
The contract is absurd and it stretches the rules to the point of ridiculousness, so change them or we’ll start getting even more ridiculous deals.
gardyparty
That’s a fair edit. It’s certainly a loophole of sorts, but not an uncommon one. It’s just bigger numbers.
ignasis
You’re a lawyer but still think this is a “luxury tax dodge?” lol… Not much of a lawyer I guess.
Thank_God_Im_Not_Tim_Dierkes
What are you, a gardner? I guess it’s time for you to stop smelling the roses!
gnomon
Not likely. We’ll probably never see circumstances of this kind again where a player of his skill set defers 97% of his deal. And if it happens, then more power to them.
ignasis
@gnomon Don’t you think it’s actually the opposite? Who else would be willing to defer such a high percentage of their contract except a generational talent with an ungodly amount of off-the-field income?
I think players like Ohtani are the only players who would ever really do this kind of thing… There’s not a lot of players like that out there though, that’s for sure.
gnomon
I think we’re actually in agreement here. I was referring to the notion that this was going to become a trend in baseball where superstars start taking massive deferrals to help their team. I think that Ohtani is an outlier. We’ll probably never see a contract like this again.
ignasis
Ahhh, ok. I thought you were saying it is strange for a player like Ohtani to do this. But rather, you’re saying that it makes a lot of sense for him to do it, but there just really aren’t any other Ohtanis out there.
Then yes, we’re in agreement.
gnomon
Yup. Although I imagine that not every one agrees (i.e., players) that it made sense for him to do it. It’s just an extraordinary set of circumstances that happened to coalesce where the player and team wanted to make it work. You can’t tell me that any other team under the same circumstances wouldn’t have jumped on the offer. I guess the problem is that there aren’t many teams that could or would make it work, but that’s not the Dodgers’ problem to solve.
gardyparty
@gnomon EXACTLY. It’s unusual that Shohei is a unicorn in relation to salary payments, but it just happens to be that way!!!
Thank_God_Im_Not_Tim_Dierkes
You mean until Soto signs his deal in the next year?! Come on, he’s already worth $50-60M and he’s not going to want to blow up the salary cap with just Soto and Judge making close to $80-85M/year. We know he’s staying in New York, it’s the most Soto place he can play. It gives a Batman & Robin vibe between Judge and Soto. Plus they can both learn to pitch, so it hurts less when they are fighting over the DH in few years.
Tim Dierkes
Like…make the argument that it is a CBT dodge, then. You think teams were actually offering 70 mil AAV, no deferral? Based on what?
gardyparty
Appreciate u being here, Tim. This is all so messy lol.
Thank_God_Im_Not_Tim_Dierkes
Need any chapstick? December gets cold and the lips can get dry. Just saying!
MagRupe
No deferral is one thing. But 68/70 being deferred? That’s ridiculous, even if it is “legal”. Even aside from the CBT, do you not see what a MASSIVE advantage this is for cash flow? Why do we think the Padres apparently needed loans to cover payroll and why they had to trade Soto? And does baseball really want a franchise – even the dodgers – having this kinda of debt on their PNL? Sure, they’re rich now but things change – see the Wilpons for proof. THis may be legal but it’s totally bad for baseball.
Tim Dierkes
Yes, it’s a massive advantage for cash flow, and I wrote that.
As for “bad for baseball,” I don’t believe in that as a concept.
If you want to experience baseball the sport and not MLB, go coach a youth team, but there’s no one looking out for MLB competitive balance or whatever.
Thank_God_Im_Not_Tim_Dierkes
If it’s the same money, then why defer it?! You answer that first.
Thank_God_Im_Not_Tim_Dierkes
Yeah, multiple reports said that he didn’t even talk referral until the contract was basically done. He was asking for $60-70M without deferral. He even said he wanted to defer it to lower the CBT specifically. It’s in the articles I linked in my other comments. One is from Sports Illustrated and the other is from CBS sports, I believe!
Travis’ Wood
Explain how it’s a luxury tax dodge if the luxury tax hit is still $46 mil, his expected AAV from the get go. You didn’t address anything in the article?
Habitual Truth Teller
Contract predictions didn’t include deferred money predictions. They never do. Anyone guessing a contract value is guessing 100% contract as is
This isn’t a standard contract
It’s 10 years 20 mill
Then 10 years 680 mill in deferred.
His actual aav is 2 mill which they got wrong.
After doing math they adjust it to 46 aav.
Even though
1. It’s an agreed upon 700 mill at end of day. And should count against cbt implications during his playing days.
2. 20 years 700 mill works out to 35 aav.
Saying “well they got near same aav so who cares” is disingenuous.
Travis’ Wood
It’s not disingenuous and you clearly do not understand the rules at all. Or that the $70 mil AAV was never real. Maybe actually read the article
showman
Look up “interest”
Thank_God_Im_Not_Tim_Dierkes
@showman,
I’m not interested.
How about you go look up “broken record”
The only difference between you and a parrot is you can shut one up with a cracker.
Baez Caught me Sleeping
Ah damn, people seem to have read the article and seem more on board with the explanation. I was just tired and frustrated and posted a lot of nonsense comments. C’est la vie.
CaseyAbell
Oh, please. The deferral is a luxury tax dodge by definition. The appropriately named Dodgers will see $24 million less in CBT payroll than otherwise. What else would anybody call this except a “dodge”?
Personal disclaimer: I grew up in Cincinnati as a Reds fan, so I can’t stand the Dodgers. But they found a way to dodge a lot of luxury tax and it’s perfectly fine under the CBA. Good for them. But let’s not pretend that it isn’t a massive Dodger dodge.
As for Ohtani himself, I’m just surprised that he agreed to such a hit in real income. I know he gets a ton of endorsement money now. But endorsements come and go, and a sharp downturn in Ohtani’s performance could dry up a lot of that money. Still, it’s his decision and it’s no skin off my nose.
ignasis
How do you reconcile calling this a tax dodge while acknowledging Ohtani has “agreed to such a hit in real income” ??
Do you not see how you’re literally having it both ways?
CaseyAbell
No contradiction at all. It’s a big luxury tax dodge for the Dodgers. It’s a big hit in real income for Ohtani. That’s not having it both ways. That’s just what the deal means for the Dodgers as opposed to Ohtani himself.
ignasis
No. The point is that if Ohtani has taken a hit in real income, then you’re acknowledging that the contract isn’t really worth 700 million. If you’re acknowledging the contract isn’t worth 700 million, in fact I can tell you what it’s worth, it’s worth 460 million in today’s money.
[actually it’s worth a lot less than 460 million in today’s money but that’s a complicated point we need not get into]
How do you reconcile acknowledging the hit in come whilst calling this a tax dodge?
CaseyAbell
I didn’t say it was a tax dodge for Ohtani, though there may be income tax savings down the road. (Which is irrelevant to the discussion of what the deal means for the Dodgers.)
I am saying that the Dodgers, er, dodged $240 million in luxury tax payroll compared to a straight non-deferred deal. Tim Dierkes came back at me with an argument that we don’t know if such a deal was ever discussed.
True, we don’t know. But figures like $600 million and higher were getting tossed around (on MLBTR among many other sources) with nary a mention of any deferrals, much less the massive one that happened. So why not look at the luxury tax dodged compared to a straight non-deferred deal?
ignasis
Yes, numbers like $600 million were reported. And deferrals were discussed from day one in the negotiations it seems. So, the numbers that were reported were including deferrals… not excluding them…
I agree that we should compare this to straight non-deferred deal. Unfortunately, we don’t know what Ohtani was offered without deferrals.
You know what a good assumption would be for the value of a contract Ohtani would have received without deferrals? The present day value of this contract. That happens to be 460 million.
Do you know what the CBT hit would be for a 10/460 contract? It would be 46 million.
Tim Dierkes
But there’s no “otherwise” where they actually were doing a straight $70MM AAV.
CaseyAbell
I know the deal isn’t for $700 million with no deferrals. But the deal as it stands dodges a total of $240 million in CBT payroll compared to a straight non-deferred arrangement.
I’m not saying it’s the end of western civilization as we know it. But the Dodgers are, well, dodging a lot of luxury tax with the massive deferral. What’s the problem with admitting the obvious? That’s why the team jumped at the deferral in the first place.
ignasis
You’ve got the comparison wrong. It’s not 10/700 vs 10/460 + 240 in off the books money. It’s 10/700 vs 10/20 with 680 in off the books money…
The CBT hit isn’t 2 million though… It’s 46 million… Because MLB accounted for the 680 that was off the books.
Habitual Truth Teller
10/680 in off the books money
Sounds like they’re dodging something
Travis’ Wood
Casey you don’t understand time value of money and clearly didn’t even read the article. Your comment makes no sense and everything you’re saying was already addressed in the article. Maybe read it and try to understand
ignasis
@Jobu Yes. They’re absolutely dodging something. They’re dodging paying Ohtani his salary on the regular timeline. They’re paying all the tax though! Every last penny of it. No dodging of the tax whatsoever.
Thank_God_Im_Not_Tim_Dierkes
He didn’t just agree to it, he orchestrated it! That’s what over half a decade of losing will do to a guy. I have to say, my opinion of Ohtani is in the toilet.
Incident
Is the NPV of all contracts (especially backloaded ones) used for the luxury tax AAV? If not, why different treatment for deferrals?
Tim Dierkes
That is a great question. I am pretty sure it is only for deferrals and I cannot explain why that would be. A guy who should get a seven-year deal signing for 11 is its own form of deferral.
Halo11Fan
I don’t think people would be upset if Ohtani signed a 12 year 46 million dollar a year contract.
It’s the two million dollars a year that has me upset.
Who can’t double their money in ten years. It significantly reduces how much the Dodgers will actually pay. That 44 million dollars a year they don’t have to pay is significant.
I think most people understand it’s only 700 million because the Dodgers don’t have to make payments for ten years.
Tim Dierkes
I don’t object to people being upset about the $2MM a year on the actual payroll for the next ten years.
KamKid
HaloFan, you’re probably right to be upset about the $2m real world money paid out now if they can go and get Yamamoto and others as well while your Angels were trying to leverage Ohtani and Trout with Tyler Anderson and Brandon Drury. But how would this be for salt in the wounds: Imagine the Angels weren’t quite able to sneak under the CBT threshold in ’23. You get news of this Ohtani contract and then find out that PDV only applies to deferrals like Ohtani while Rendon was in the middle year of a backloaded contract and Trout was in year 5 of a slightly backloaded 12 year contract where their CBT hits would have been considerably less had PDV been universally applied to all monies owed.
ignasis
It is a great question, and something I was messing with earlier… I actually have the answer for you two!
“Present Day Value” is a phrase that has been thrown around a lot today, but it’s actually totally irrelevant. MLB takes the 68 million from each year that is deferred and assumes a 4.43% discount rate for each year it is deferred from the point in which it was deferred…
This contract is super uniform. So… we have 68 million deferred each year, until 10 years later. The value of that deferred money is considered to be: 68,000,000 / (1.0443^10)
But… Here’s the messed up part… The salary in year one is obviously worth more than the salary in year 7. The deferred salary in year 11 is obviously worth more than the deferred salary in year 17..;
Yeah, they don’t account for that at all. That’s why I say, “Present Day Value” is the wrong term.
MLB considers the 2 million salary to be worth 2 million in every year. MLB considers the 68 million in deferred money to be worth the same in every year it’s paid.
The present day value of this contract is in fact: $382 million, assuming a 4.43% discount rate. That is to say, if Ohtani were paid $382 million tomorrow as lump sum payment to play for the next ten years, that would be equivalent to the $700 million he will receive over the next 20 years.
ignasis
What’s a lot more messed up to consider is this… Say you had a player you wanted to pay $100 million over 5 years… Is it legal to offer them a contract like this:
$45 million signing bonus
$1 million salary x 5 years
$50 million in deferred money
You’d be giving the player a ton of money up front to offset the loss in value due to the deferred money… You’d be lowering your CBT hit at the same time with the deferrals, and signing bonuses don’t have any impact on the CBT…
It might not be allowed to provide so much money up front, it probably isn’t… But… You can imagine some structures like this that really do start to look like CBT circumvention.
For Love of the Game
Thanks for the info, Ignasis. The present value of $68 mill. received in 10 years at a discount rate of 4.43% is $44 mill. Add in the $2 mill. cash salary and you get $46 mill. a year. So MLB is saying $2 mill. per year and $68 mill. deferred is like getting paid $46 mill. cash each year. It looks like MLB does not calculate a present value for non-deferred money, just deferrals.
Tim Dierkes
Yes but would we actually choose to use 4.43% in that calculation?
Travis’ Wood
Ignasis. The $382 mil number is incorrect because the calculation is the find the value of the contract over the next 10 years, not the present value off the entire contract today. Also players would have to agree to crazy deferred contracts like you mentioned…. Most won’t agree and if they do they’ll want more money added on due to inflation. It basically comes out as a wash and just depends when the player actually receives the money. The tax hit will remain basically the same
ignasis
@rols1026 Yes, you’re right that they attempt to represent the value of the contract over the duration of the contract. I’m just arguing that it’s not the same as “Present Day Value”, it’s something else.
You could compute a baseline “Present Day Value” estimate by discounting all future money, not just deferred money, using 4.43%.
As @Tim Dierkes points out, why is 4.43% the number? And should it be the number? I looked into CBA snippets that were linked on reddit to understand this, but found that number via an NBCSports article. Apparently, all agreements with deferrals this offseason will use the federal mid term rate as of October 2023. Next year they’d use October 2024’s rate… etc…
The point I’m attempting to make in my second post is just that MLB only adjusts for deferred money. They don’t adjust for advanced money in an opposite way, should they? I don’t know.
There is also some leeway in the distribution of cash paid out over the duration of the contract, it doesn’t have to be perfectly flat. You can also start to include multi-year options into the equation here to overlap with deferred money perhaps… There are some pretty gross ideas I might toy with over the next couple days that certainly feel like actual CBT circumvention, and if attempted would probably be rejected…?
calamityfrancis
this deal is a total mockery of the sport. disgusting.
gardyparty
Oh my God it’s really not. It’s business as usual. What a boring-ass conversation for baseball fans to be having right now ffs.
bmcferren
Lowest payroll teams should be given the highest MLB draft and International budget
Fernando P
Like that doesn’t already happen?
TonyS
I’m new to the gathering, but I couldn’t resist commenting on this article. My question is, “What would have been the AAV of the contract without deferrals?” If the answer is 70 million, how could anyone argue that it is not avoiding the luxury tax threshold? The mere act of deferring took the AAV from 70 to 48 mil. The other common thread is people arguing that there is a real-life payroll implication and a book value used to calculate the tax. These deferrals effectively reduce the burden for both. Lastly, once the larger dollar values start kicking in, will those dollars be used to calculate the AAV against the tax threshold in the years they are realized? If the answer is no, I can’t seem to find this as anything but trying to avoid the luxury and, eventually, federal/state taxes. Smells like a spin to justify this contract.
Wadz
It’s an obvious dodge.. deferrals are by definition a dodge.. Still legal but a loophole… the national media is going to be parroting stuff like this for weeks.. trying to get fans to fall in like how good this situation is for the sport…
Travis’ Wood
The AAV of the contract without deferrals would’ve been around $46 mil. Idk why anyone thinks it would’ve been anywhere near $70 that’s just absurd
showman
Look up “interest”
Thank_God_Im_Not_Tim_Dierkes
When I found out Shohei Ohtani was the one that cooked up this stupid suspended $680M in salary because he makes over $50M/year in endorsements and doesn’t need it, I finally realized he’s literally Felonius Gru from Despicable Me…
He probably has minions in his basement and is plotting to take over the MLB with Joe Madden as Dr. Nefario. I could even see him adopting three girls as a single father. The nail in the coffin is he didn’t tell us his dog’s name (Kyle) because it would’ve given it all away!
Say Hey what?
A big Thank You for this well thought out and clearly written explanation.
Fernando P
Did you just say “any team could have done this deal”? Come on, only a certain number of team could pay 460M…and even less teams could pay 700M.
Tim Dierkes
I believe more teams than you think could have done this deal. The Reds, for example, just added 36 mil in AAV for Candelario, Nick Martinez, and Pagan.
I assume there are some teams that could not justify this deal, but we have to take the owners’ word for it which I prefer not to do.
Fernando P
@Tim – Sure Reds added 36M, but that was for three players. Very few teams can take a 43-46M luxury tax hit for one player.
We also have to consider that few teams can afford to take a 68M hit for payroll for 10 years when they still need to pay 26 other guys. Maybe that limits the Dodgers payroll in those 10 deferral years forcing them to effectively run smaller payrolls as they have to pay that 68M commitment.
Mehmehmeh
Basically this just defends the establishment. The argument that his contract is not a tax dodge is grounded simply by saying that the cba allows it. Weak.
Is it a problem? Yes. It’s just never been exploited to this degree. It will get reworked.
gnomon
Not really. It’s never been exploited this way for several reasons: 1) the size of the contract–which will probably be unmatched because of the special circumstances involving Ohtani’s skill set; 2) the fact that Ohtani actually offered and agreed to the deferral, which I would argue, no player would ever agree to; and 3) the Dodgers have the deep pockets to withstand the long term cash liability–$68M for ten years is a hefty amount, no matter how you slice it.
I wouldn’t have been upset if Judge took a highly deferred contract with the Yankees, but I doubt he would have taken a deal such as this. Reportedly, Harper rejected an offer from the Nationals that would have paid him into his 60s. It takes two to tango here.
Not many teams have the financial wherewithal to make the offer, and not many players would be willing to take the offer. It’s not enough to outspend anymore, Smartly run franchises know that you have to work within the margins of what the rules will allow. Don’t blame the Dodgers. Blame every owner who takes his hefty share of the MLB revenue sharing and refuses to invest in their team.
Travis’ Wood
That’s not the argument and you clearly didn’t read or understand the article. It’s about time value of money and Ohtani’s luxury tax hit is exactly where everyone expected it to be. $46 mil is a major tax hit….
TrumboRedux
Mehmehmeh, you speak the truth my son!
SheaGoodbye
One question I have in all of this is was it really wise for MLBPA to not seek a cap on deferred money? Yes, the players who defer can claim bigger contracts when those contracts would be announced, but if they’d ultimately be getting less money in the long run would that really be in their best interest? Or do they simply not care what happens post-playing career?
ignasis
I think you’re seeing this totally backwards. Players DEFINITELY want maximum flexibility on deferrals. A minor point, but just to get it out of the way, it allows the player to get whatever structuring they would like… More importantly:
They’re not getting less money in the long run. They’re quite likely getting more. Let’s say Ohtani could have accepted 10/460 million instead of this deal without any deferrals. If the Dodgers were at the top threshold before signing Ohtani (they’re not, but might well be by the end of the off season), you’d be adding 46 million in salary + 46 million in tax, give or take… That’s 92 million that they have to spend because they’ve signed Ohtani this year. With deferrals, it’s 2 million + 46 million for 48 million. That’s 44 million in savings this year in their spending.
[A side note on tax dodging] Now, it’s important to note here, THAT”S NOT A TAX DODGE. They pay 46 million in tax either way. But… it’s 44 million saved on salary this year, which allows them to spend that elsewhere…. They’ll have to pay tax on that spending elsewhere… They’re actually going to pay MORE tax.
The key point is, the Dodger’s wouldn’t be willing to spend that 92 million in this scenario… So, they’d never offer 10/460… Maybe they’d only offer 10/425 or 10/440…
People are translating the 10/700 with deferrals to 10/460 in present day value without recognizing that it doesn’t mean 10/460 without deferrals was on the table, just because they have equal present day value.
Lastly, bigger numbers, regardless of whether deferrals exist or not, just makes it easier for agents to negotiate for more big numbers. Even if they don’t quite get all the way to this number because GMs will know there are deferrals… It’s good for players as a whole.
SheaGoodbye
Good points.
LeMike
If it helped them to save money from being paid then 100% is a tax dodge strategy even if you want to masquerade it as “good for players” when in reality is a move to help the owners to pay less for what they bought.
ignasis
Mike, I don’t think you’re thinking clearly on this.
If Ohtani signed a 10 year 460 million contract, the cap hit would still be 46 million… As it is now… The tax they pay would be the same as this deal…
Rather, they’re only paying Ohtani 20 million over the next 10 years…. Not 460 million… To compensate him for having to wait so much longer for his money, he gets $680 million down the road.
The owners aren’t paying less for anything. They’re paying the EXACT same amount. (Well, actually more, but the more dollars are worth less and it evens out perfectly…) That’s the point. If the CBT worked the way you’re intuiting it should, then teams would literally never be able to offer deferred contracts to players….
The players would want more total money if they’re receiving deferrals to account for having to wait for the money and inflation. But, then, giving them more money would increase the luxury tax hit, so teams would never agree… Deferrals would simply end then.
