Jump to content

Yanks get Tanaka 7y/$155M


isestrex

Recommended Posts

I suspect Tanaka will be a good MLB pitcher. But I just don't know if he'll be a guy that can match up against a Kershaw