LeMike
MLBPA only cares about money so they don’t care how it is done as long as they see big sums of money being moved to players. That’s why they don’t rise the voice when players and agents are colluding against teams by leaking info on the offers on the table but oooh boy how they cry if a team leaks that they are not in pursuit of X player because it sends a notice to other interested teams.
HalosHeavenJJ
The CBT calculation should be as simple as $700m/10.
It isn’t and the Dodgers are taking advantage of that fact to avoid paying luxury taxes.
Call it whatever you want but it is 100% a strategy to avoid CBT.
showman
Look up “interest”
HalosHeavenJJ
I’m a mortgage lender. I fully understand the machinations at work here. And why they exist: to lower the CBT hit.
Travis’ Wood
Absolutely clueless take. Wow
Goin' to Sheetz
People see 700/10 and assume that the CBT hit is 70. Not everyone knows the formula for th actual hit. And, yes, lots of teams defer money, but the scale has never been this high.
More importantly, people are upset because this allows the Dodgers to effectively sign 3 of the top 4 free agents. It doesn’t take a lot to foresee Bellinger and Yamamoto coming to join Ohtani next week.
LeMike
700/10 —> 70 millions annually, the dodgers were already in a point where they would have to pay at least 65% of those 70 millions as tax, recent calculations before the season ended situated them within the threshold to pay 95% of tax.
So… no, it was “only” a 66.5 million tax plus the 70 millions for a season, the dodgers were set to pay 136.5 millions for a season of Ohtani considering his salary+the tax hit.
Zakis
Smart piece of business on his end
3768902
This makes sense.
Now someone please explain to me how teams with more revenue DON’T have a competitive advantage over teams with less revenue.
UncommonSense
Because every team can do this and every teams billionaire owner can afford this, but they’d rather hold tight to their money
LeMike
Thus is why it shouldn’t be allowed to happen when teams over the luxury tax engineer a way to avoid paying more and allow it only to happen to help small payroll teams.
ignasis
Teams with more revenue DO have an advantage over teams with less revenue. They earn more, and they can spend more if they are willing to pay the tax. That’s not ever going to go away.
villanovaman
Villanovaman
You still have to take revenue sharing under account. You have small market teams pocketing their share and not reinvesting back into their teams
Tim Dierkes
They do, of course, and it’s baked into MLB.
ilikesports
Just because both parties agreed to it doesn’t mean it’s not a tax dodge. How are some posters trying to make an argument that since Ohtani agreed to it, it can’t be a dodge??
They’re literally Dodging the luxury tax implications with the help of Ohtani’s agent.
Now, it’s within the rules, so good for them. My issue as a fan is that this never should have been able to happen.
Wadz
I’m sure the bulk of people wholly agreeing with the sentiments of this article the next few weeks are dodgers fans and the national media…
dan-9
Because it quite literally was not. No tax was dodged. It was either this contract or one with less overall money and less deferred money. The annual CBT hit would not have changed.
showman
Look up “interest”
Ghost Pepper
Somebody , somewhere is drawing up a lawsuit.
UncommonSense
They wrote a whole article for pads fan and he doesn’t even respond to it
bxbombers857
Lol
toptimrubies
best comment here lol
Ncsaint
Well, if he knew how to read this never would have been an issue.
Datashark
sorry Ohtani I hope you Jason Schmidt LAD.
UncommonSense
Why can’t you be happy for someone else and not wish ill Will on them? Being petty is not a good look
Datashark
I am plenty happy for Ohtani for getting his. I also like that LAD is building up at deferral program that is going to be so costly in future (I can hope if cripples them) I also can see that 700m might be for a DH only, but I can hate on the fact that only major market teams are able to really pull this off
I do not think its good for all of baseball to circumvent caps like this. – this will also add undo costs to the consumer in the future as am sure LAD and other major market teams will exploit this and Playoffs will end up with same teams every year
Thank_God_Im_Not_Tim_Dierkes
Commonly referred to as Schmidt-ing the bed?!
99socalfrc
The rule is dumb. They are paying him $700m and only putting $460m on the CBT books. In no universe did this the way MLB should be doing it
LA_Smack
Well written article and thorough explanation. For all the lames in here who think their crybaby opinions matter, your anger at Ohtani and the Dodgers is silly, moronic, ignorant, and childish. Let me help correct your blind and foolish thought process. You are simply mad that your team and owner isn’t willing to prioritize winning and creating a culture of winning that would convince someone of Ohtani’s stature to consider deferring their contract, and in so doing, severely and negatively altering the value of their contract in the name of winning. Now before your childish mind attempts chastisement by pointing out that the Dodgers have only one short season World Series in the last 35 years, hush poor fool. There are 30 teams and only one can win the Series every year. Redirect your anger and sour grapes to the front offices and owners that lead the teams you route for. The owner of the As could have done this deal financially, if he weren’t such a cheapskate. The Dodgers and Ohtani are committed to winning and found each other the perfect match. Don’t begrudge a player for putting winning over greed simply because he didn’t choose your team. Let’s be honest, you don’t really think it’s bad for baseball, you just think it’s bad for your teams chances to win the World Series. Rest now you foolish internet simpletons, logic and truth have set you free!!!
Jean Matrac
There was so much arrogance in your first two sentences that I didn’t read any farther. Maybe tone down your pompous sense of superiority to something that’s maybe just smug instead.
LA_Smack
Sometimes hyperbole and shock are needed to calm the masses from their ignorant rants and tantrums 🙂 Cheers!
Jean Matrac
That “hyperbole and shock” is useless if it loses readers and they skip it without reading any farther than the opening insults.
norcalblue
Smack!
Thank_God_Im_Not_Tim_Dierkes
Spoken like a true Dodger bandwagoner fan who cheers for the Lakers, and the Cowboys.
LA_Smack
Ahhh, my friend, resorting to assumptions about my fandom to, what? Make yourself feel better about crying harder. Yikes
Thank_God_Im_Not_Tim_Dierkes
Didn’t deny it, did you?!
ghost of andy sonnanstine's future
Maybe it’s not a ” luxury tax dodge” for LA, but it means they basically are getting Ohtani for free. All the money he brings in is straight profit that they get to invest and probably double before they even have to start paying him.
I wonder how the other players feel about a player underselling his unique talents in such an extreme way, while at the same time throwing off the competitive balance of the league. If Ohtani thinks the Dodgers have any actual loyalty to him beyond the revenue he is bringing in, the joke is on him.
UncommonSense
The highest annual value of 46 million year is free?
ghost of andy sonnanstine's future
They are paying him $2 million a season for the next 10 years while collecting high 8 to 9 figures in $ off of his talent and popularity. So, ok not free, but essentially free. They are getting a 40-80x compounding return each season.
UncommonSense
Did you read the article or the collective bargaining agreement because they have to pay it in an annuity so he has the money later. He may get 2 million a year now but the Dodgers are not paying 2 million a year.
ghost of andy sonnanstine's future
Did you read my comment?
the deferred money is without interest, which makes this contract more exploitative than a rookie contract. It also means he will be paid less than Aaron Judge and Juan Soto at the end of all these deals while the Dodgers pocket billions. It is a farce and an insult to current players and future MLB players.
UncommonSense
No, read it again he’s being paid basically 46 million a year for the 10 years he’s playing
ghost of andy sonnanstine's future
I’m not talking about CBT figures, I’m talking about his actual paycheck, where he will be paid $20 million over 10 years.
UncommonSense
I know you meant 2 million and not 20 so no need to worry but he is still being paid in deferred money and deferred money is still money. It’s like when you win the lottery and you get a choice between a lump sum that’s a percentage of your winning or you get an annual payment every year of the full amount. Doesn’t change the fact that you still won the lottery just because you’re getting paid over time.
ghost of andy sonnanstine's future
It also doesn’t change the fact that taking the annual payment in that scenario is a financially dumb decision. And this decision harms the future earnings of Ohtani’s co-workers. Accepting the lottery annuity affects no one but yourself,
UncommonSense
It doesn’t harm anybody
BrianStrowman9
This doesn’t affect Ohtani’s co-workers.
Deferrals have been a thing. If the next superstar wants it evenly spread out—he’ll get it. If anything this makes it more likely that the Dodgers pay their next FA signing in full w/in the next 10 years.
showman
Math not your strong suit
AL B DAMNED
NOT BUYING ANY OF THE BS, AND I DON’T THINK ANYONE ELSE THAT READS IT WILL EITHER! IT IS STRAIGHT UP CHEATING, CIRCUMVENTING THE RULES, LUXURY TAX EVASION, WILLFUL INTENT TO MONOPOLIZE MLP TALENT, WHATEVER YOU WANT TO CALL IT! IT IS NOT RIGHT, NOR FAIR TO THE OTHER 29 TEAMS! ALSO, AS STATED, OTHER TEAMS WERE OFFERED THE SAME CONTRACT STIPULATIONS WITH DEFERRING PAYMENTS.
ONLY A “VERY” FEW TEAMS COULD EVEN AFFORD TO TALK, MUCH LESS GET INTO NEGOTIATIONS!
I CANNOT FATHOM THE IDEA THAT MLB IS HAPPY OR EVEN OK WITH THIS CONTRACT BUSINESS MODEL! IT ONLY OPENS THE DOORS FOR MORE AGREGIOUS WAYS TO CIRCUMVENT OTHER RULES OR POLICIES! IF THERE IS ANYONE THAT READS THIS ARTICLE AND AGREES WITH IT, THEN THEY ARE CLEARLY DODGER FANS AND DON’T CARE HOW THIS IS UNFAIR TO OTHER TEAMS THAT DON’T HAVE THE SAME MONEY RESOURCES, AND REALLY BAD FOR MLB ITSELF!
I HAVE READ A LOT OF RESPONSES TO THIS AND SIMILAR ARTICLES AND YOUTUBE PODCASTS, AND IT IS TURNING A LOT OF PEOPLE AWAY FROM MLB, BUT NOT NECESSARILY BASEBALL, BUT DEFINITELY MLB AKA-“MAJOR LEAGUE BASEBALL”! IT IS SHAMEFUL FOR OHTANI AND THE DODGERS TO EXPLORE THIS LOOPHOLE, AND DISPICABLE FOR MLB TO ALLOW IT!
UncommonSense
Why are you yelling?
AL B DAMNED
DON’T UNDERSTAND THIS YELLING BS!! IF YOU CAN HEAR ME TALKING OR TYPING, THEN YOU SHOULD BE MAKING $70M PER YEAR, EXCUSE ME $2M PER YEAR!
UncommonSense
The Internet is over 20 years old, get used to the fact that typing in all caps IS yelling and rude.
Thank_God_Im_Not_Tim_Dierkes
Must be Uncommon Sense!
MLB Top 100 Commenter
ABraves23
The best comparison is the lottery winner. They can take the full payout over decades or get maybe 50%-60% in a lump sum up front. Just think of most MLB players as taking the lump-sum and Ohtani took the payout over time.
This is not a loophole, this is just choosing payment over time than a lump-sum, just like the lottery.
Are you opposed to home loans, where instead of people paying 500K upfront they pay much more over 30 years? It is the same thing.
MLB Top 100 Commenter
“It’s my money and I want it now.”
People often get paid only 50% or 60% when they get a lump sum in exchange for an annuity.
Most players choose the lump sum over the annuity. Ohtani is unusual because he gets so much endorsement money. Maybe if there is a rookie who is already a billionairre they might also do this. This is just like the choice for lottery winners, getting paid lump sum or over many decades.
showman
Look up “interest”
baseballfan90
What a pathetic PR spin. Either that or Tim is gaslighting us.
Thank_God_Im_Not_Tim_Dierkes
He made like $50,000 on a Monday night with all the ads he sold over this jibberish. I’m still not sure why this was the mountain he wanted to die on, when I only see him write a handful of opinion pieces a year. If it’s me, I’m not throwing napalm on the Ohtani fire for atleast until after people get their holiday gifts!
Tim Dierkes
Either those two things, or you didn’t read the article
Travis’ Wood
You didn’t even try to come up with a legit counter argument. Nice job
Travis’ Wood
I dont understand these comments. $46 mil luxury tax hit is the highest in MLB history and right in line with contract expectations. The $70 mil AAV number isn’t real and wasn’t ever real… that’s the exact point of the article
Goin' to Sheetz
It was real from Friday until today. Maybe the Dodgers should’ve been more forthcoming when they announced.
phantomofdb
It is real. They’re paying him 700 million to play for 10 years, in the form of paying 68 million dollars a year after he’s retired. Only teams with money to burn can pull that off which means it’s a system manipulation
MagRupe
And yet they didn’t win his services with a contract of 460 million.
BrianStrowman9
Because Ohtani wants to put the best baseball team out on the baseball field while he’s playing baseball.
The Dodgers are paying an exorbitant sum of money to Ohtani after this deal is up. That’s going to severely hamper them post Sho-time.
Thank_God_Im_Not_Tim_Dierkes
Okay, imagine money genius that you have a house that still has $700K left to pay, but your mortgager says, if you give me $167 a month for the next 10 years, you just have to pay me $5667/month for 10 years after that. Meanwhile, you won’t owe me interest or anything else.
Now let’s say you make $100K/year, you start setting aside $34K a year, by the time you get to the end of the 10th year, you will have paid $20K for the house, saved $340K from your salary, and then you’d start owing $68K, well every year you keep setting aside $34K for the house and $34K from your savings, but as the years go by you get raises, the cost of houses go up, and now even paying $5667/month is cheaper than what most people are getting similar houses for in the 11th year.
Meaning you’ve been able to spend or allocate how you wish the remaining $660K minus taxes from the first 10 years, potentially buying other properties, adding an addition to the existing house, or renevating the inside. All of which makes the house more energy efficient and creating more “curb appeal”. Do you really think that based on this analogy for the Dodgers, that they will ever have to deal with the hardship of the Ohtani deal?
This also makes the Dodgers an ideal landing spot for future free agents who may take a discount to play there or it might be easier getting prospects and rookies to take low cost extensions early in their career, knowing the talent that will be on the field. Moreover, this kind of talent allows them to miss on some of those extensions and still remain competitive. This just made the Dodgers the team to beat for the next decade. Which is scary when you consider the Braves and how they are setup to succeed.
JayRyder
Sounds like Ohtani and Agent Fleeced the Dodgers an extra 240 Mil just cause.
Travis’ Wood
Lol no that’s not how it works AT ALL. Maybe read the article?
Rsox
Its just more of Manfred aiding and abetting the Dodgers in gaming the system.
linxuhe
The problem I see is that allowing this type of contract has opened the floodgates to a focus on building “super teams.” That’s not inherently a problem, teams should always focus on building the best team they can. Yet, it frequently begets things like holdouts or trade demands when things start to not pan out. I prefer my baseball negotiation hijinks to be more like mistakenly identifying planes instead of something like an owner-player spat.
All it takes is a couple of young players with confidence in their ability as well as some marketability (to pad the low salary) to be convinced and you’ve started a trend. You know Steve Cohen is going to try to do this. Then you just attract quality free agents with the promise of winning, Because the center of this whole issue is that this type of extreme deferral contract divorces the player’s real value from their payroll value. I’m focused on the 46, not the 2.
And at the very root of the issue is that “it’s ok” because his CBT hit is actually a record setting amount. If Max Scherzer is currently valued at 43.3 and Judge at 40, you cannot convince me that Shohei is only worth a handful million more (granted he will only be hitting next year). Yes, putting him at 50+ is shocking, but he’s a shockingly good player.
showman
Look up “interest”
Tim Dierkes
I didn’t really say it’s OK, just that it’s allowed. MLB also sees it that way.
As to whether it’s OK, that’s for collective bargaining.
Travis’ Wood
Scherzer got that AAV over 2 guaranteed years. Shohei got it over 10. Not comparable. $46 mil luxury tax hit is perfectly reasonable
Lanidrac
Holdouts are (thankfully) not an issue with the guaranteed contracts in MLB like they are with the non-guaranteed contracts in the NFL. With the guaranteed contract system, both players and owners have long recognized that players have the right to be paid as much as previously agreed (outside of non-medically caused early retirement or other rare extenuating circumstances) but not a penny more. Rare cases of contract renegotiation only occur when both sides think it’s a good idea to do so.
YKG2018
The only way this isn’t a tax dodge is if you believe Ohtani is worth closer to $45M/yr. If his true market value is $60M/yr or more (we heard all summer – $600M contract!) then it’s obvious it’s designed to circumvent CBT. Ohtani went along with it but it clearly serves 1 purpose – giving the Dodgers more room under the CBT thresholds.
To say that reducing the value for CBT to $35M/yr would then become problematic is silly. That’s completely arbitrary. Why is it ok to “avoid” $15M/yr but its “dodging” at $25M? It’s the same thing – a contract structure with no purpose other than avoid CBT.
Ohtani wouldn’t take $450M with no deferrals, MLBPA wouldn’t allow it because he’s clearly worth FAR more. Instead, this contract makes the union happy (oooh big total value!) and the Dodgers maintain CBT flexibility.
Ohtani wants to win, that’s commendable. Why this happened or who recommended it doesn’t change the fact that the contract was structured in a way to minimize what the Dodgers count as CBT salary. This serves no other purpose. Ohtani doesn’t realize a financial benefit, only the Dodgers.
It’s an egregious manipulation to avoid the competitive balance tax. And when 10 years are up, they pay him $68M a year and it counts $0 towards CBT.
End of the day, Dodgers will count $45M/yr for 10 years towards CBT for a transcendent, ultra super star player that’s worth FAR more than that. They’re not paying anything close to what they should.
Complete dodge.
Travis’ Wood
Ohtani is not worth far more than $46 mil per year for 10 years. By far the largest cap hit in history and for a decade straight. You’re crazy
Smacky
As I posted earlier. It’s more a dodge of California state tax. Assuming he’s not living in California when he’s done playing and collecting $680 million he’s not paying California 13% or $88.4 million. Betts’s and Freeman’s contracts both have significant deferrals too. The Nats are still paying Scherzer and they’ll be paying Strasburg forever.
UncommonSense
No, he still earned the money in California and will still pay California tax on it
Smacky
No. Show me where the California Tax Code says this. It’s not there.
Slow day at work
It was posted earlier. It clearly states that deferred income is still taxable.
showman
Doesn’t work like that smacky
WeeTodd
Absolute joke, like anybody that agrees with this straight up garbage.
showman
Look up “interest”
Travis’ Wood
Maybe provide a counter argument rather than sounding like an upset 13 year old
LordD99
There is no way the Dodgers would offer a straight 10/700. Maybe they could get to an 12/500 if there were no deferrals. That’s what fans were not factoring in. The deferrals is what allowed the deal to reach $700 million.
Enrico Pallazzo
So much jealousy. 1) Ohtani was the one who wanted this structure 2) he offered it to all the teams he negotiated with 3) it’s called the time value of money, google it you morons
ghost of andy sonnanstine's future
Being ludicrously underpaid is a slap in the face to all of his co-workers and a disrespect to all the players who fought for the free agent system.
gnomon
Yeah, that’s one way of looking at it. But I’m sure that the rest of his teammates appreciate the fact that he’s helping them to building a winning ball club. And no, I don’t think that getting paid $480M adjusted is being ludicrously underpaid.
MagRupe
Jack Harris, beat writer for LA: “Per source, it was Ohtani’s idea. Described to me as an “easy decision” to help the Dodgers remain competitive”
theroadto28
After reading the article I do have a question that I hope you loyal readers could help me understand. The 2 million he will be paid per year for the next decade will count against the Dodgers CBT each year correct? And from 2034-2043 the rest of the deferred money will also count against their CBT as well?
Thanks for the help
gnomon
Under the terms of the contract, the AAV of Ohtani’s contract works out to be around $46M per year, and that is what the hit will be against the CBT. So even though he will be paid only $2M per year for 10 years, the CBT will reflect $46M AAV.
And no, the CBT doesn’t extend to the other 10 years after the contract ends because the Dodgers would have been effectively “taxed” for the adjusted amount over the term of the contact.
Cheating the System
So, if there was no CBT, you think he would defer $680 million because the Dodgers can’t currently afford to pay him or add Yamamoto? No. Its because they are skirting the CBT rules. Plain and simple.
gnomon
How do you skirt the rules when the rules explicitly say that they can do it? Just because many teams can’t or won’t do it, doesn’t mean that the Dodgers are doing anything wrong.
As for whether Ohtani would defer the payments–maybe, maybe not. But then again, I don’t think he gets a $700M deal. He would probably get a deal in the $500M range, which for CBT purposes isn’t that much different from the hit the Dodgers have to take on the books with the deferrals.
Look, $2M per year is an absolute steal, but he’s still counting as $46M per year against the cap, which is more than any other player in the league. Not to mention, there’s the small issue owing him $680M over ten years after the fact. Not many teams can or would take on that kind of long term liability. The Dodgers are just one of the few teams to be position to take on that kind of risk. You don’t have to like it, but it’s nothing that any team wouldn’t jump at the chance if given the opportunity.
Trotski
When did you need to be a CPA to follow baseball? WTF.
Hammerin' Hank
Great article. Not that the people who already have their minds made up that Ohtani is the devil are going to agree with it, try to understand it, or even make it through the whole thing.
Oldguy58
Ohtani isn’t the devil but Manfred is. Not many outside of LA wish Ohtani success as a Dodger
Jean Matrac
Ohtani is signing a deal to play for 10 years and be paid a total of $700M. Saying that deferring the money to lower the CBT hit isn’t a dodge is semantics. IMO deferring to lower the hit is a dodge. If the league would not allow a team to add extra years to lower the hit, why does it allow a team to defer money to lower the hit? The money is worth less when paid at the end of the added extra years just like it is when deferred.
The whole point of of the tax is to try and mitigate the imbalance of the power of wealthy teams and poor teams. The CBT doesn’t prevent teams from blowing away poorer teams with huge offers, but it does make them pay a price for doing so. Allowing a deferral violates the intent of the CBT, even if that deferral technically adheres to the letter of it.
showman
Look up “interest”
Jean Matrac
I understand interest.
Halo11Fan
I’m glad he wrote this to help me understand why I’m so upset with this deal.
It’s not the 46 million, that’s pretty close to his expected AAV, It’s the two million dollars a year the Dodgers are paying Ohtani.
Its not a huge luxury tax break, but Ohtani is virtually loaning the Dodgers money at a very low interest rate. Baseball needs to do something about that.
MagRupe
He’s loaning it at ZERO interest.
Halo11Fan
It’s not zero interest. Let’s say 46 million a year is his expected salary. That’s 44 million loan, every year for ten years, that they don’t have to start paying back for 11 years.
They’ve made a mockery of the sport.
king jeremy the wicked
I think is the only reasonable argument against the deal. People see the $700 million number and just stop there. He was never getting anywhere close to that on a non-deferred deal. $46 mil against the CBT seems about right to me. The Dodgers freeing up $44 mil per year to stay under their own internal budgeted payroll (however astronomically high that number may be) is where they gain an actual advantage here.
Thank you for having one of the only normal and thought out negative reactions to the deal!
HBRC1987
Yaaaawwwwnnn
LeMike
The fact the Dodgers are avoiding paying the full amount of luxury tax for those 70 millions means they ARE dodging luxury taxes.
The columnist tries to argue in favor of the owners by comparing it to Aaron Judge and Scherzer’s contrats BEFORE the luxury tax hits.
Judge costs the Yankees way more than the 46 millions the taxDodgers are paying per season for Ohtani.
It is akin to what the Marlins did to avoid paying taxes back when they were owned by Loria.
HBRC1987
Cool story bro
gnomon
What are you talking about? Loria was cooking the books to avoid paying actual state taxes. The luxury “tax” is merely a means of trying to level the playing field between teams. It’s not perfect, but if you’re going to argue about that, then let’s start talking about how much money small market teams make from revenue sharing.
Dodging state taxes = Illegal
Deferring money in contracts to lower the AAV = Legal and absolutely allowed under the CBA.
showman
Look up “interest”
omegalul
How on earth do none of you understand that Ohtani basically signed a 10 year 460M deal. I’m starting to believe that over half of America lives paycheck to paycheck, and has no savings to speak of.
Anyone with a modicum of investment experience knows about the time value of money and wouldn’t be upset about his contract details.
Oldguy58
Not sure of the California give me all your money tax laws but maybe when he’s living back in Japan the hit will be less.
gnomon
Nope. I believe CA state income taxes follow the source rule that taxes income based on where it’s generated not on where the taxpayer lives so not relevant.
Astros_fan_in_Aus
Clearly you have missed the point entirely. Most people who are upset by this are concerned at the obvious CBT manipulation, and nothing to do with future value of money.
omegalul
It has everything to do with the future value of money. And people who are upset don’t understand it.
The aren’t manipulating anything, they’re still getting hit for 46M a year.
Ohtani basically signed a 460M/10 year deal.
Any team that can afford a 460M/10 year deal can afford a 700M/10 year deal deferred by 10 years because they are EQUIVALENT.
Cincyfan85
I hope the Dodgers (and Ohtani) have a 2023 New York Mets kinda season.
Oldguy58
Exactly right
Informed Sportsball Discussion
“The combination of Friday’s shaky reporting suggesting Ohtani was heading to the Blue Jays, plus an unprecedented contract structure, seems to be leading some fans to villainize him.”
Well, as a Padre fan, I am going to enjoy seeing Ohtani play for our team’s hated ultra-rivals much less than I enjoyed seeing him play for the Angels.
Generally speaking, one downside of Ohtani picking a comparative proven winner over the Angels was losing the satisfying narrative, if it had ever happened, of him finally breaking through to win a World Championship with the plucky underdog Angels, alongside his longtime buddy and teammate, Mike Trout.
Winning a World Series with the big bad Dodgers will never be as compelling a story.
I am sure Ohtani is not worried about that, and I wouldn’t expect him to be. But he’s gone from a team anyone can root for (because they always failed) to a polarizing juggernaut. The universal appeal won’t be quite the same. This is all aside from contract shenanigans.
At the end of the day, the man will probably enjoy doing what he does for a living more for his new team than his previous one, so that’s fine.
Sadler
I’ve concluded that MLBTraderumors.com is funded by the MLB player’s union.
This is total nonsense. He is allowed to agree to a contract where he’ll be paid for years that he will knowingly not play. That makes this a shell game. It’s utter nonsense; and gross.
showman
Look up “interest”
phantomofdb
Any team could have made this deal”
Sure. The Brewers, Rockies, Royals, Rays, Marlins, etc can definitely afford a contract structure causing them to pay $68 million a year to someone who isn’t even on their roster anymore.
Get real.
This is a loophole that only the top teams can take advantage of and therefore it needs to be nixed
gnomon
Sure, but it doesn’t negate the fact that any team can theoretically do it. The CBT was an attempt to level the playing field, but it cannot balance the inequality between teams in major and smaller markets. The only way to do that would be to put a hard cap and floor on every team, which would never ever be agreed upon.
And if you want to go that route, well then, let’s start looking at how much money teams like the A’s, Rays and Marlins are making in revenue sharing. You want to start limiting what teams can spend, then go ahead and limit how much small market teams make in revenue sharing and see how far that goes. It’s never going to be a perfect system. Small market teams will always be outbid. But then you have to smart like the Rays and develop talent to stay relevant. The Dodgers just happen to be the team with the smarts and wallet to back it up.
phantomofdb
Revenue sharing should be required to be spent on payroll. That’s the best floor to implement.
omegalul
If a team can’t afford 460M/10 years, they can’t afford 700M/10 years deferred because at a simplistic level, they’re financially equivalent.
martras
I didn’t realize MLBTR was on the Dodgers’ payroll. This is a laughable take. It’s stunning.
Oldguy58
How is this in the best interest of baseball? A team with an ownership group worth more than $300 billion can buy whoever they want and baseball is ok with it? The commissioner is more concerned with shorting the game time than the game itself. There’s so much hope that this somehow blows up on the Dodgers, and if it doesn’t we can still count on Dave Roberts mismanaging in the playoffs
Munenori Kawasaki
It’s in the best interest of Tim Dierkes and most other baseball pundits and reporters to shower praise on the Ohtani deal, no matter how unfair it is. (See, for example, Rosenthal saying that the Ohtani deal is good for baseball, Heyman backing that up, Hoornstra literally spreading fake news through a biased blog that MLBTR finds credible). Ohtani talk generates clicks and ad revenue. Writing puff pieces to make MLB look good makes MLB happy and may lead to future leaks. It’s symboitic. So much for an independent press that held owners and the league accountable…
Tim Dierkes
MLBTR doesn’t chase scoops.
Yes, in general, our arrangement is that we write posts, hope people click them, and get ad revenue.
I doubt MLB cares about this article, and making them or the Dodgers happy isn’t a goal of mine or something I profit from.
dan-9
Well now you’re just arguing that it’s bad because a rich team gave a lot of money to a great player. If you’re arguing they *shouldn’t* be able to do that, then you’re arguing for a salary cap. All that will do is hurt the players and allow the owners to become even richer.
But besides that, why even care? Nobody’s actually buying championships, not in baseball. We can all point to dozens of high-priced free agents that didn’t work out, or teams that went “all in” and came up short (this year’s Padres & Mets). So really, the only thing you’re advocating for is shortchanging the players.
BrianStrowman9
@dan
I think they fail to realize what this does to the Dodgers in 10 years. Is having $68MM a year to a guy not on the roster not a serious consequence of this move?
If they don’t get future players to take deferrals around that time this will hamper what they can do significantly post Ohtani.
Wadz
The Dodgers will have made so much from Otani the next decade.. those deferrals will pay for themselves… this deal has 0 consequence for them
jbigz12
That’s a crazy response. If Sho blows his knee out—- the Dodgers are on the hook for $700 million bucks over the next 20 years. We have no clue how long his body will hold up or if he’ll be able to start games again.
There’s substantial risk on all of these mega deals. This isn’t a guaranteed financial windfall for the Dodgers. They’re on the hook for a ton of money on the backend. Of course, there’s tremendous upside if you get vintage Ohtani but this isn’t a risk free roll.
Lanidrac
To be fair, this is the nature of deferred contracts in the first place. You sacrifice future payroll flexibility to have a better chance to win now. It’s just that no team has ever done it to such an absurd degree before. Once 2034 rolls around, the Dodgers will have a lot more trouble making the playoffs.
MagRupe
This is disappointing. You deleted your post that announced Ohtani was on his way to Toronto but didn’t mention that you had done that in subsequent posts. Secondly, while your analysis of the CBA is right, your depiction of Ohtani may not be. Does he pay the tax if he’s no longer living in CA when he’s paid? Did his agents consciously lie to Jon Morosi so he could get LA to raise their offer? And you’ll excuse us if we don’t believe your sources who say he offered to every team when the LA beat writer stated, “Per source, it was Ohtani’s idea. Described to me as an “easy decision” to help the Dodgers remain competitive”
It’s shady. It’s unethical. And most importantly, it’s horrible for baseball. Do we need to exhume Bart Giamatti to find someone who actually cares for the game? This is disgraceful.
Tim Dierkes
I think this laid out the incorrect Blue Jays reporter clearly:
mlbtraderumors.com/2023/12/blue-jays-to-reportedly…
I don’t know who Morosi’s sources were.
Sounds like you’d like a group of different owners who want something other than making the most money. Yeah, that could be cool.
MagRupe
Morosi acknowledged his mistake but I don’t think MLBTR was explicit enough in how you got caught up in it, too. Otherwise, why delete the post? Every news organization would have said, “Earlier today we posted information that was later discovered to be false. We have deleted the post and apologize for the error.”
Baseball journalism took a massive hit to its credibility that day and you and your team rely almost exclusively on journalists for your content. Indirectly, your credibility took a hit along with it. To not discuss that – especially to those of us who actually pay for the service – was disappointing.
Ashley69
Think it’s bad now, wait until they sign Yamamoto, bring back Bellinger and trade for Cease.
Lol Scott Boras
realbaseball
Okay timmy
ccsilvia
Can’t hate the Dodgers for exploiting a loophole, but there’s 0 chance it remains after the next CBA.
It’s a good joke taken too far.
When/if they sign a major pitcher too there will be a revolt.
From us, the fans, but more importantly from the fellow billionaire owners
That’s what matters most.
Astros_fan_in_Aus
Spin it anyway you want, but this is clearly a way to circumvent the CBT, and if it was, indeed, an Ohtani/Manager idea, I have lost a little respect for Ohtani over this.
dan-9
It 100% is not. From the club’s financial perspective, the only two things that matter are a) the CBT and b) annual cash flow.
The contract was *always* going to be around $46M per year CBT. That’s the number that matters, not the $700M. The Dodgers could have just as easily offered a non-deferred 10/$460M, but they didn’t because a) deferring the money gives them more flexibility to add around Ohtani for the next decade and b) Ohtani and his agent like it because they get bragging rights about the “record-breaking” contract.
BrianStrowman9
“Spin it however you want—I don’t understand financials nor do I ever care to understand”
@akitas
Can you send me $100 tomorrow? Sound fair if I send you $100 back in 20 years? They’re worth the same amount, right? You’ll be able to buy the same things w/ that $100 in 20 years, right!!??
urnuts
I know this likely does not happen but let’s say 13 years from now the Dodgers file bankruptcy, what happens to the final 7 years deferred payments?
Are the Dodgers a LLC?
Lanidrac
Wouldn’t it be paid once all the team’s physical assets are sold off like how debts are paid off in any other bankruptcy case?
urnuts
Teams don’t own many assets unless they own their stadium. Do the Dodgers own the stadium?
Players are their main asset
BlueSkies_LA
For those who aren’t already busting an artery, here’s another possibility that is sure to piss them off even more: in ten years or whenever his career is over, Ohtani could flip the balance of what he’s owed into an equity share of the Dodgers. Imagine that! Hey I just saw some more heads explode!
MLB Top 100 Commenter
That would have only happen if the Dodgers were still owned by the parking lot attendant.
BlueSkies_LA
Money talks. The Dodgers already have minority partners in ownership, so it wouldn’t be anything new. Ten years is a long time off but it sure would not surprise me.
sfjackcoke
A couple of comments here. I think the impetus of this structure is an attempt by Ohtani’s side in optimizing the contract for tax purposes. The contract pays those deferrals with no interest hence the backwards calculations to get to a true AVV of $46M. So much hype and subsequent discussion here, I can’t help but think this doesn’t catch the attention of various taxing authorities, state, local, Canada 😉 I believe visiting players are taxed pro-rata when playing in Toronto similar to NYC, Philadelphia, any others?
In that context yeah he beat Max and Judge AVV however adjusted for inflation is this that large a move in AVV? I mean Ohtani is a 2 way player where instead of playing defense he adds top of the rotation starting pitcher performance. I think the story that’s been minimized is but there’s risk with Ohtani who is recovering from a second torn UCL.
Now there’s been no official word that 2nd procedure was another TJ surgery but he did tear his UCL so either he got a 2nd TJ procedure OR he got something “new” no other player has ever received which does not sound very plausible, The Opening Day target seems glass half full if not best case scenario. Harper did it the fastest and with no MiLB rehab in 160 days which based on Ohtani’s procedure date is 3rd week of February. LAD + SD open the season early in Korea March 20-21st then LAD open at home March 28th. That’s tight, I don’t think you see him in any “A” games in AZ, it will all be back field reps where they can control the environment.
FWIW, I don’t believe this signing moves the needle in LAD winning a WS and bringing a parade to Los Angeles. Starting pitching and a change in philosophy on roster construction are needed, It’s weird because the template to building rosters for deep October runs has been the same for a long while, but that LAD front office, aren’t’ they the smartest guys in MLB?
2020*
teekay
every person in these comments supposedly fighting for a salary cap is actually fighting more for the owners than they realize
every. single. owner. is rich. they could all afford 7/700 for a player even if the AAV was 70m.
they’re all billionaires. they WANT you to fight for their cause. they WANT you to get mad when someone else signs a free agent to 5y/90m because it takes the firepower off them.
so well done, y’know?
JSC Cubbs
All big market teams signing players to 1 year contracts should now defer all money above league minimum to be paid in full on January 1st the following year. That way they could have 400 million dollar payrolls with a cbt number of about 230, and pay no cbt at all.
This article gives no information of value, it just says that in the opinion of the writer, all this is fine. That’s it.
Ohtani will be paid a total of 700 million for 10 years of service. Those are facts.
“46 million is a big number” does not change that, despite the author insisting it does, repeatedly.
The other 29 teams hopefully will file a lawsuit or injunction to get their money, and the state of California may follow.
Here’s hoping the owners turn on Manfred.
omegalul
Bro a 400M payroll deferred by 1 year only reduces CBT number to 383M
And also, it’s completely legal.
norcalblue
“ Spin it anyway you want, but this is clearly a way to circumvent the CBT, and if it was, indeed, an Ohtani/Manager idea, I have lost a little respect for Ohtani over this.”
Man, this is just so weak. Clearly, you’re not alone. To suggest that this is an exploitation of the CBT, is just lazy. Ohtani and the Dodgers have constructed an agreement that pays the player fair market value ($460 million for 10 years) In a way that maximizes the teams ability to bring in other elite players during the 10 years Shohei is playing for the Dodgers. Consistent with all of the reporting on Ohtani before an agreement was reached, he prioritizes being on a competitive team. Disagreement allows him to meet one of his obvious goals. He wants to win.
I suspect, no proof, yet, that other teams might have even offered Ohtani a larger contract. Specifically, they were probably willing to put more money in Ohtani‘s pocket over the next 10 years than the agreement he signed with Los Angeles. That was his right under the collective bargaining agreement. The collective bargaining agreement also clearly allowed the Dodgers to structure the agreement in a way that allowed Ohtani to meet his goals.
With all due respect, no one did anything here that violates the collective bargaining agreement. What was done here by two willing parties, reflects a desire to win. More teams should do that for their fans. We can all agree on that. Frankly, all teams had the ability to offer Ohtani, this kind of an agreement under the collective bargaining agreement, they either chose not to, or they were rejected in their proposal. Get over it.
This is not a circumvention of rules. The collective bargaining agreement was never written to prevent deferrals. Your interpretation of the goals of the collective bargaining agreement is just not accurate. The people who wrote the collective bargaining agreement knew precisely that this was possible. The players, in particular, love the flexibility that one of their members utilized in signing disagreement. You need to just get over it man.
MLB Top 100 Commenter
I disagree with your outrage. But even if I agreed, why would the owners turn on Manfred. Manfred is the owners’ lackey, he will do what he is told to keep his job. If the majority of owners don’t like this, or don’t like Cohen’s spending, they will tell Manfred what to do. Manfred is the mouthpiece, the owners are the power.
UncommonSense
You really don’t understand any of it
filihok
JSC
“All big market teams signing players to 1 year contracts should now defer all money above league minimum to be paid in full on January 1st the following year. That way they could have 400 million dollar payrolls with a cbt number of about 230, and pay no cbt at all.”
Hold up
You read that the Dodgers are paying Ohtani $2 million a year and that’s counting $46 million towards the CBT and you came up with this garbage about $1 million contracts and paying NOTHING towards the CBT?
:smh:
SoCalBrave
all of this sounds good, but the article fails to mention that while the amount for tax purposes is 46M, the amount they’re actually paying is much less because they’re referring 44 of that actual money. Let’s say that their final figure after taxes is 300 Million, well they’re actually only paying 256 Million that year.
Mikenmn
Good explainer. It’s reasonable to assume that both parties. team and player, like this structure. There’s no dark secret here. Ohtani’s agent/team is surely smart enough to figure out NPV–and smart enough to know that if his “present” salary were just $4M per year and the rest deferred he’d be making a lot more money. The risk to the player is significant–just a single stretch of high inflation in the next few years will substantially bring down total NPV. So, if both sides know this, why should we have a problem with it? Let’s face it, if the player signed a straight Judge-like deal for $500M over ten years, few of would have had a problem with of it besides the usual big market/small market arguments. If this back and forth is really about the CBT and the owners are upset about it, then they can try again in the next round of negotiation to put limits on it. One thing that won’t happen is serious caps on deferrals themselves. Teams benefit from them, irrespective of the CBT issue.
aragon
No matter what, it is dirty. Hope the Didgers never ever win another World Series.
FahQ
I’m surprised how many financially illiterate people there are on this site. Ok not really…
But Ohtani ABSOLUTELY is not in it for the money because the Present Value of this contract is even less than the $460M figure, which is actually the “present value” 10 years from now! Once you discount $460M in 10 years back to today (using the discount rate they used to get to the $460M present value figure of 7.82%), the true present value TODAY is actually about $217M!
Tim Dierkes
Yes definitely this.
Slow day at work
@FahQ why would you discount $460M when he’s getting $700M?
JerseyShoreScore
God Bless Shohei Ohtani!
God Bless Andrew Friedman!
God Bless Japan!
God Bless America!
BlueSkies_LA
Gesundheit!
dan-9
Anyone who doesn’t understand the time value of money, feel free to not comment your hot takes.
This was NOT a luxury tax manipulation, it was an annual cash flow manipulation. They are not the same thing, and there’s nothing inherently wrong with it.
BrianStrowman9
@dan
Yeah, man. Truthfully I don’t know if I can ever engage in a discussion with anyone of these arrogantly wrong buffoons up here. I just don’t know how to have a conversation about player values when they don’t understand basic financial concepts.
Lanidrac
True, but it’s still a rather outrageous cash flow manipulation that may lead to a limit being placed on deferred contracts in the next CBA.
wileycoyote56
The way our country is going, 68 million per year in 34 might qualify him for food stamps! Very risky to defer that much that far ahead, but he makes 50 mm in endorsement money so he’s going to be fine. I’d never trust the economy to be good in 10 years
I.M. Insane
“Why Shohei Ohtani’s Contract Structure Is Not A Luxury Tax Dodge”
Because it’s the Dodgers
Memphis Kong
Yep, Yankees could have done it also. The thing is the $46MM hit is because the contract is really for 20 yrs. So they factor inflation into it. He could after the 10 yrs go sign with another team and have both pay him. What would be fair is to have that $46MM on the Dodgers payroll for 20 yrs.
BrianStrowman9
No it wouldn’t.
& Max Scherzer made $40MM this year from the Rangers/Mets and $15MM from the Nationals in case you were wondering.
AmericanRedneck
Having a 70M annual salary, and deferring over 97% of it annually, solely as a work around to the luxury tax calculations is not the same as a fraction of the deal being deferred, what 20-30% of a portion being deferred in Max’s case. Trying to draw a correlation there as justification is omitting the aforementioned percentages, financial reasons and how this will effect CBA negotiations going forward, I guarantee this is addressed in future CBA negotiations and such contracts will not be permitted moving forward. Having 97.14% deferred, in this economy isn’t smart, sure the endorsements make up for it but that’s apples and oranges, two separate things.
BrianStrowman9
His salary is not $70MM. He was never getting that much. It could’ve been a $570MM deal with less cash deferred and the same PV.
The Dodgers shouldn’t have been able to only pay $2MM per? Ok, I can see that but it’s really a cash flow choice for the Dodgers. Not because it dodges any taxes. This doesn’t dodge tax money. It pushes cash flows out further.
The Dodgers are in a tough spot in 10 years. $68MM is a ton of money to pay out annually to a guy who is not on the team.
They may address this in the next CBA. I could see a limit on the $ that can be deferred moving forward above a certain threshold.
I can’t imagine that too many players would even want this deal though. No players make what Ohtani does off the field.
Slow day at work
@BrianStrowmang That’s the real beauty or evil of the contract, depending on your opinion. Because of the amount of marketing money the Dodgers can make off Othani, the $68 million will essentially pay for itself
showman
I learned today that most chatters don’t know what interest is
kenny84
Your argument is garbage. The Padres wouldn’t have been allowed to do this but because it’s the Dodgers and it’s within expectations it’s ok. Wow. Respect circling down the drain. Why defend this? We get it’s within the rules but it’s still a tax dodge. It’s still wrong and it does hurt the game. The fans are telling you this and the truth nobody wants to admit is the fans are the game. Without us it’s just a bunch of men playing in a field.
dan-9
As has been explained many times, it was NOT a tax dodge, because, and I can not state it any clearer than this, no tax was dodged. No. Tax. Was. Dodged.
Tim Dierkes
The Padres would’ve been allowed to do this
showman
This has to be the dumbest chat on the internet
Mikenmn
Nah. Plenty of competition for that crown.
norcalblue
This chat is a metaphor for the stubborn, visceral rhetoric we are seeing and hearing on a daily basis in this country, being expressed by uneducated and ignorant people. When the only tool in your toolbox is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
seanmc1983
This “article” should be labeled as sponsored content on behalf of the Los Angeles Dodgers.
BrianStrowman9
70% of these comments should be labeled
“Finance is a foreign concept to me but I have strong opinions anyway”
Tim Dierkes
Could I at least get paid then?
holycow16
Regular Season Champs!!
Now let’s get on with other top tier signings!!
Go Cubs Go!!!
Manfred’s playing with the balls
Most baseball fans want socialism for the owners and capitalism for the players. They’ll complain and act like the dodgers and Yankees sign every big name. The truth is there’s about half the teams that spend big at one point in time. The other half could spend big but chooses not too.
I.M. Insane
If you have to “explain” the reason there’s nothing wrong with this contract, there’s probably something wrong with this contract.
juggernaut
What is the CBT hit for the Dodgers in years 2034 to 2043? I haven’t heard anything in that regard. The Dodgers better be on the hook for something there. Otherwise, this is all a mute point.
filihok
jugger
“What is the CBT hit for the Dodgers in years 2034 to 2043? I haven’t heard anything in that regard. The Dodgers better be on the hook for something there. Otherwise, this is all a mute point.
”
Ignorant
They are being charged $46 million a year on a $2 million a year salary PRECISELY TO FACTOR IN THE DEFERRED PAYMENTS.
Wadz
The CBT hit in those years is $0
william-2
The main question everyone should be asking is about the future impact of this contract on their future team salary calculations for luxury tax in the future as well. So, it is 46 million a year for the next 10 years. What is it per year on all the deferred money during the other years he will actually be paid the bulk of this contract? Is the gimmick/loophole that instead of $70 million they should have paid towards the tax the next ten years they will only have to pay $46 million a year for ten years and we simply memory hole the fact that during those other 10 years they are not responsible for the remaining $24 million?
There has to be accountability for what the contract is. If there isn’t every major big market team will do this with the understanding, they can get away with the memory hole loophole on deferred money, and basically place the salary cap hit on figures of their own choosing.
filihok
William
“The main question everyone should be asking is about the future impact of this contract on their future team salary calculations for luxury tax in the future as well. So, it is 46 million a year for the next 10 years. What is it per year on all the deferred money during the other years he will actually be paid the bulk of this contract? Is the gimmick/loophole that instead of $70 million they should have paid towards the tax the next ten years they will only have to pay $46 million a year for ten years and we simply memory hole the fact that during those other 10 years they are not responsible for the remaining $24 million?”
Ignorant
It was never going to be 10/$700
It was going to be something like 10/$450
And that’s what is being counted for the CBT
BrianStrowman9
$700MM was not a real number he was going to receive over 10 years unless the Saudi’s created a baseball league…..
william-2
Excuse me, but the contract is $2 million a year over 10 with $680 million deferred. That is $20 million + $680 million= $700 million. That is the amount of the contract. The team is on the hook for that amount, and no one has stated that the $700 million figure is not the amount they are responsible for.
If it was 10/$450 it would still be 2/10 with $430 deferred. It is not. It is $680 deferred.
filihok
William
“Excuse me, ”
You’re excused?
“the contract is $2 million a year over 10 with $680 million deferred. That is $20 million + $680 million= $700 million. That is the amount of the contract. The team is on the hook for that amount, and no one has stated that the $700 million figure is not the amount they are responsible for.”
Correct
And?
$700 million over 20 years is not the same as $700 million over 10 years.
reno24
Make all the justifications you want for this BS. After the Dodgers sign Yamamoto, Snell and God knows who else, the end result will still be the same. MLB will be broken and tons of fans like myself won’t be watching and sure as hell won’t be attending games.
Gator50
When you sign a player for $70 million per year, yet defer enough of it to make your CBT hit only $46 million per year, you still “dodged” $24 million per year in CBT accountability. Literally.
This maneuvering if available to every GM however, and they are all aware of it. Problem is they were never in the running for Ohtani, as he was set on the Dodgers from go, and spent some time working out a deal that allowed them to give him big $ AND go sign other players. I wonder if Ohtani was talking to Yamamoto while this deal was being made?
Lefty_Orioles_Fan
The Contract and Deferrals are so over the top
This contract wasn’t drawn up in five minutes over beer and pretzels
Every lawyer and agent took acting lessons, dancing lessons, singing lessons!!!!
They all are Big Stars!!!!
In addition, they were trained by monks and mullahs from Tibet to Istanbul.
Heck, the biggest telling thing by this is that Ohtani has set up a Go Fund Me page until 2034. He has to pay his mortgage, car, gas, other essentials until then
Plus, the Angelos family won’t whine about this, because the Orioles are their tax dodge, they have a wealth manager, who keeps their revenues not too high, not too low so that that they qualify every year for the revue share. It s a perfect plan
SMH!!!
28rings
sounds like a lot of B.S.
ChrisEnvy76
For me, all I ask is, “Does this circumvent the spirit of competitive balance”? If it does, it is bad for the game. Everyone wants their team to be competitive and even appearing to minimize the chances of more than half your team’s ability to be competitive will have many fans looking elsewhere for entertainment.
filihok
CE
“Does this circumvent the spirit of competitive balance”?”
No
Ohtani was never signing for 10/$700
He was singing for something like 10/$500
That’s how much is being counted against the CBT
ChrisEnvy76
Because he is getting paid $2M instead of $46M there is a $44M difference. If you go over the CBT and have to pay the luxury tax, you could essentially use the savings THIS year to cover it. It makes the game less competitive,
filihok
CE
“Because he is getting paid $2M instead of $46M there is a $44M difference.”
He’s being paid $2 million
It’s counting $46 million towards the CBT
How does that violate the spirit of the CBT?
ChrisEnvy76
We are talking about competitive balance, not just the tax. But I can ask you this, what is the actual purpose of the CBT?
What happens if you go to $300M in payroll? Does this set up cost them more or less? The answer is clearly that it costs them less money. That runs counter to the point of the CBT. I feel like you are attempting to argue that it doesn’t. No one is arguing that point. Those who aren’t opposed to this are arguing that everyone can do it, therefore it is fine. Certainly not that this isn’t counter to competitive balance which is what the CBT is supposed to be there to enforce.
filihok
CE
“We are talking about competitive balance, not just the tax. But I can ask you this, what is the actual purpose of the CBT?”
To restrict player compensation
ChrisEnvy76
“We are talking about competitive balance, not just the tax. But I can ask you this, what is the actual purpose of the CBT?”
To restrict player compensation
—- That is incorrect. The purpose of the CBT is to restrict team spending to make baseball more balanced.
norcalblue
Again, thank you filihok, for your tireless and clear explanation of the facts for these people. Baseless assertion after baseless assertion, you have clearly provided the facts that expose the inaccuracy and ignorance being expressed.. These people just need to get this anger of their system. Fortunately, we have you here to correct the lunacy and disinformation. Thanks to you, I have observed many people gain clarity and express themselves accordingly. You have been a real asset over the last two days and you’re much appreciated.
filihok
CE
“The purpose of the CBT is to restrict team spending to make baseball more balanced”.
That is incorrect. It’s a tool to restrict player compensation and keep more money with ownership
Lanidrac
No matter what the tax number is, the Dodgers are still saving a ton of money specifically on their 2024 payroll that they wouldn’t have if they had signed Ohtani to a conventional 10-year contract. That’s the competitive balance issue, and it could very well lead to a limit being placed on deferred contracts in the next CBA.
william-2
Ah, so at no point will Ohtani ever be getting $200 million out of the $680 million they are deferring in the written contract? Strange that they would put in writing a contract for $700 million that is really $500.
filihok
William
“Ah, so at no point will Ohtani ever be getting $200 million out of the $680 million they are deferring in the written contract? Strange that they would put in writing a contract for $700 million that is really $500.”
Not correct. He’s getting $700 million over the next 20 years.
william-2
Ok, $700 over the next 20 years. Your statement. So, the Dodgers will be paying the $46 million a year over the 10 years to equal $460, not $700 instead of the $35 million they should pay over the next 20 years, every year to equal the 20/700? They aren’t.
filihok
William
“Ok, $700 over the next 20 years. Your statement”
Yes. My statement was correct
”
So, the Dodgers will be paying the $46 million a year over the 10 years to equal $460″
Incorrect. The Dodgers will have $46 million a year applied to the CBT for Ohtani’s contract.
“the $35 million they should pay over the next 20 years, every year to equal the 20/700? ”
You asked earlier what the point of the CBT was
I replied that it’s to restrict player compensation.
Not discounting money on long term deals favors the owners.
Discounting deferred payments favors the players.
Long term contracts that also include deferred payments are a compromise.
ChrisEnvy76
You’re aware that you are talking to a completely different person, right?
Oldhalo
I completely agree.
Tim Dierkes
What’s up dude, good to see you on here! We’ll be at the show Saturday!!!
I do think this is bad for competitive balance – but I don’t think there’s anyone with power who is really fighting for competitive balance.
ChrisEnvy76
Awesome! It should be a good show. Did you see we released a new song? We even put a video out for this one. It’s been a LONG time since we’ve had a video out. LOL.
Yeah, I agree with that. Those with the power rarely if ever fight to make things fair. True statement!
Tim Dierkes
Looking forward to it. Love the new song, congrats! Would love to say hi and grab a beer.
ChrisEnvy76
We will have to grab a beer together…
This one belongs to the Reds
Keep on trying to sell it, Manny. Most people know the truth if they think about it and don’t believe the hype.
Kind of works for politics too.
28rings
“The bigger the lie, the more people will believe it.”
prov356
Nicely done Tim.
I don’t understand the $46m part of it. If he’s only receiving $2m a year now and $68m a year in the future, presumably after his career is over, where does the $46m come in?
I have a poli-sci degree so math his hard.
ibuititnoonecame
I love people telling others why they are wrong for having a different opinion. Again this should not be allowed imo. All money should be averaged over the life of the contract meaning he should count 70 a year. Period you can defer but it counts now.
dan-9
That makes zero financial sense. And it’s perfectly fine to tell people they’re wrong when they are, in fact, wrong. That’s not having a “different opinion”. If you say “the earth if flat”, then you would just be wrong, not have a legitimate “different opinion”. Same here.
Slow day at work
If deferrals were not legal, Ohtani’s contract wouldn’t have been 10y/700M, it would have been 10y/460M
SteveM7
Understood Tim and thank you very much for the insight. So ok, this structure is within the rules and therefore not really an indictment on the Dodgers, and certainly not on Ohtani. Makes perfect sense for him. For both.
BUT it’s still ridiculous. What it is, is an indictment of is the CBA and the commissioner’s office, because while it may be within the rules, it’s obviously a cap circumvention at its most basic definition to pay a player 2.9% of his salary while he’s actually performing. It’s a joke. It gets an F— grade on the Sanity Check Test. But that’s MLB for you, I hope they’re proud of themselves. And they are.
And it can’t be viewed in a one-and-done light, even if that proves true (which it won’t), because it will have a massive domino effect when the Dodgers next sign Yamamoto, and/or Snell, and/or Montgomery, and/or Soto next year, and so on for the next 10 years. It changes the entire landscape.
Again I’m blaming neither the team nor the player – but this is utter monkey business and should be light-years outside the rules.
Oldhalo
Well said and on point.
NotBelichick
Here’s the deal. People can (and will) like or dislike this. The problem is in the verbiage of the CBA. Your CBA just allowed the biggest name in the sport to skirt around rules. Changes will be made. This won’t be a thing. Because if it is, even the backup infielders making $4m per will only hit a teams cap for league min.
luckyh
If it “seems ludicrous “, it most definitely is. Not buying it. Smart of them though.
queenie
Screw him. Of course it’s a tax dodge
Polyglot
The New York Mets did this with Bobby Bonilla, The Boston Red Sox did this with Manny Ramirez and both players signed contracts decades ago, yet Manny is paid until 2026 and Bonilla until 2035!
So, a NY, Boston, and Los Angeles are all the big market teams, and cheat the cap and nothing can be said about it?
O'sSayCanYouSee
The Orioles did it with Chris Davi…, Chris Davi…, Chris Davi….
I can’t, but you get it.
luckyh
There was no “cap” for those deals. I think it’s wrong for all with the new rules in place.
Lanidrac
Yes, but those referrals aren’t anywhere near as ridiculous as this one. This one is so outrageous that it should get MLB to finally look at placing a limit on contract deferrals in the next CBA.
sangroazul
So I still don’t understand the difference between what SD was thinking about offering Judge (and how that wouldn’t be allowed by MLB), as we’ll be paying Ohtani from ’34-’43 at $68mm/yr in his “later, non baseball -playing” years ..(?)
jjd002
The difference is the teams that did it. When Boston and New York got caught stealing signs electronically – nothing is done/slap on the wrist. When Houston did it – massive fine, lost picks, suspensions. League is ok with Blue bloods toeing the line and occasionally going over, but if a small or mid market does it – the rules are not the same.
Barkerboy
This is a smart tax dodge.
Thank_God_Im_Not_Tim_Dierkes
Ah-ha! Put another tally down for TAX DODGE!!!!
its_happening
L.A. put the dodge in Dodgers.
Thank_God_Im_Not_Tim_Dierkes
Yeah, they went from Trolly Dodgers to Tax Dodgers!
Jason Hanselman
It’s still a tax dodge. Just because they settled on a figure you feel is reasonable doesn’t mean they aren’t enjoying the benefits of a reduced CBT AAV. And it’s absolutely a tax dodge from a California taxation level if it’s true that they won’t get a dime during the deferral years. I’m unsure who told you to write this, Tim, but you’re calling a spade a club.
maxmilna
There are a lot of MLB Karens out there.
ghostofjoe19
Doesn’t matter either way. Braves and Phillies are still better teams with better lineups from top to bottom.
maxmilna
Keep telling yourself that. Dodgers are not done btw.
Simm
Did you really buy into this crock of crap. His contract is clearly designed to do two things. One dodger the tax. We can pretend it’s a 460m contract not a 700m contract based on present day money.
Let’s say for a second this was just a 460m contract paid over 10 years. They would have to had paid that during the 10 years he was playing. Therefore bringing up the amount of cash flow by a ton. So when they are done spending he would have had a huge portion of that amount taxed. Which is the same as it will be now but they aren’t paying that 46m now therefore the tax is like nothing. It doesn’t even add up to the amount they were going to pay him this year either way. With the reports of them wanting Yamamoto, hader and others they wouldn’t be able to do it without a 400m payroll. So yes they are dodging the tax this year by it not costing them 70m and they are dodging paying him his salary while he is playing for them.
If this loophole wasn’t allowed then one of two things happen he doesn’t get 700m or the dodgers have a massive payroll the the next 10 years. If he doesn’t get 700, instead say 50 people predicted not deferred this would have blown out the dodgers budget the next 10 years because of the salary and tax.
Instead they dodged a big part of the tax and nearly all of his salary while playing. If you don’t think a single person in the dodgers front office didn’t say…oh we do it this way we can save a lot of money on the lux tax. I guarantee you they used those or similars words. Hence a way to dodge the tax.
Quit acting like they didn’t do this to dodge some tax. You know and I know they absolutely worked the system to save money on both salary today and tax today.
JerseyShoreScore
Sadly society has morphed into blame others society. The rules are clear, and instead of condemnation, it should be celebration that there is athlete that is not 100 percent greedy and legit wants to win.
Major props to the true hero in sports!
Simm
That’s not true, he is getting all his money and gets a better chance to win. He is getting his cake and eating it too. The whole point of this article is he is getting his money but at closer to what he would have gotten present day anyways. So no he isn’t a saint.
Literally getting everything he wants…twice as greedy, dodges can spend more around him and he gets his money.
Thank_God_Im_Not_Tim_Dierkes
He’ll be worth more than $1.5B in 20 years if he doesn’t invest anything. He already makes $50M/year in endorsements.
Your version of not greedy is like the financial version of someone seeing a guy drive off the lot with a Chevy Bolt and marveling at their environmental concern! Only the guy drives the Chevy Bolt home, throw the keys to the house staff, so there’s a vehicle to use for running errands, Meanwhile he drives off in a Lamborghini chirping tires and lighting fires, while his garage is filled with Hummers and other gas guzzling vehicles.
The deferral was Ohtani’s idea that he suggested towards the end of the negotiations. He not only agreed to, but he orchestrated, a paid for championship! That’s not something to celebrate!
Just because the rules are that way doesn’t mean their fair. Why do we allow lobbyists in Washington D.C.?! Because the people who could make it illegal and should make it illegal are the ones who benefit while also wielding the most power.
Lobbying is essentially paying for a politician to vote against policies that are what got them elected. It’s essentially saying I’ll pay you enough money to deal with the hassle of pissing off your constituents.
The parallel is the snall market teams never imagined this kind of abuse, just as the writers of the constitution never imagined such lobbying abuses. Once allowed, it’s hard to repeal, but this was so egregious, I’ll bank on this being two weeks of the negotiations alone. Players and big market teams will support the Ohtani loophole, while small markets will be pounding the table for greater equality.
In the end, this is bad for baseball because moves like this eliminate teams from competing for a championship before the season begins, and then the owners don’t spend anything because it’s wasted resources, and fans have to suffer through watching marginalized teams all season as visitng clubs or worse as their home team.
Simm
Also just because you and other thinks aav would have been around 45m doesn’t make it so. A player like this the bidding could have easily went about 50m a year. You don’t think the dodgers would have given him 50m a year if it meant they wouldn’t wouldn’t get him? You guys and others are wrong about this stuff all the time especially on star players. You all said Yamamoto was going to get what maybe 200m? Let’s see how wrong that is. We just won’t know on Ohtani because of his contract structure.
jbigz12
So he’s twice as greedy but then you say he could’ve gotten up to $50MM AAV in a bidding war?
Those 2 don’t go together.
Simm
I’d rather the 700m then the 500m. So yeah twice as greedy
freerangebaseball
When the figurative Brinks truck pulls up to Ohtani’s home in 2043, will it contain $68 million $1 bills or $44 million $1 bills? I’m fairly certain it is the former, and therefore the $700 million figure is real. It is a number on the contract and represents a very real obligation for the Dodgers.
The question the League should ask is whether or not this mass deferral of payroll obligations constitutes an unacceptably risky business practice. I would argue it does. The Dodgers have a $680 million payroll liability on the books for Ohtani. Add to that the deferred payroll on the Betts, Freeman and, speculatively, the Yamamoto contracts and the Dodgers will likely have more than a billion dollars of payroll liability pushed off into the uncertain future. That’s a dodgy practice for any business. Are the Dodgers setting aside a reserve for this liability? Is it secured in any way? The League should ask these questions.
YankeesBleacherCreature
$44MM into an escrow account every year he’s under contract.
KamKid
Here’s where I’m struggling with the inconsistency and would like clarification. Is the CBT calculated on the Average Annual Value or the Average Annual Salary? In Ohtani’s case, the Average Annual Salary is $70m but with an AAV of $46m which looks like an assumed 5% inflation rate. If we apply that rate to Aaron Judge’s contract, the present day value of the $40m he will earn in ‘31 is approximately $27.1m and the average annual value on his contract should be in the neighborhood of $33.2m as opposed to the $40m that is his annual average salary and is the number most publicly available CBT estimates report.
If CBT calculations are based on Average Annual Value rather than Average Annual Salary for all contracts, then it doesn’t feel like a CBT circumvention. But if CBT calculations are based on Average Annual Value only for contracts with deferred money and Annual Average Salary for others, then it feels inconsistent.
JoeBrady
It is exactly what you said/implied. The tax is on the AAV.
KamKid
On all contracts or only on ones with deferred money? I understand the Ohtani situation. I don’t understand the Judge case.
jbigz12
Deferred money gets discounted on every deal.
The O’s are still paying Alex Cobb and Chris Davis. They don’t count towards AAV any longer.
Kelland
Of course it’s a dodge! It’s just baked-into the rules.
As others have made clear, it’s really only a tool wealthy clubs can use, which is sadly “good for baseball”.
Old York
I can’t wait till MLB dumps the CBT and lets teams spend how they want. Tired of the Big Market teams subsidizing teams owners like Pittsburgh and Jokeland only so the owners can pocket that money instead of invest in their team. I’d also like to see some relegation of teams as most of them are a joke and should be playing AAA instead of MLB.
Simm
You do realize it would basically be a 8 team league.
Old York
@Simm
Why would that be? Does that mean that most of MLB is subsidized ownership?
Thank_God_Im_Not_Tim_Dierkes
You do realize they share everything because you need the Athletics and the Nationals, as much as you need the Yankees and the Dodgers. Why wouldn’t you want better teams to watch play against your team? When I was younger, I always circled the Rangers games to boo Rodriguez, the interleague games because they rarely came to town, and whomever was leading a division or competing for the wild card.
Now I need to be more careful with my time, so I “defer” to my schedule because it’s how I cheat my way out of being “double-booked.” It really gives me a competitive advantage in terms of “scheduling” and helps me maximize my available “time”!
Lanidrac
That’s an issue with revenue sharing, not the CBT. There would still be just as much revenue sharing without the CBT.
Also, the revenue sharing isn’t paid directly from the tax money collected by the CBT like you seem to think it does. It just comes from the overall revenues of the richer teams (and from some revenue generated by MLB itself), and even some upper middle class teams that never pay the CBT still have to pay out some revenue sharing funds.
Goose
There has been deferred salaries before but this is shocking because usually it 5% or less that is deferred opposed to the Ohtani contract where 97% of the salary is deferred.
If this still hits the Dodgers cap between 2034 and 2043 then it makes sense. It just seems like a loophole for big market teams This is a bit of uncharted territory because this either gives a huge advantage to big market teams or this will hurt a team in the future for absolute domination now.
They may need to cap how much deferred payroll a team can take on to ensure competitive balance in the short and long terms.
DBH1969
Is this against the rules? No. Nor was it when other team, including my Red Sox, have done it.. But it does violate the spirit of the CBT.
The reason this is a dodge can be found in the very excuses being made for this signing. “It was done to give the team payroll flexibly so the team could sign more players.”
Well, what limits the flexibility? THE CBT!
Not only is this a lux tax dodge, it is a blatant TAX DODGE!
When Ohtani is paid, he will be living back home in Japan after he is retired. No Fed Taxes, No State Taxes, No Local Taxes. A complete Tax Dodge.
They should just do away with the Lux tax.
178iq
He’s not that great of a pitcher. He’s not an ace. He’s a # 4 or #5. But since he is a wizard swinging a bat he’s really a DH for at lease TWO seasons. there are many players that are outstanding hitters that could have been pitchers too. It’s just frowned upon here and encouraged in Japan. What about that kid who threw a 100MPH seed to first from 3rd not too long ago? You don’t think he could win 9 games? It’s not that rare to do both, it’s rare that you’re allowed to beyond high school. Baseball players are better contributed in Japan.
178iq
Cultivated*
YankeesBleacherCreature
Arm strength is not the same skill set as control/command. Sure, it helps to have it but it’s not everyone can use it effectively to pitch.
Pezzicle
Except it is a CBT dodge, and your point about the Padres and Judge actually articulates that point very well.
The Padres tried to come up with a way to LENGTHEN THE CONTRACT in order to lower the AAV of a deal and thereby lower the CBT of that player. That isn’t allowed.
However, for some reason, a team is able to LENGTHEN THE PAYMENTS of the contract in order to lower the AAV of a deal and thereby lower the CBT of that player.
Sure, it is within the rules, but it is very stupid and makes no sense.
Good on ohtani for getting a massive payday. Good on the Dodgers for figuring out how to get the CBT lowered on a deal like this
but to outright say that this isn’t any kind of issue within how the rules are written is completely bonkers
Sky14
Ohtanis’ contract has introduced a lot of Americans to the concept of time valuation of money. Glad MLBTR wrote up something of an explanation, even if most will still not fully grasp it.
KamKid
I think a lot of people grasp the time value of money but don’t understand why it’s not universally applied to CBT calculations. Teams are having luxury tax hits now for future salaries that are not going to be worth that much in those years. Players like Judge and Bogaerts who have salaries owed into the ’30s have those salaries’ values calculated at face value rather than present day value and that’s I think where some people including me have a problem with the application of the concept. Socially, this is completely fair to the free market process of MLB and its players but the problem is in the application of CBT rules.
MarlinsFanBase
Hey, I’m trying to find out more information about Shohei Ohtani. Has anyone seen any articles about him? How can they be slipping in their coverage of him? What the heck in the name of Derek Jeter, Tom Brady, Tiger Woods and LeBron James is going on around here?!?!
jjd002
I have been a loyal reader for 20 years, but this is by far the worst take y’all have had. This feels like paid propaganda.
Tim Dierkes
Site’s only been around for 18 years, and I can assure you this is 100% my own opinion that I wrote because I wanted to put it out into the world. No one told me this stuff, asked me to write it, or told me they’d do something for me if I wrote it.
I just believe these things and then wrote them.
jjd002
I was one of the early ones. I would read it in computer lab between classes in college.
But, I don’t change my opinion on this post – it reads like the political posts about “inflation is good” or “why inflation isn’t as high as you make it seem.” And I’m not calling you out specifically – it seems a lot like a media blitz from all the major writers/outlets. Still enjoy the site and the content, even if I disagree with the post. But I do appreciate the reply.
Timewilltell
I dont care if the CBA says its allowed. I dont care that its still an all time high tax hit. Its still a tax dodge.
Simm
All you have to do is ask yourself one questions to determine if this was a tax dodge.
Do any of you think that someone in the dodgers org said this….
If we do this it will also save us on the luxury tax?
I believe this was said or some form of it. If you also believe that was likely said then this was a dodge of tax. It’s that simple…nothing else matters to make this a dodge.
Poppin' Balls
Seems like our man Tim Dierkes is getting a little defensive of his boy Ohtani.
Braves Butt-Head
It is a Dodge and good for the Dodgers for actually living up to their name lol.
Mercenary.Freddie.Freeman
The last championship the Dodgers one playing a full season was 1988. They also have a very suspect manager in Dave Roberts. Winning championships takes entire teams not just a handful of players. MLB isn’t the NBA where you can have a few superstars like the Chicago Bulls had in the 90’s and annihilate the competition. Dodgers had Betts and Freeman the last 2 years and no championships. Phillies and Braves are still the most complete teams top to bottom.
slider32
This is why the rich get richer, teams that want to win find ways to pay players, and will go outside their comfort zone. Most of these big salary players don’t turn out well, and as the Mets owner found out it doesn’t always work. It did work for the Rangers last year. The big question is shoulld their be a floor in baseball. There are many small markets that could do what others have done to win.
Beff Jagwell
A team that filed for bankruptcy not that long ago shouldn’t be allowed to do this. Well, no teams should be allowed to do this. No matter what word salad you used to write this article, it is a manipulation. Huge risk for the player since another bankruptcy by the Dodgers could jeopardize his “future earnings.”
LordD99
Speaking of word salads…
jbigz12
Guggenheim owns the team. You can go ahead and google them real quick.
If you bought a house that the previous unaffiliated owner lost in Bankruptcy does that impact your creditworthiness in anyway?
Tim Dierkes
What I Generally Think Happened
Nez: Shohei wants to play for the Dodgers. Willing to defer money since he’s already wealthy and has another large income stream. Looking for a $500 mil net present value.
[haggling happens, they come to 460 as an acceptable number]
Dodgers: Could we an extreme but legal contract structure that will help us make the team better and could help you save on taxes?
Shohei: Yes
What the “It’s a Luxury Tax Dodge” People Think Happened
Dodgers: We offer $700MM over 10 years.
Shohei: Oh wow, so much more than anyone expected! Yes! Yes! I accept immediately!
Dodgers: OK great. So the thing is, we don’t want to pay the CBT on 70 mil, so we’ll defer so much it’ll be like 46 mil.
Nez: [shrugs]
Shohei: Alright, let’s still do it I guess? [fires agent]
DBH1969
Tim, your article is titled why it isn’t a dodge, and yet just posted that it is.
filihok
DBH
“Tim, your article is titled why it isn’t a dodge, and yet just posted that it is”
Nope
Article says it’s not a Luxury Tax dodge
filihok
Tim D
“What I Generally Think Happened
Nez: Shohei wants to play for the Dodgers. Willing to defer money since he’s already wealthy and has another large income stream. Looking for a $500 mil net present value.
[haggling happens, they come to 460 as an acceptable number]
Dodgers: Could we an extreme but legal contract structure that will help us make the team better and could help you save on taxes?
Shohei: Yes
What the “It’s a Luxury Tax Dodge” People Think Happened
Dodgers: We offer $700MM over 10 years.
Shohei: Oh wow, so much more than anyone expected! Yes! Yes! I accept immediately!
Dodgers: OK great. So the thing is, we don’t want to pay the CBT on 70 mil, so we’ll defer so much it’ll be like 46 mil.
Nez: [shrugs]
Shohei: Alright, let’s still do it I guess? [fires agent]”
This should have been in the article. Because it is exactly the problem – along with people thinking they know more than they do about finance
Pads Fans
Deferring money does not impact the CBT payroll in any way. Article XXIII is what covers CBT in the CBA. In Section E you find how salaries are counted. (2) and (6) apply to this conversation specifically. E(2)(b)(1) tells you how the deferred money is distributed to the 10 years that Ohtani will play.
EVERYTHING that is being said about present day value is BS.
All that matters for CBT payroll calculations is number of championship seasons, in other how many years will he play under the contract, and how much money total. What are those two figures on the OPC? 10 years. $700 million. How much will Ohtani count towards the Dodgers CBT payroll. $70 million.
So Ohtani will count $70 million towards the Dodgers CBT payroll in each of the 10 championship seasons he will play under the contract.
The Dodgers and Ohtani will avoid payroll taxes and the Dodgers will have a much lower actual payroll in each of those 10 seasons, but deferring money in a contract does not change CBT payroll impact once cent.
10 years and $700 million = $70 million to CBT payroll
BTW, Nez and his agency is getting paid ONLY when Ohtani gets a paycheck. That means instead of 5% of $70 million, they are getting 5% of $2 million. Even if Ohtani were to fire them, they negotiated the contract and will get 100% of the fee they are due on that contract until it is fulfilled.
UncommonSense
Jeez dude, still with the same song and dance? It’s been proven otherwise.
BrianStrowman9
Pads fans is a moron
Ncsaint
Awwww, he’s still up
deGrom/Langford Texas Ranger
I think it is a dodge because making a 20 year deal with 2 MM the first 10 years and 68 MM the last 10 years has the same cashflows and net present value in economic terms, but the accounting NPV they use is then considered 700 MM vs 460 MM in those two cases. That is the “dodge” part the Dodgers are dodging @Tim Dierkes.
99socalfrc
LOL, it’s like everyone in the media is trying to convince themselves he is getting $460m and not $700m.
I’m sorry but anything that allows them to pay $240m and just exclude it from the CBT calculation is BS. If that’s how the rules are written fine, but media should be calling it BS like it is instead of sticking their head in the sand.
KyleT
I got a deal for you. You give me $100K and in 30 years I’ll give you $1 Million. You can tell the evryone you’re a millionaire! Since, you dont understand ‘Time Value of Money’, this is a Great Deal for you.
JoeBrady
My personal favorite is, I will give you a credit card with a $50k cap that you will spend. You will pay me 18.6% interest every year. And when you pass away, I will forgive the debt.
99socalfrc
I’m a Certified Public Accountant, and have owned an accounting firm for three decades. I understand the time value of money just fine.
The way it’s used in the CBT is a comedy of errors. First the concept should be either applied or not. Bryce Harper is waiting 13 years to collect portions of his money, why is his CBT number not adjusted downward? Deferred money is not the only money paid well into the future. So they should either use the concept on all contracts or not.
Mostly though it’s just dumb to apply this at all to CBT. They are paying him $700m, that should be reflected in the CBT, the fact that this money buys less or is devalued in the future doesn’t matter. They are going to pay it to him just the same. The devaluation of money is a reason the CBT threshold goes up, it’s not a reason to leave money paid out of the calculation.
filihok
99socal
“I’m a Certified Public Accountant, and have owned an accounting firm for three decades. ”
Doubt. But whatever
“The way it’s used in the CBT is a comedy of errors. First the concept should be either applied or not. Bryce Harper is waiting 13 years to collect portions of his money, why is his CBT number not adjusted downward?”
Because the CBT is a tool to decrease player salaries.
If all long term contracts were valued using future value, it would be a less effective tool.
I imagine the negotiations were something like
MLB: we want a salary cap
Players: no way
MLB: A CBT
Players: give us X in exchange
MLB: ok. The CBT hit will be the AAV of the contract
Players: it should be the present value of the contract
MLB: nope
Players: …
MLB:…
Players: ok. Fine. AAV it is. Except deferred payments are valued at present value
MLB and players: shake hands
“it’s not a reason to leave money paid out of the calculation.”
Here’s why I doubt you’re an accountant. No money is being left out of the calculation.
Ohtani is being paid $2 million a year and it’s counting $46 million against the Dodgers. That’s because they are including the other $68 million
Catuli Carl
“Ohtani is being paid $2 million a year and it’s counting $46 million against the Dodgers. That’s because they are including the other $68 million”
Wtf are you talking about?
filihok
CC
“Wtf are you talking about?”
Ohtani is being paid $2 million a year for the next ten years, right?
The Dodgers are having $46 million a year counted toward the CBT, right?
How does $2 million count as $46 million unless the other money is being applied?
Before you reply, remember that this is what I was replying to
“it’s not a reason to leave money paid out of the calculation”
That money IS NOT being left out of the calculation.
Catuli Carl
Ooooh so his contract is actually $20M/10 years then?
Or is it $700M/10 years and they are just waiting to hand over the cash?
99socalfrc
My California Board of Accountancy issued CPA license number is 102975.
$240 million is DEFINITELY being left out of the calculation.
You don’t have to look any further than the Bryce Harper example to see how pea brained this whole thing was thought out. How can Bryce Harper’s year 11, 12 & 13 salary be counted towards the CBT at full pop but Ohtani’s isn’t?
Discounted presented value is for something like lottery winnings, where a jackpot winner might be entitled to $50 million but only if they take payments. If they want the money up front it is discounted and they get far less. This example goes back to my main point, which is how much is actually being paid, not how it spends later on.
filihok
99socal
“How can Bryce Harper’s year 11, 12 & 13 salary be counted towards the CBT at full pop but Ohtani’s isn’t?”
Good thing you are an accountant and not a lawyer
Deferred money is money that is paid after the end of the contract
Per the CBA it’s treated differently than money that’s paid during the contract
It’s that simple
“Discounted presented value is for something like lottery winnings,”
And other types of payments and investments. Which this is.
filihok
CatCarl
“Ooooh so his contract is actually $20M/10 years then?”
No
“Or is it $700M/10 years and they are just waiting to hand over the cash?”
Not really this either, but this is closer
99socalfrc
I get that the CBA treats deferred money different than straight contracts.
It doesn’t make it any less stupid.
filihok
99socal
“$240 million is DEFINITELY being left out of the calculation.”
I forgot this
The entire $700 million is DEFINITELY being accounted for
There are ten $2 million payments
And 10 $68 million payments
I’m not an accountant, but I’m pretty sure that’s $700 million and nothing is being left out.
The ten $68 million payments are being DISCOUNTED, yes.
Nothing is being left out.
Catuli Carl
Yes, really that. That’s what is on the contract they signed: $700M for 10 years playing ball on the team.
The “we’ll just wait a bit until that money is devalued” loophole may be technically legal according to the MLB/MLBPA agreement, but it’s wholly absurd and unfair.
Pads Fans
99, the media sure wants us to believe that the Dodgers are being allowed to leave it out. They won’t. Ohtani will count $70 million towards their CBT payroll in each of the next 10 seasons.
What they will be able to do is pay much less in ACTUAL payroll for the next 10 years. They will have $68 million more in their REAL bank, not the CBT bank. I am willing to bet that Guggenheim makes more than inflation on the money they invest, so this is great for them.
They will also pay substantially less in payroll taxes in those 10 years. As an accountant, how much payroll taxes are saved on $68 million??
They will still go way over the CBT threshold and pay penalties, but the money saved by not coming out of pocket until 2034 will be enough to cover those CBT tax penalties.
99socalfrc
filihok you’ve laid out the payment schedule beautifully. Now just tell us where the $700 million goes against the Dodgers CBT number and we can all be in agreement.
Pads Fans
He can’t. because he doesn’t account for it. He also will never admit he is wrong. About anything. Mute him and your life will improve immediately.
All $700 million will be attributed to a championship season, meaning a season he will be under contract to PLAY.
That means that as far as CBT payroll, all $700 million is counted in 10 years. $70 million AAV for 10 years.
Thank_God_Im_Not_Tim_Dierkes
Thank you for writing this, I just wish I could like it 100 more times…. Don’t mind filihok, he had a lonely childhood and doesn’t interact well with others.
filihok
99csf
“It doesn’t make it any less stupid.”
Why, as an accountant who understands present and future value, is it stupid?
filihok
99cal
“Now just tell us where the $700 million goes against the Dodgers CBT number and we can all be in agreement.”
I literally just did
I’ll do it again
From 2024 to 2033 Ohtani will be paid $2,000,000 a year. $2,000,000 a year will count towards the CBT
From 2034 to 2043 Ohtani will receive $68 million a year. $44,000,000ish will count towards the CBT. This is because, per the CBA, this money is discounted when calculating the CBT number. That discount rate is around 4.5%
Any other questions?
maxmilna
Now that Ohtani is a Dodger. Im pretty sure he will be recruiting Japanese players to come to LA and win. He will call Yamamoto and tell him. “Dude, let’s dominate for the next 10 years. Come to the Dodgers.” It’s going to happen.
Catuli Carl
Thanks for giving us an example of what that dialogue might sound like.
Thank_God_Im_Not_Tim_Dierkes
Like he did for 6 years in Anaheim? Word is he didn’t want to play with other Japanese players. Though he seems to be friends withb Kikuchi and Yamamoto.
baseballpun
I don’t have anything against Ohtani, but I hope the Dodgers fail to win a championship in the next decade.
Catuli Carl
Century*
BaseballGuy1
Finally, the first Ohtani topic article that has been worth reading in more than the last two months…. so much ado about nothing.
NoNeckWilliams
So basically, we are all supposed to agree that exploiting a sketchy loophole, is not a dodge.
Whatever
DugoutJester
Ummm… *coughs* this still gives the Dodgers a massive advantage…
filihok
DJ
“Ummm… *coughs* this still gives the Dodgers a massive advantage…”
How
Please be thorough in your reply
DugoutJester
46m is less than 70m.
filihok
DJ
I asked you to be thorough
How does that give them an advantage?
An advantage over who?
DugoutJester
If I have to explain that in regards to finances, economics and more specifically, luxury taxes Im not sure I can help you.
filihok
DJ
You can’t explain it because it doesn’t make sense
DugoutJester
It lowers their CBT threshold guy… Allows them to spend more before being penalized. Opens doors to other signings. You need more or do you not understand the breakdown of this deal?
DugoutJester
JFC youre dense. As per Article XVI of the current CBA:
“There shall be no limitations on either the amount of deferred compensation or the percentage of total compensation attributable to deferred compensation for which a Uniform Player’s Contract may provide.”
HOWEVER…
Long-term contracts are calculated in terms of average annual value for CBT purposes and not tailored to whatever a player’s exact salary is in a given season. Example: Player 1 receives 2yr 20mil contract. 5m first year and 15m second year. The amount applied to the CBT is the AVERAGE, ie 10m in this certain example.
By deferring Ohtanis contract, specifically until 2043, they lower the AAV that would be applied to the CBT from 70m to approximately 46m. ESSENTIALLY THEY ARE ALLOWING THEMSELVES AN EXTRA 24m TO PLAY WITH BEFORE HITTING CBT TERRITORY. Once you hit a tax you have to spend more money out of pocket, and pay (presumably) more than what a player is worth. If I have to continue explaining that, there is no help for you.
It provides an advantage. It allows their CBT threshold to have a larger gap. It saves them money. Would you like me to continue playing professor, or are you finally understanding?
And for the record, now that I provided you with full paragraphs, perhaps use punctuation accordingly… like you were taught in elementary school.
filihok
DJ
“There shall be no limitations on either the amount of deferred compensation or the percentage of total compensation attributable to deferred compensation for which a Uniform Player’s Contract may provide.”
HOWEVER…
Long-term contracts are calculated in terms of average annual value for CBT purposes and not tailored to whatever a player’s exact salary is in a given season. Example: Player 1 receives 2yr 20mil contract. 5m first year and 15m second year. The amount applied to the CBT is the AVERAGE, ie 10m in this certain example.”
First, the CBT is a tool to restrict player compensation
The reason that AAV on non-deferred contracts doesn’t use PV is that that would decrease the amount applied to the CBT and make it a less effective tool for restricting player compensation.
The MLBPA was able to bargain, correctly in my option, for PV of deferred contracts to be used for CBT purposes
There are two different rules at play here.
AAV benefits the owners
PV benefits the players
Also, muted
Catuli Carl
HAHAHAHA the clown got schooled by the jester so the clown rage muted him. Just beautiful. Absolutely beautiful.
Catuli Carl
You’re all over this comment section condescending to people and calling them idiots for not understanding the present vs future value of money, when they do. They’re just saying that that future value loophole is absurd and unfair.
Here, finally we see through your fake, smug, smarmy facade to the real truth of it all: you finally acknowledge that it is a loophole that allows the Dodgers to avoid counting $24M as CBT dollars… you’re just ok with it. That’s all.
Thank_God_Im_Not_Tim_Dierkes
It’s an advantage in that they chose to do it…
IF it was not an advantage, then why do it at all?!
To prove they could?
Or you think the Dodgers are destitute and can’t afford $70M/year?!
To put it another way, let’s assume there’s no advantage….
Why not just do $460M/10 years and call it a day?!
Are we to believe a guy worth billions of dollars need to worry about 10-20% extra income tax?!
Ohtani makes $50M/year in endorsements, has already received $42M from the Angels for his past MLB experience, probably made $20M in Japan prior to coming to the U.S. based on his last contract there was worth around $5.5M and he played for 5 years in the NPB.
That’s $60M is past contracts, $700M in future contracts, plus $50M/year x 15 years of endorsements and he’ll be worth $1.5 billion by the time he’s 40 years old, without investing a dollar. But yeah, he deferred money to save less than he’d make on compound interest by investing his salary!
So, if he said he did it to help the Dodgers field the best team and it was said to have been included late in the deal (links in my other post), then we know they were already on a $700M deal, and even the Blue Jays were said to have offered $700M and they didn’t even get to talking about deferment in any meaningful way.
Thank_God_Im_Not_Tim_Dierkes
Says the dude that used one run-on sentence and failed to punctuate his sentence correctly. Oh, and a paragraph is defined as three or more sentences together. You can’t even follow your own instructions!
Thank_God_Im_Not_Tim_Dierkes
This is false, it is not about restricting player compensation at all, it’s about creating an equitable system where a small market team can compete with a larger market team. By penalizing the wealthier team when THEY exceed the cap and then sharing that with the less wealthy teams, it creates a more balanced league and fans will not want to skip watching half of the games.
For instance, who wants to see their favorite team play the Athletics or the Nationals right now? Nobody, because the visiting team sucks! This is why the next CBA will focus on making small market teams apply a percentage of their received funds towards the on-field product instead of squirreling it away like the Pirates and A’s have done for years.
The reality is this CBA was never about using a CBT to put a ceiling on teams to prevent big market teams for getting star players. It was about ensuring that those smaller teams would share in the spoils, and the wealthier team would still the stars, but they’d have to draft, develop, and carefully select the role players on the team. Much how the Dodgers have 4-5 really good players and then a bunch of garbage around them.
Besides the big three (Ohtani, Betts, and Freeman), they have Smith and maybe you consider Muncy an All-Star level player. The rest of their team is older players (Heyward), cost controlled players (Outman & Luz), or DFA & NRI pickups. But with this deal, they can squeeze another big name player into the team or extend a Will Smith for the next five years and they still reset the luxury tax.
Jim Thome is my homie
So if/when they trade him, who’s on the hook for the deferred payments?
YankeesBleacherCreature
Presumably the new team. The Dodgers have to put aside $44MM every year into an escrow account while he’s under contract.
Diggydugler
Are they allowed to put in a savings account to get 5% interest for Ohtani or must it sit in a void so as not to upset the Dodgers tax balance?
YankeesBleacherCreature
I suppose so. It would be a terrible use of money if it isn’t gaining interest or an ROI.
Thank_God_Im_Not_Tim_Dierkes
The acquiring team unless otherwise agreed to and I’m not sure but I think it’s in ratio to earned deferment, so if he gets traded after five years, the two teams would split the deferment, unless otherwise agreed.
Wrian Washman
Oh please spare me the saving face that these writers and pundits have to do to protect the integrity of a clearly flawed CBT agreement. And before anyone cries hypocrite I will be keeping the same energy if the Yankees do something like this with Soto. Just because it’s ‘legal’ doesn’t mean it’s not an obvious luxury tax circumvention. Both things can be true I don’t know what all these billionaire apologists are getting huff and puff about we’re allowed to critique an erroneous system it’s legal and simultaneously totally unfair.
User 3180623956
LOL what a bunch of whiny crybabies. One group of the 1% outsmarted and outbid another group of the 1%. Who cares? Ohtani being in a major market is better for baseball.
Catuli Carl
Fans of other team care obviously. It gives the Dodgers an unfair advantage obviously.
How is it better for baseballs for Ohtani to be living in that massive sparkly homeless camp?
User 3180623956
It’s not unfair. Any team could have done this if they wanted to. Stop falling for the “small market poor me” B.S. The fact is Ohtani was going to the Dodgers no matter what. If you don’t understand why that’s better than him playing in K.C. or Cincinnati then you don’t understand the importance of growing the game.
As far as your comments about LA’s homeless problem, open your eyes, it’s everywhere, red and blue states alike.
Diggydugler
You just contradicted yourself. You said “any team could have done this” but then said “Ohtani was going to the Dodgers no matter what”.
Catuli Carl
I don’t understand. Please explain.
Does this mean that big money teams are just entitled to all the best players for the very vague “good of the game”?
I hope the game is growing but I don’t see how Ohtani playing in LA instead of Dallas or Toronto or Chicago is better for the game. And the game has been around for about 150 years now. It’s not like it’s new.
Thank_God_Im_Not_Tim_Dierkes
@grnmtnyeti
Except, the point of doing it was to create a CBT loophole, which is why he would’ve taken the money in straight pay of $460M/10 years had he signed with the Athletics. It wouldn’t be necessary for the A’s to defer the contract because they’ll never reach to the CBT limit, at least not this decade. So, it’s only a mechanism for wealthy teams, ergo it’s not something every team could do, ergo it’s unfair, ergo it’s cheating, ergo you’re wrong.
Diggydugler
It has nothing to do with outsmarting or outbidding when Ohtani only wanted to go to the Dodgers.
Win Cor
Not the point. at all.
Catuli Carl
I don’t care if the CBT hit was more than Judge and Scherzer. That isn’t good enough. It should be the full $70M. If you are paying a player $700M for ten years of work, you are paying him $70M per year. It doesn’t matter to me when you actually give him the cash. It’s just cheating.
Rickey O'Sunnyvale
The $70M agreed to is for the deferred income. contract.. If it’s not deferred income, then the deal would be for far less than $70M annually — more like $46M
Oldhalo
Any team that drops this type of money on one player should be financially impacted during the on field playing years of that player (not after) and be less financially flexible making it more difficult to compete, and more reliant on its minor league system. I want competition, I want the suspense and the close games. I am not just an Angel fan, I am a baseball fan and I enjoy watching the game, except blow outs. Landing Ohtani is great for the Dodgers and I am very happy for him, and that he got paid, but the fact that the Dodgers can still spend and spend high on high value talent is ludicrous and bad for competition. How is this contract good for the game?
Catuli Carl
I read the article in its entirety and it didn’t convince me in the slightest that this isn’t a luxury tax dodge. It absolutely is. It’s just a $24M dodge instead of a $70M dodge.
fred-3
Funny how MLBTr commenters became financial experts all of a sudden
User 3180623956
Exactly, Fred. Yet their reading comprehension leaves a lot to be desired.
Catuli Carl
I didn’t claim to be a financial expert. I said the article didn’t convince me of its premise. Is it your contention that people should just blindly believe any headline that a journalist conjures up?
And please explain how this isn’t a $24M tax dodge when, on paper, they are paying Ohtani $700M.
filihok
CC
“And please explain how this isn’t a $24M tax dodge when, on paper, they are paying Ohtani $700M”
Because they are paying tax on $700M
Catuli Carl
Tax to who? Are you talking about the CBT taxes? Or government taxes?
They are not paying CBT taxes on the full value of the $700M. They are paying CBT taxes on a portion of it IF they go over the CBT with all the other contracts they have on the books (they will). But they will not have to pay CBT taxes on that $24M that they are saving.
And if you’re talking about government taxes, who in the hell cares? That’s irrelevant. Small market teams aren’t seeing any of that money. They would, however, be seeing some of the CBT tax money that the Dodgers should be paying.
filihok
CC
I’m taking about CBT since that’s what the article is about and that’s what’s applicable to baseball
The Dodgers are on the hook for $46 million against the CBT
They are paying Ohtani $2 million a year. So, we know that’s not what they are being taxed on.
They are paying Ohtani $700 million over 20 years. That’s not where $46 million comes from either
It’s absolutely* being done correctly
*Well actually it should be less because it should be based off the PV of the entire deal. Not just the deferred part
Catuli Carl
No, they are paying him $700 million over 10 years. Just because you’re waiting another 10 years to actually hand the cash over to him shouldn’t allow you do avoid counting that $70M USD per year that he is contractually obligated to receive.
It may be allowed in the MLB rules, but it absolutely is a tax dodge and it’s sketchy as hell.
BennyGiant
The old semantics argument. I think Lionel Hutz wrote this article.
filihok
BG
“The old semantics argument”
Understanding something is not semantics
Poolhalljunkies
As a red sox fan this is hysterical to see people getting upset..we have done the same when the yankees have done this in the past “evil empire” etc lol..the thing is the dodgers like yankees in past are a 100 win team WITHOUT ohtani..so..hes probably not going to increase thier win total really at all..so who cares how much they spend..let them throw thier money away from a baseball perspective..none of this guarantees a title..ask the yankees
LordD99
The fan takes here are quite funny.
brewcrewblues
It’s a tax dodge, plain and simple. The writers can’t afford to make MLB mad by writing something contrary to what MLB want us to hear.
Diggydugler
The issue once again is the garbage MLB reporters. It is not a $700M deal, which is why people are outraged by the deferrals. If it was correctly reported, there would be less outrage. There would also be no outrage from Jays fans if the garbage MLB reporters didnt leak fake reports that he was going to the Jays.
Joirgro 2
State of California should investigate for tax evasion.
jbigz12
Yes they should do that while wearing tinfoil hats
99socalfrc
I suspect if he tries to leave the state after the 10th year he is going to have problems on his hands. The question of when he EARNED that money is going to come into play. The state of California (probably rightfully) is going to nail him that he EARNED it while playing for the Dodgers.
Thank_God_Im_Not_Tim_Dierkes
California is definitely not going to miss the chance to get their fair shake, and they could easily alert the IRS to add pressure, especially if the goal is to go overseas (Japan) after his contract expires.
Win Cor
It May be Time to Lift the MLB Antitrust Exemption to Save the MLB Baseball. The luxury tax’s purpose is to maintain a competitive balance among the MLB clubs. The benefit of ‘stare decisis’ established precedent is over now if Ohtani deal stands. Article XVI circumvented. Manfred is asleep.
Win Cor
It’s the 10 years at $2 Million that circumvents Article XVI. There’s’ a rule on the books that the deferrals are fine but not to circumvent rules in place. In the any market even Government Seizure Markets there are minimums. 10 years at $12 -$15 Million per year is arguably the base rate. There has to be one for this type of abuse of the system. You think they outsmarted the system. That’s an idiotic stance. It’s clearly an infraction.
desertdawg
Some are saying that Othani got taken by this contract with the deferred payments, the taxes are the issue. I did some research on the state taxes in California. There is a tax law on the books that says any and all monies earned in employment in California will be taxed at 13% per million dollars. Now the monies Othani earns as a Japanese citizen cannot be taxed by California if earned in Japan even while employed by the Dodgers, so if he earns any dollars on his jersey sales, cannot be tax by California. Being one of the most popular teams in Japan along with Othani’s popularity Othani will almost match the Dodger contract.
YankeesAreDodgersEast
Seems like the emotions have got the best of most of you.
70 million in 2034 is like around 45 million rotates
So why would the Dodgers get dinged for 70m today?
Keep crying, though, it’s a good look on ya.
Diggydugler
The issue is its a 20 year contract, its not a 10 year contract. I don’t believe this is allowed If it was worded as a 20 year contract.
YankeesAreDodgersEast
If it was a 20 year deal, then the tax hit would be lower than 46mm, it would be 35mm.
Diggydugler
Or however long the deal is that got them to lower it to 46mm tax hit. If he is only playing for 10 years, should that not be the tax hit? Whats the difference in the CBT between a 15 year deal (napkin math says 15 years at $46mm is 690mm) and a 10 year deal with deferred payments if the end result is the same tax hit. Would a 15 year deal be allowed?
YankeesAreDodgersEast
I don’t know mlbs reasoning, but mine would be if you signed a 15 year deal, but retired after 10, you’re not entitled to the remaining 5 years.
If it’s structured and worded as deferred, then you are entitled to that money.
Diggydugler
Yes I agree. Which is why this wording circumvents the issue of a contract going well into retirement. From a CBT perspective there is no difference, so its a loophole. Its fine, but this is no different than a 15 year deal (or whatever number of years to get the number they arrived at)
YankeesAreDodgersEast
I agree with what you’re saying, but since this can be done by any team, why would anyone do a 15 year deal, like San Diego last year with Judge?
My point is that there is no advantage because it’s available to everybody equally.
Thank_God_Im_Not_Tim_Dierkes
If there was nothing to gain by doing it, why do it at all?! Ohtani will have to pay the taxes based on when the work was done, not on when he gets the payment, so it won’t save him any money in regards to state or federal taxes.
Win Cor
Nothing wrong with that… it’s the $2 Million per year that violates Article XVI and circumvents the rules.
Americanentropy
The Dodgers and baseball are a symptom of a bigger problem the disparity in the distribution of wealth in this country. The Dodgers are not the villains here. they remind us that even our efforts to escape the daily grind is fettered.
agnes gooch
FTD
dk00
This article claims that the Dodgers would only have a payroll hit of $2M for the 10 years that Ohtani is playing with the club but doesn’t that ignore the $44M that is required to be paid into escrow each of those years? That money would certainly count against payroll and would not be able to be used to sign other players. Seems factually incorrect to say otherwise.
Pads Fans
$68 million must be paid into an escrow account in each of those 10 years, not $46 million.
dk00
My understanding based on reading a few other articles was that only the present day value of the deferred amount ($44M/yr) needed to be put into escrow. But I’m definitely not an expert, so it’s entirely possible that those articles are also wrong.
Mercenary.Freddie.Freeman
So why was there talk last year of Judge and his almost signing with the Giants being blocked by manfraud but this Ohtani signing is just look the other way? This is super shady anyway you look at it. But still there are several better rosters in MLB even after this.
thickiedon
Absurd to estimate Ohtani’s worth at $46MM yr when Scherzer’s worth is $43.3MM yr and Judge’s worth is $40MM. Ohtani is a drastically superior proven player with global appeal. He’s arguably the best ball player of all time. The author is presenting the +$24MM yr as some kind of deferment bonus rather than adding it as his annual worth
nvmets
This is the crux of the issue with the argument being made here. The idea that Ohtani is only worth $46M per year is baffling and devoid of any real logic. I don’t understand where these projections were coming from. If Judge is worth $40M per, how is Ohtani – who is very close to that level offensively plus absolutely has a fair chance of pitching at a high level again plus is significantly more marketable – only worth $6M per year more? That does not add up under any circumstances.
Ohtani is free to take whatever he wants, but let’s not pretend this is fair value. He wanted the Dodgers and didn’t care. But if he was seriously engaging the market, he would easily have gotten more. Come on.
kripes-brewers
Greed will kill this game and end our Republic.
mynameispepe
boy is this signing generating traffic on this site haha. Even a follow up article gets 700 comments. I’m starting to think MLBTR was the one proposing the contract structure to Ohtani and the Dodgers.
JoeBrady
Maybe I can come up with a simpler explanation.
The LAD are paying Ohtani $460M for ten years of service.
Ohtani is lending the LAD almost the entire amount at 4.43% interest.
At the end of 20 years, Ohtani will have earned $240M in interest.
YankeesAreDodgersEast
“But but the dodgers should be taxed at much higher figure than they are legally obliged too because I’m jealous of their owner wanting to win and I hate California”
– NPC masses
CKinSTL
I think everyone assumes that Ohtani otherwise would have gotten a straight 10-year at $70 million per.. which is hardly the case. Had there been no deferred money, Ohtani would have gotten roughly 10/$460 million.
The primary motivation for Ohtani was probably to lock in interest rates that are relatively high and to defer his own tax liability.
Thank_God_Im_Not_Tim_Dierkes
He would’ve…. I posted links about the deferment was late in the negotiations. They didn’t just work to a number of $460M or even $500M, only to recalculate at the finish line to $700M. The Blue Jays were reported to have also offered $700M to Ohtani and they couldn’t have known about the deferment because it happened in the final stages of the negotiations. Nothing coming out of the Blue Jays camp shows any conversation about deferment.
CKinSTL
Angels – there is a zero percent chance that Ohtani was offered a straight 10/$700 million deal from the Dodgers but just decided to take it over 20 years. That is the equivalent of Ohtani gifting the Dodgers roughly a quarter-billion dollars.
Jabronie23
Yeah, there’s no universe where the luxury tax hit was going to be over like $55m, The Dodgers might have saved a little bit on the CBT hit, but if the rules prevented this kind of deferment, they would have just given him a straight 10 years and $460m, or maybe a little more, and the luxury tax hit would be essentially the same.
RWH 2
But not the cash salary. They are paying him $2MM, not $46MM per year. Therein lies the scam. You can’t ignore that the Dodgers are not paying Ohtani a true market value at only $2MM per year. That’s chump change for a backup catcher.
Cshedd
Really disappointed by the spin in this article. The truth is that he is bound for 10 years to the Dodgers and after that he will be able to play for other teams etc. For this 10 years service he will receive 700 million. That’s 70 million for each year he is to render playing service. Plain logic which has nothing to do when he receives payment.
YankeesAreDodgersEast
1. Any team can do this, but don’t because the player doesn’t want. So the “competitive advantage” is Ohtani wanting this.
2. Money is all about when. That’s how the modern banking system works. I don’t like it, but unfortunately that’s how it is.
RWH 2
But there is also cash v. accrual accounting in the modern financial world. The Dodgers are getting Ohtani’s services for ten years and essentially zero cash cost with an accrued liability on their balance sheet of $700MM that will be charged off to income over 20 years. There is a real question of economic substance v. structural form for the accountants.
JerseyShoreScore
Indeed this is an Ohtani driven idea, which just worked well for the Dodgers.
Daniel Youngblood
The fact of the matter is this is a terrible contract for both sides without the payroll/tax implications — Ohtani would be better off financially taking a 10-year, $500 million deal straight up without deferrals, and no team wants to pay $680 million over 10 years after a player has left.
So any attempt to explain this away as anything but a blatant attempt at tax manipulation/dodging is silly. It’s obvious what this is. And while $46 million is a big CBT hit, it’s far smaller than it would be without this contract’s absurd structure, which gives the Dodgers flexibility they shouldn’t have, given the earning power of the player they just signed.
filihok
DY
“Ohtani would be better off financially taking a 10-year, $500 million deal straight up without deferrals”
Yes.
$500 > 460
Great insight
How about this?
$460 = $460
So, Ohtani taking this deal is basically the same as him taking 10/$460
Which is why they are taxed the same
*Ignoring present value differences
Daniel Youngblood
Ohtani could have done better than 10 years and $460 million this offseason. Likely much better.
So why did he take an absurdly structured deferred deal worth less (likely significantly less) than he could have earned without doing so?
Because it allows the Dodgers to spend more money. This is manipulation, plain and simple. Any argument to contrary is an insult to the intelligence of any objective observer with a brain.
Without the payroll/tax implications, there is no logical reason to structure this deal the way Ohtani and the Dodgers did
RWH 2
But here’s the thing: the Dodgers aren’t paying $46MM in cash to Ohtani this year or over each of the next ten years. They are paying $2MM in cash this year and for each of the next ten years for the best player in MLB. That is why this deal is in substance a scam.
JerseyShoreScore
Your forgot to include over $80 million in tax savings if Ohtani collects his $680 million while no longer living in California which has 13 percent state tax, in a state with no state income tax….
Daniel Youngblood
They’re telling us in this thread that Ohtani’s $700 million deal is actually a $460 million deal due to the time value of money and inflation. So $80 million in taxes pales compared to what he’s losing by deferring payments.
Thank_God_Im_Not_Tim_Dierkes
Nope, taxes are based on when the work was completed (games played), not when you receive the check. A California CPA already covered that above.
StraxusD
I don’t think people realize this but a player has to file taxes in every state they play in and country. They have to claim the out of state tax as a credit in the state they live in. Ohtani can’t dodge paying income tax on this contract.
Daniel Youngblood
But he’s only paying taxes on income earned, which will be $2 million per year the next 10 years plus endorsement money.
He likely won’t be playing anywhere by the time the deferred $68 million payments start coming in.
Thank_God_Im_Not_Tim_Dierkes
Earned vs Paid
He earns his salary between 2024 and 2033, which is what the government cares about. His deferment means that when the check clears he’s being compensated for an activity performed between 2024 to 2033, when he lived and worked in California, so he’ll be responsible for those taxes to those people at that time, as if he had been paid ten years earlier.
filihok
DBH
“Tim, your article is titled why it isn’t a dodge, and yet just posted that it is.
”
People are so damn dumb
Luxury Tax and Income Tax are not the same thing.
It’s not a Luxury Tax dodge is what the article says
Catuli Carl
If I was Jed, I would offer Bellinger a billion dollars, but defer it so he receives it in 2090 and it only gives the Cubs a $5M CBT hit.
See? Competitive balance.
filihok
CC
“If I was Jed, I would offer Bellinger a billion dollars, but defer it so he receives it in 2090 and it only gives the Cubs a $5M CBT hit.
See? Competitive balance.”
Please show us how you would structure that contract, finance understander
Catuli Carl
Well you see, filihok, sure I’m paying Cody $100M/Year for 10 years of work. That’s what’s on the contract. That’s what I’m obliged to pay him, but I found this little loophole where if Cody agrees that I don’t actually have to hand over the majority of the cash until 2090 when the purchasing power of that billion will be significantly lower, then the MLB will let me only count $5M/ year toward the Competitive Balance Threshold. So I won’t have to pay the penalties I should to the smaller market teams.
Dutch
It was designed to dodge as much luxury tax as possible. Sorry but there is no argument against that. They stated as much
allforfunnplay
My theory was that the Dodgers would sign Ohtani to two contracts. One for $2M per year for the first 5 years. The other for $690M for the next 5 years.
Catuli Carl
My god this whole situation has brought some of the worst creatures out of the woodwork.
The condescending, arrogant, know it all finance bros are absolutely loving this comment section. Even when they don’t know what they’re talking about, they’ll condescend to you as if they do.
Dennis Boyd
Was this written by Boras himself or just someone who is up his ass? Or maybe up the Dodgers’ ass? What a load of crap this article is.
Robertowannabe
How is paying Ohtani his 700 mil until he is 49 different than the Padres paying Judge his 460 million until he would have been 44? The only reason for it is to stretch out the payroll cash outlay and it does in fact reduce the the short term CBT for the years he plays to allow more room to sign players relative to the current tax penalty levels. The do get penalized the 2nd 10 years by still paying the bulk of the cash out and still having 10 more years of a 46 million tax hit that may or may not prevent them from signing players because of it.
filihok
Roberto
“How is paying Ohtani his 700 mil until he is 49 different than the Padres paying Judge his 460 million until he would have been 44? The only reason for it is to stretch out the payroll cash outlay and it does in fact reduce the the short term CBT for the years he plays to allow more room to sign players relative to the current tax penalty levels. The do get penalized the 2nd 10 years by still paying the bulk of the cash out and still having 10 more years of a 46 million tax hit that may or may not prevent them from signing players because of it.”
Because the CBT is a tool to reduce player compensation
A 14 year $460 million contact isn’t with $460 million.
You wouldn’t pay $460 million today to buy that contract. You would be losing money
The AAV of a contract should be based on it’s present value. It’s not because that would decrease the CBT hit and it’s effectiveness as a tool to decrease compensation
The players were able to bargain for themselves the ability to use present value for deferred money. The deferred part is counted correctly.
Lanidrac
Because Ohtani won’t be expected to play until age 44. The issue with that Judge proposition is a professional athlete signing a guaranteed contract to play into his mid-40s, which almost no one does under normal circumstances.
I suppose you could look at it as a type of deferred contract where Judge would be paid the rest of his contract in deferred payments after whatever point he loses enough ability to play that he gets released, but the basics of the contract being that he could play under it until age 44 but the team likely expects to release him before the contract is up really doesn’t look good on the face of such a deal.
Robertowannabe
To be honest, it is basically the same difference as it is still money paid to an athlete to play for a set time frame or till they can’t play any more. Does it look any better for the Dodgers if Ohtani ends up not being able to pitch because of the TJ and he is done and released if his hitting drops when he is 36 or 37? To me, an accountant, it seems like splitting hairs. Ohtani is still going to get his 700 million no matter if he can still play or not the whole 10 years that his contract requires him. To me, it is still a manipulation of the CBT to allow the Dodgers to sign more players. and still pay huge contracts by deferring. The will be paying $80mil+ per year in deferred money between Ohtani, Betts and Freeman starting in 2034. plus the CBT hit as well. That will be worse than the Bonilla deal ever was.
Thank_God_Im_Not_Tim_Dierkes
@Robertowannabe,
I agree with you. More importantly, if Juan soto signs a deal where he gets paid for 15 year on his next contract, but he has already told the Yankees he plans to retire in 10 years, wouldn’t that be the same thing?!
Ichiro played until he was 44, so did Jamie Moyer, John Franco, and other players. It’s all arbitrary applications of fungible rules meant to allow rich teams to circumvent rules, we are supposed to trust to control them.
StraxusD
The judge deal sought to do the same thing but the Padres were going to sign him and cut him early and eat the dead money. The league said no, but deferring money manipulates the AAV to the CBT and is legal. The end concept is the same. Sign a player for more money but make his salary AAV lower so you don’t have to pay taxes
RWH 2
Do you really want the rest of MLB to be the Washington Generals to the Dodgers’ Harlem Globetrotters when the Dodgers can sign the best players merely by deferring huge chunks of salary and getting a Net Present Value benefit to the AAV?
If the cumulative value of the contract is $700MM then the AAV should be $70MM. Leave the NPV games to corporations like Apple and get it out of MLB. What’s good for the Dodgers is not good for competition, for baseball and especially for us fans.
BLIN7Y
WTF !!!!
I can’t believe there are so many trying to rationalize the Ohtani Deal.
Trying to make us believe that 700 MM over 10 years is the same as 460 MM over 10 years…Really?
I understand the TVM concept but when historically we talk about sports contracts it is not like this.
“EVERY” multi-year contract would be valued differently if we apply the TVM Rules.
This deal violates the good faith intentions of the Deferral provisions of the CBA.
It will encourage other high-revenue teams to attempt the same.
filihok
BLIN
“Trying to make us believe that 700 MM over 10 years is the same as 460 MM over 10 years…Really?”
It’s $700 million over 20 years.
Hopefully that helps
“It will encourage other high-revenue teams to attempt the same.”
Every team is a high revenue team. So, yes, every team can do this
BLIN7Y
Thank You.
However, it is not a 20-year Contract, it is a 10-year 700 MM Contract that will be paid out over 20 years. They are not the same. MLB would not have allowed the Dodgers to sign Ohtani for 20 years just as they would not have allowed Padres to sign Judge for 14.
The problem for most readers is they have convinced themselves that this is a 20-year Contract, it is not.
Allowing a team to defer over 95% of a contract and then they get to apply a TVM function to reduce the total down to a NPV which results in them paying less Tax is absurd.
They are getting close to the Tax treatment of a 20-year Contract by doing this when they couldn’t have given a 20-year contract.
Maybe that is within the Rules, but the Commish has the Power under the “Best Interest of Baseball” Clause to force the Dodgers and Ohtani to restructure the terms.
filihok
BLIN
“However, it is not a 20-year Contract, it is a 10-year 700 MM Contract that will be paid out over 20 years.
No. It’s a 10 year $460 million contract that will be paid out over 20 years meaning it has to be increased to $700 million because of interest.
Bounty Hunters IA
Tim I love your site and rarely disagree with you, but this is a clear tax dodge and nothing else. Dodgers will get away with it and then the loophole will be closed so no one else can do the same thing. Typical California shadiness. I hope the dodgers don’t win a single title the next ten years. #anyonebutLA
Yanks2
Even though I agree with you, this isn’t any more or less fair or unfair than a team with a 300m payroll vs a 30m payroll. It’s always the same 5 teams in the playoffs every year give or take. You’ll never see a Pirates Dodgers World Series when the Dodgers have the ability like other high market teams to buy their way to a championship. Even without a tax dodge or with one, the lack of competitiveness in sports makes it a moot point
gww4488
I agree with you in that this is a way to pay the athlete more than other teams, by allowing him to take 96% of his salary in years 11-20. While it costs the Dodgers the actual $700M total, they save $24M that should be applied to their salary cap per season, and Ohtani is happy to take the deferred $ because he’ll move back to Japan, and collect that money as untaxed money, since he won’t be in the US. It will cause the US Government to lose our on taxing $680M, which would probably be about $300M. Does the IRS/US Government get involved in this?
ChristianRocker
Obviously nothing illegal was done here, but I do feel it cheats the system. You can say it still accounts for 40+ million on luxury tax but that’s still tens of millions not going against the luxury tax. I’ve always hated deferred money and I don’t think it should even be in the game.
mrpadre19
“There was enough time for the shocking $700MM and $70MM figures to take hold. “
So the $700 mil “rumors” were “shocking” and then he literally got $70 million but…..it’s all cool?
chavac
The entire point of the CBT is that year to year teams don’t accumulate a rediculous amount of contracts/players without penalty. The 70m/y figure is irrelevant. The fact they’re effectively paying a 46m player 2m to avoid going over tax threshold is the issue. They’re getting 44m worth of effective budget for free over the next 10 years. They’ll pay for it later, sure. But the CBT is in place to manage year to year competition
not 10 years down the road. Trying to argue that this doesn’t affect the competitive balance of the sport… I don’t even know.
filihok
chavac
” I don’t even know.”
Agreed
Nothing you posted makes any sense
“The fact they’re effectively paying a 46m player 2m to avoid going over tax threshold is the issue. ”
This is not happening. $46 million a year is being counted toward the CBT for this $46 million player.
chavac
Maybe I’m misunderstanding something then. 46 million is being counted against the CBT this year? That is not what I’ve understood.
filihok
chavac
“Maybe I’m misunderstanding something then. 46 million is being counted against the CBT this year? That is not what I’ve understood.”
Yes.
The Dodgers will give Ohtani $2 million this year
That will count $46 million towards their CBT number
chavac
Ah gotcha. Thanks.
filihok
chavac
As you can see, it’s clearly a tax Dodge /sarcasm
Lanidrac
Yes, he/she was mistaken with that line. He/she meant that they’re effectively paying a $46M player $2M to save $44M on each their yearly payrolls between 2024 and 2033.
However, the rest of what he/she typed is completely accurate.
filihok
Lani
Like everything in baseball, and the world, there are tradeoffs
Ok, they are saving $44 million in 2024 and 2025. They are paying an extra $68 million between 2034 and 2043
Lanidrac
Yes, but it’s an absolutely ridiculous level of a tradeoff that really shouldn’t be allowed.
If you were offered that your favorite team would make the playoffs for the next 10 straight years and likely win at least one World Series over that period at the cost that they would struggle to finish with a winning record for the next 10 straight years after that, would you take the deal? I bet the majority of the fans would.
filihok
Lani
“If you were offered that your favorite team would make the playoffs for the next 10 straight years and likely win at least one World Series over that period at the cost that they would struggle to finish with a winning record for the next 10 straight years after that, would you take the deal? I bet the majority of the fans would.”
1) no. I wouldn’t. I want my team to be competitive all 20 years
2) they are only getting that advantage for the 2 years before they have to start funding the deferred payments. So, it’s trading years of +$44 million for 10 years of -$68 million
underdog
This is honestly excellent work, Tim, the first place I’ve seen to sum it up accurately and succinctly. And it was a lot of work, probably, Kudos and thanks.
Astrosfn1979
Terrible take.
Who cares what other teams were offering or what he was expected to make?
The bottom line is the Dodgers are paying him $700M over 20 years but only $46 AAV for 10 years counts vs CBT. The other $240M is just washed away and never counts?
The only way this is ethical and fair to the other 29 teams is if the AAV is calculated at $70M for 10 years or $35M for 20 years.
Hell I would even agree $2M for 10 years then $68M for 10 years is fair.
But $240M never counting is wrong
Astrosfn1979
Filihok
For some reason I can’t reply to you directly.
Please enlighten me.
If The Dodgers are paying out a total of $700M but only get a CBT hit of $46M for 10 years, then please tell me how the entire $700M counts against them in the CBT?
Pads Fans
The entire $700 million DOES count towards the CBT and does so over the 10 years Ohtani will actually play under this contract. It will apply to CBT payroll at $70 million per season.
There is NO savings on the CBT payroll, just on how much the Dodgers ACTUALLY spend on payroll each year. They are counting on the interest on the $68 million they are required to put in an escrow account each season will be enough to pay for the CBT penalties they will be paying.
Filihok’s entire argument is based on a clause in the CBA that doesn’t apply to the CBT.
Dennis Boyd
@Astros, you can’t reply to him directly because he’s muted you (as he has done to many others). He’s a big, tough talker but cannot take any incoming. Words that he disagrees with, hurt him.
Astrosfn1979
Thanks. I have no idea why. I’m opinionated but very respectful and always try to be open minded.
Have an amazing off season.
PGM
may be working within the letter of the law, but as a baseball fan I feel let down by MLB and feel the system is biased
certainly other teams can sign players to similar deals within the framework of the rules, but they almost certainly lack the financial flexibility to actually do it in the manner that LA has done
Betts, Freeman and now Ohtani have deferred massive contracts that would each alone be problematic for most MLB franchises as time passes, let alone 3, at some point in the future there could be $100 million/year deferred, how many teams can do that?
MLB clearly doesn’t care about any level of competitiveness, has diluted the playoff pool to make the regular season nearly meaningless, could cut half of the regular season and not really lose anything, has drastically changed on field rules so that the game hardly reflects that of my childhood (except when we played in the streets and made rules up)
MLB has done a lot to reduce my level of enthusiasm for their product, and have been wildly successful
I will be supporting Nottingham Forest for now on, at least the disparity in funding is not sold as some “competitive balance” and the promotion/demotion aspect of the game brings in intrigue for the teams not competing for the title. Watching a middling Giants team in July and hoping that they are maybe the sixth best in the league and makes a post-season tournament which has been devalued by my team’s inclusion just doesn’t have the allure for my attention anymore
That the Dodgers can sign Ohtani and then flip around and be serious suitors for all of the other high priced free agents because they were able to make the payroll flexibility, while legit, doesn’t make me want to support it.
Just because you can doesn’t mean you should
filihok
PGM
Is your problem with deferrals? Or with some teams having more money than others?
KyleT
It all comes back to fans who cry foul about teams with more money aka Big Market vs Small Market.
If a team can afford to pay Ohtani $460M over 10 years without deferring, then that same can afford a $700M over 10 year contracts with $680M deferred, just by investing the $440M (460M-20M) that you didnt have to pay him upfront and paying the player the proceeds from interest/investment.
filihok
Restockings
Bingo!
Robertowannabe
You have to have the $440 million up front to invest on behalf of the player to cover the $680 that will be paid out over the 2nd 10 years of the deal. Most teams can’t do that.
maxmilna
Have fun crying about it all year. Go Dodgers!
Robertowannabe
Ohtani will not pitch at all and who knows when he will be able to start hitting again.
BlueSkies_LA
Are you able to take a wild guess at who knows?
Robertowannabe
Probably his surgeon would have the best guess but it would only be an educated guess. Won’t get clear until spring training at the earliest. No one has any idea if he will have any setbacks before he is ready to hit in a MLB game. Hope for his sake that he has no major setbacks along the way.
MaNameIsYeffff
Are the $50m worth of endorsement deals all locked in for 10 years or is it just assumed he will get that each year regardless If he struggles to pitch again and becomes a full time DH?
MikeSadek3333
tbh, doubt he cares as far as income, if he never gets a dollar more of endorsement income again—with what he has made already in MLB salaries, plus his 2 mil per year for the next 10 years, plus all the tens of millions he has already made from endorsements already, he is already set up for life–
the 68 million per year after his 10 year contract is up wont change his standard of living, just give him more money to do with it what he wants to and escalate him to a higher wealth level
rd42
It’s 100% a luxury tax dodge. The fact that you have to try and go on a long winded rant to excuse it tells you it is.
It’s OK. It is what it is. And that’s circumventing the luxury tax hit. MLB allowed it. Move on.
filihok
Rd
“It’s 100% a luxury tax dodge. The fact that you have to try and go on a long winded rant to excuse it tells you it is.”
Ok
It’s not a tax dodge
I said in fewer words than you, I must be right, by your “logic”
♂️
Sydney Nusinov
Tax dodge: Paying Judge to play til 44.
Not a Tax Dodge: Paying Ohtani NOT to play from 39-49.
Got it.
dave 2
This all makes sense because we included special alternate math for calculating salaries in the rules.
BaseballisLife
The amount of money deferred is not limited. The way the CBT payroll is calculated has nothing to do with money deferred or the section of the CBA that Passan quoted.
As multiple people have quoted here, the section in the CBA that covers CBT issues is Article XXIII. Section E(2) and Section E(6).
Section E(6)(b)(i) shows that all deferred money is attributed to, meaning counted, in one of the 10 championship seasons, in other words years Ohtani will be playing under the contract.
Section E(6)(b)(ii) does not apply. No interest is being paid in this case. If interest was being paid that clause only applies to how the interest is counted towards the CBT payroll.
What does all that mean? It means no matter how much the media wants this contract to give the Dodgers a discount on how much of Ohtani’s contract will count towards the CBT payroll, its still going to be $70 million.
I asked an attorney that worked for my firm for 30 years. He read Article XXIII and he came to the same conclusion.
Maybe one of you is a labor attorney or was before you retired and can weigh in.
As of now it looks like the narrative being pushed by Passan and the writers parroting him are wrong.
Pads Fans
Watch out BIL. I got slammed for posting this same thing. People like Filihok will come for you and say, but, but, but Passan said.
Thanks for going above and beyond to verify what you said with an actual attorney. I for one appreciate it.
Ncsaint
@pads fans I will bet you $1000 the tax hit is not $70 million. I am willing to commit to paying you without even knowing you are a real person or having any guarantee. You in?
JoeBrady
I asked an attorney that worked for my firm for 30 years. He read Article XXIII and he came to the same conclusion.
=========================
He’s wrong. And I’d bet on that.
And, just for fun, look at the contracts for Betts, Devers, Sale, Lindor, etc., and explain why they are being discounted, but Ohtani’s is not.
Begamin
This is Ohtani dodging Commifornias taxes, not a CBT dodge. It does however free up current cash on hand to be spent on more players though
filihok
“Commifornias”
Muted
Catuli Carl
Oh no! You muted him?! Poor guy. I’m sure he’s devastated.
BarNone
Just because they are paying a tax that is higher than a prior player’s tax doesn’t mean it isn’t a dodge. Sherzer’s contract off set $6M a year (which would still be a dodge). Ohtani’s offset is $24 million. I can’t think of a bigger dodge than that.
If you are going to have the tax it needs to follow the total of the contract meaning the deferrments still come into play. If you don’t you will start having teams sign someone to a 10 year/$1B contract that will pay $20 million over the course of the 10 years and then $19.6M for the next 50 years.
DugoutJester
Correct me if I am wrong but I believe the CBT has something which states(along the lines) that if deferred, the contract in regards to CBT, has to be within reasonable constrains of what the player most likely could play until. If I remember correctly I believe the agreed upon age for Ohtani was 44yr olds(or perhaps its just a universal figure for everyone). Thus the AAV is broken down over 15yrs(29 to 44) in regards to the CBT, not the 20 years of the full contract. Point being, a 50yr contract would not be broken down to a 50yr AAV when applied to the CBT.
Regardless the Dodgers still gained a massive advantage with said contract.
BarNone
How is 44 an acceptable age? Last year Verlander, Wainwright, Cruz, and Hill were the only players over 40 and two have retired, Hill has said he will likely only play half a season, and all were under 44.
biffpocoroba
Tim, aside from Harris’s reporting of “his understanding”, do we know that Ohtani in fact made this offer available to the other bidders?
tigerdoc616
We do not.
Lanidrac
Yes, money is worth more now in the future, but it’s not like Ohtani could actually spend over $20M plus the tens of millions he’ll make in endorsements over the next 10 years anyway. As such, the vast majority of his fortune over a decade from now will still be sitting in banks and devalued by inflation whether or not most of the payments will be deferred until then. In fact, the deferred payments mean he’ll actually be losing out on years of savings account interest for most of his money.
Lanidrac
Sorry, I should restate that in practice the only bad thing about the deferrals is losing out on savings account interest or the chance to invest most of the money in some other way for ten years.
filihok
Lani
“Sorry, I should restate that in practice the only bad thing about the deferrals is losing out on savings account interest or the chance to invest most of the money in some other way for ten years.”
That’s, of course, why it’s $700 over 20 and not $460 over 20
Lanidrac
That’s due to inflation, not losing out on interest or investments. As I pointed out, the inflation doesn’t actually matter in practical terms, and the amount he could earn in investments still wouldn’t come close to an extra $240M after just 10 years.
dan-9
I think you’d be surprised. All you need to make an extra $240M over 10 years is a 4.5% annual return, given the remainder of the estimated current value of the contract ($440M, or (($46M – $2M) x 10). Over 10 years, that compounds to a 55.3% return. 1.553 times $440M is $683.3M – a $243M gain.
I’m working backwards here, but I’m pretty sure that’s how they came up with the contract in the first place.
A 4.5% annual return is actually pretty conservative. Heck, my savings account right now gets over 5%.
JoeBrady
That’s due to inflation, not losing out on interest or investments.
===========================
The difference between the $700M and the $460M is a discount rate of 4.43%. Ohtani is basically investing in Treasuries instead of equities, but is still getting interest.
ckc12537
Your savings account yield is temporary. Eventually the Fed will cut rates, and your FI will adjust accordingly. They are usually near 0%.
showman
Look up “interest”
PoisonedPens
But, Ohtani is currently making over $50M/year as an active player in endorsements, and his management expects that number to double over the next year or two, so he is not “missing” anything, The predicted decline in endorsements when he retires will be supplanted by his deferred salary.
tigerdoc616
There is nothing more to add to this discussion that hasn’t already been said in 950 or so comments. So lets try making irrelevant comments to push the comment count to 1000 or more! Who’s with me!!
filihok
td616
“There is nothing more to add to this discussion that hasn’t already been said in 950 or so comments. ”
Every low information poster has to come in and show that they don’t know what’s going on by posting the same thing that’s already been said 100 times
99socalfrc
Can’t wait to see how quickly MLB and the media talking heads back track once every contract starts looking like this.
Maybe a small market team can put together a string of these deals to try and win now and set themselves up for bankruptcy in year 11. I’m sure MLB will like that.
Pads Fans
Ahhhh, and with one little click, life is so much better and Filihok is gone.
Ncsaint
Why are you pretending you still believe this? Learn to take an L. (Or bet me)
DugoutJester
Kids literally the worst. I caved and muted him a few days back.
runningwithnailclippers
Here is the problem with type of article: it places all the blame on the fans, but none on journalists and sites like this for hyping up rumors to get views. They wanted to rile up the fans and cause strife. They didn’t care about Ohtani and his being a good guy. They just saw a chance to drag out views as Ohtani rightfully took his time to make a decision.
GarryHarris
I don’t even care. This is stupid at all levels and I for one not going to be part of it as a supporter.
jtkuch
What a shameful shilling article. The fact is that Ohtani will be getting $700M from this deal, and will be playing for 10 years AKA $70M AAV. Reducing that to a $46M tax hit is absolutely circumventing the CBT. I don’t buy for a second the “real” deal Ohtani would’ve accepted was 10/$460M, be f’info real.
dan-9
That’s fine, you’re allowed to be ignorant and not understand how basic finances work. I wouldn’t be so proudly upfront about my ignorance if I were you, but I guess that’s just me.
JoeBrady
Reducing that to a $46M tax hit is absolutely circumventing the CBT.
=============================
It is actually EXACTLY what is the CBA. There is no circumventing anything.
MootScorgoon
Businesses are consistently skirting tax laws, finding loopholes and the sort to avoid the Taxman. How is this any different? Furthermore, to think that owners or the league are policing “the spirit of the game” are deluded. The modern MLB exists to make money, plain and simple.
JoeBrady
finding loopholes and the sort to avoid the Taxman.
=================================
1-The idea that the Taxman doesn’t know how to deal with deferrals is ludicrous.
2-All major companies deal in deferrals. There are entire companies dedicating to creating lease deals for capital assets. The next time you fly, there is a decent chance that airline you taking won’t own the plane you are flying in.
Catuli Carl
There’s a difference between tax evasion from a corrupt, mass murdering government vs from a Competitive Balance pool that is supposed to allow smaller market teams to compete.
The former is universally virtuous. The latter is not.
CarolinaCubsandKush
Tim, the word “circumventing” is doing a lot of heavy lifting here. You said it yourself that the Dodgers were able to get Ohtani and also lower his luxury tax hit by over 20 million. That is working around aka circumventing the the tax. Not sure how you could say it isn’t except that deferred comp portion of the rules. Paying Ohtani 10 years after he’s done playing is the same as paying Judge 4 years after he’s done playing in the theoretical example you gave. The only difference is money in the contract is deferred until after the playing years on the contract are done and not before. The money is still in the contract for both, but one allows the tax hit to be lowered and one doesn’t? It is semantics. I don’t mind him going to the Dodgers personally, but it’s obvious why so many people are getting upset over the contract. I do agree that the initial reporting didn’t help, but that’s par for the course of how this entire saga played out.
1979andcounting
So the $64 (or $68) million dollar question is: Will the Dodgers have a CBT hit in 2034-2043 on the $68M, assuming Ohtani is retired or no longer with the team? Somehow the author failed to address.
JoeBrady
CBT is always calculated over the number of years the player is committed to the team. Take the case of Chris Sale.
He signed for $145M/5 ($29M per). Because $50M was deferred, the CBA dictates that the annual salary is worth only $25.6M per year. So for CBT purposes, they recognize $25.6M for 5 years. Everything that remains is purely balance sheet.
enteluj88
If there are no CBT consequences or impacts beyond the 10 years Ohtani plays under this contract, then the Dodgers have used a loophole to 1) be able to pay more real money to a player, and 2) not have it count. That’s a luxury tax dodge, and Dierkes seems to be more interested in saying it’s not to say MLBTR nailed their prediction on his yearly salary.
Knowing this is how it works, there’s no way a team next off-season doesn’t say to Juan Soto, “we’ll pay you $1 billion on a 10 year contract, but you have to defer $800 million. We’ll somehow get MLB to make the CBT hit only $40 million a year”. If a team has an owner that cares less about the actual money and more about the real CBT impacts during the life of the actual contract – less draft pool money, less international FA money, draft pick losses – then you’re going to see this happen a lot. I would definitely do this with Soto next year if I were an owner like Steve Cohen.
dan-9
It’s not a luxury tax dodge. It’s a cash flow manipulation. If you’re going to complain about it, at least get it right.
It’s not a luxury tax dodge because it was never a choice between paying $46M/year counting towards the CBT vs. $70M/year counting towards the CBT. Again, that would only have been the case if a non-deferred $70M/year was ever offered to Ohtani, which it never was.
eichejt0570
We have it correct it’s a tax DODGE! If you are going to talk about it, at least get it correct!
dan-9
I challenge you to explain how it is a tax dodge clearly enough to show that you know what you’re talking about. You can’t.
Travelberries
Still BS
Baseball Purist
* Bobby Bonilla walks into the room
onthebucks
$46 million a year is not the same as $70 million a year. So, all rhetoric notwithstanding, the financial arrangement still benefits the Dodgers and Ohtani. What’s more, the Dodgers will have an additional $68 million a year to invest for 10 years which will soften the blow when it comes time to actually pay Ohtani his backend.
dan-9
Correct $46M is not equal to $70M. That’s all baked in. The $46M represents roughly the current value of the contract on an annual basis, so it is not correct to say that the Dodgers will have an “additional $68 million a year to invest”. They’ll invest approximately $44M a year (the current value per year minus the $2M they will pay Ohtani each year for now), and 10 years later, it will be worth around $68 million. That’s how this works. It’s the reason that the top-line number (in this case, $700M) is irrelevant when we’re talking about deferred salaries. Present-day value is what matters, and that’s what is used to calculate the CBT.
eichejt0570
dan-9
Your number are incorrect. I just did what you told me to do and went to an investment calculator. The numbers I provided proved you wrong! So please go by your own words and go to an investment calculator although MLB never said that’s how they determine the current value of the contract.
dan-9
You did it wrong, as I said in the comment below. $44M invested at 4.5% annually for 10 years comes to a little over $68M.
Seriously, you can stop now. You’re not making yourself look any better by continuing.
eichejt0570
dan-9
I did it right your initial investment is completely incorrect. The contract was 10 years 700 million and in 2024 he was going to receive 2 million and defer 68 million. That makes the initial investment 68 million. Again he is deferring 68 million next year not 44 million. Just because the return is also 68 million means his camp is terrible at contracts or ITS A TAX LOOPHOLE! If it’s not a loophole why not do 10 years 460 million because the Dodgers can’t afford it. Also high end CD can get you an 8% return currently. Based on your reasoning it’s a 20 year contract because a contract is not complete until both the goods and/or services have been provided and completely paid for!
JoeBrady
the financial arrangement still benefits the Dodgers and Ohtani.
=============================
Why? I’d prefer my RS sign Monty & YY for $50M than sign Ohtani for $46M, but the price tag of $46M doesn’t strike me as absurd.
eichejt0570
Please show us the math behind $46 million AAV! I bet you are only guessing and you won’t know how much it will be until the end of the baseball year 2024 which is BS! It should be higher than $46 million. Take the consumer price index, it is 32.6 as of Nov 23 and 10 years ago it was 42.9. That’s a difference of 76% so the money lost 24% of its value. 24% of $70 million is $53.2 million. So again how was $46 million calculated?
dan-9
It assumes a 4.5% annual return over a 10-year period. It’s pretty standard. You can find an online investment calculator and run the numbers yourself. The consumer price index has nothing to do with it.
eichejt0570
But the numbers I just provided are better than an assumption they are real world numbers! Again making my point it is 100% a tax loophole because assumptions should not be made when determining payroll that how corruption happens!
dan-9
You aren’t even beginning to explain how it’s a “tax loophole” because you quite literally have no clue. Your numbers aren’t any more “real-world” than anything else. All contracts are based on estimates of current vs. future value, and that value is based on internal estimates of investment return. You don’t have to like it, but that’s just how the world works.
Are you aware that if you had put money in a low-maintenance index fund that mirrored the S&P 500 ten years ago, today you would have three times your original amount? That’s a 200% return. Now is that typical? Not necessarily. But it’s just as “real world” a number as the consumer price index, and it’s far more relevant than the CPI to how baseball teams (and all corporations) do business.
eichejt0570
If we assume you are correct taking 4.5% annual return of $68 million over 10 years means the individual could have made $37.6 million from the return. 68-37.6 is 31.6. Now add back the $2 million he is getting and that pushes the number to $33.6 million. That’s very simple! Your logic nor math add up. Sorry I have an Engineering Degree and am very good with Math!
dan-9
No, the $68M is the *return*, not the investment. The investment is $44M (the $46M mentioned for CBT purposes, minus the $2M the Dodgers will pay Ohtani per year.) $44 invested at 4.5% for 10 years comes to $68M.
If you were actually “very good with Math” you would have figured that out on your own. And please don’t boast about having an engineering degree. You are either lying (likely, I’m guessing you’re probably a bored and insecure teenager), or you were a deeply incompetent student who skated by in school. Either way, you have already demonstrated many times over that you don’t know what you are talking about. My advice, which I’m guessing you will not take, is to learn a little humility and allow yourself to use this as a learning experience.
eichejt0570
Your very reasoning is why Americans are swimming in debt. The contract was for 10 years $700 million. Sorry I have to repeat the small stuff but you seem to completely miss the small stuff. That would be paid out at $70 million a year. He agreed to take 2 million and defer 68 million in 2024. Making 68 million the initial investment! Just because the return is 68 million as well means his camp signed a terrible contract or ITS A TAX LOOPHOLE! So much so the MLB is having to do damage control and write articles like this one!
Do you know the difference between an Emulsion and a Cutback? Which one is cut with water?
eichejt0570
Your reasoning on contracts is why Americans are up to their eyeballs in debt. Sorry I have to repeat the small things but you seem to completely miss them. The contract was 10 years 700 million and in 2024 he was going to receive 2 million and defer 68 million. That makes the initial investment 68 million. Again he is deferring 68 million next year not 44 million. Just because the return is also 68 million means his camp is terrible at contracts or ITS A TAX LOOPHOLE! If it’s not a loophole why not do 10 years 460 million because the Dodgers can’t afford it. Also high end CD’s can get you an 8% return currently. Based on your reasoning it’s a 20 year contract because a contract is not complete until both the goods and/or services have been provided and completely paid for. Have you ever heard of someone signing a15 year mortgage and continue to pay money to the bank after 15 years?
Can you tell me the difference between an Emulsion and a Cutback?
3768902
So, the deal is “actually” 10/460 million with 10/700 million reflecting an attempt to estimate/control for inflation (and maintain value of contract)…
My question is, why attempt to “estimate” inflation? Why not just say it’s 10/460 mill with deferred money being paid out with inflation-related adjustments (i.e., 2 mil per each year of contract, 44 mil in inflation adjusted dollars for each deferral year)?
My suspicion is that Dodgers are, in fact, paying him more than 10/460 mil in 2023 USD with the “inflation estimates” obsfucating this excess value.
To wit: This contract estimates inflation of 52% over next 10 years. However, USD inflation over past 10 years – a period of pretty significant inflation- has been only 32%.
dan-9
The value it’s adjusting for is the value of investments, not inflation. A competently run investment portfolio will beat inflation over the long term. If you run the numbers, you’ll see that they’re assuming 4.5% growth annually, which is a pretty safe estimate over the long term. Specifically, $44M (The $46M mentioned minus the $2M they’re giving Ohtani per year) invested each year should be worth right around $68.3M after 10 years of growth at 4.5% annually.
AmericanRedneck
Over the past decade, inflation has ostensibly risen by 32%, yet this figure fails to capture the full reality, as certain exclusions are often employed by “experts” to present a more favorable outlook. However, for actual consumers, such nuanced considerations are a luxury seldom enjoyed. The 32% cited, particularly concentrated in the last three years, seems less representative of recent unprecedented spikes. When examined on a quarterly basis over the last 2.5 years, the 10-year mark takes on a more telling form, approximating the 52% used for luxury tax calculations. I find deferrals distasteful, especially when employed to circumvent the system, as is evident in this case. Anticipating a crackdown by the league sooner rather than later, it becomes apparent that collecting less than 1.5% of an annual salary, such as 2MM on 70MM, is undeniably egregious.
JoeBrady
The rate they use (IIRC) is reset every year. While inflation use to be 2-3%, that’s not what it is now. Part of this could be a gamble by Ohtani that interest rates will decline.
Or, and no one mentions it, maybe he prefers to keep his future earnings in USD instead of Yen.
kings88
Excellent article, excellent explanation.
AL B DAMNED
Why is it called the Competitive Balance Tax when MLB is taking away the Competitive Balance of the League by allowing the Dodgers special privilege to circumvent the rules? $70M-$700M = $70M-$700M, NOT $46M-$460M There is clearly a $24M-$240M amount missing from the CBT! Who pays that and why is it not calculated in the total CBT amount?
BlueSkies_LA
Reading comprehension alert, code red!
filihok
AB23
Sigh
”
Why is it called the Competitive Balance Tax when MLB is taking away the Competitive Balance of the League by allowing the Dodgers special privilege to circumvent the rules”..
It didn’t. Any team in the league could do this for any player. It’s all spelled out in the CBA
“$70M-$700M = $70M-$700M, NOT $46M-$460M There is clearly a $24M-$240M amount missing from the CBT! Who pays that and why is it not calculated in the total CBT amount?”
No amount is missing.
The payouts after the contract finishes are discounted, per the CBA.
The $68 million payments from 2034-2043 each count $44 million towards the CBT. Add in the $2 million salary each year from 2024 to 2033 and that’s where $46 million a year comes from
eichejt0570
Not all teams can pay a player $680 Million that’s not playing for them! It’s actually called insanity to pay someone for services years after the services are completed unless there is a tax loophole involved. Pretty simple business sense!
larkraxm
He will have to pay income taxes whenever he makes income, no matter what year he makes that income. The adjusted for inflation amount of the contract and CBT AAV is the $460 million, which is still a lot of money to play stick ball.
eichejt0570
What you just said makes the contract a 20 year contract!
JoeBrady
by allowing the Dodgers special privilege to circumvent the rules?
=============================
The rules are exactly what the CBA says they are, and everyone can use the same rules. And many teams have deferred contracts. The RS have at least two.
eichejt0570
Please show where in the CBA this is allowed and how it effects the CBT!
Billg7987
You might be misunderstanding the principle that money today is worth a lot more than money in ten years. This is because the money, even with a guaranteed return, will grow a lot in 10 years. There are standard, well established, methods to make this determination. In this case, the math works out to say that 70 million in ten years is equivalent to something like 46 million today.
It’s some tricky math, but it’s generally accepted as right. As far as the league is concerned, this is a 46 million a year contract. They calculate the value of the deferred money and apply it to the current year and make the luxury tax calculation off of that.
StraxusD
The thing is that if you wrote a contract and said it was $700 million over years, you don’t get to write the AAV even though that $70 million in year 9 and 10 aren’t worth as much through inflation, but if you defer the money you get to manipulate the AAV. It is it outside the rules but it is a CBT dodge that the MLB allows.
BlueSkies_LA
No, it isn’t, and no you don’t. In fact MLB requires teams to set aside cash every year such that the deferred salary obligation is met at the time it is to be paid out. In this case, the annual set-aside is the present value of the contract, $46M a year. These are the dollars needed to be set aside annually in order for them to grow over ten years to $70M at a modest rate of return. In effect the Dodgers will become Ohtani’s investment trustee. The numbers are big of course but the financial principals pretty basic. I suspect the reason why so many people find this approach to be weird or suspicious is because so few have any real financial knowledge.
AL B DAMNED
The sad thing for the Angels is not only do they lose Shohei Ohtani to mostly deferred payments, but Mike Trout got paid and deferred most of his “Playing Time”!
Hired Gun 23
This article, while repetitive, was informative. Not bad…
deGrom/Langford Texas Ranger
As a finance person, the account NPV (net present value) calculations seem irrational. Give a guy 20 years 700 MM and it’s a hit of 35 MM a year for 20 years, even if you pay 2 MM the first 10 years and then 68 MM the next 10 years. The dodging part is if you pay the 68 MM the last 10 years on a “10 year contract,” this suddenly becomes a NPV thing, with a value of 460 MM. It makes little sense to discount thr pay after play instead of the backloaded deal.
eichejt0570
It’s because any team can offer a backloaded contract and only the Dodgers, Yankees, Mets, and Red Sox’s could offer this type of money to one player.
Billg7987
This is a nice explainer. It seems t that the league accounts for this situation and handles it correctly. Why should they care if a players contract is deferred or not provided the luxury tax isn’t circumvented. It’s nice to in that this gives teams in high tax states the ability to negotiate on more equal footing with teams in lower tax states. Instead of paying state tax on 46 million, he’s paying it on two. He needs only to move out of state to avoid CA’s taxes on the remainder.
Simm
One of the first question in the Ohtani press conference. Why didn’t defer so much money.
Because it helps with the cbt.
Hence the ability to dodge some tax. So all you guys saying it wasn’t…eat some crow.
eichejt0570
latimes.com/sports/dodgers/story/2024-01-08/shohei…
Even the Democrats are calling this a tax dodge! And you know how much Democrats love their tax loopholes!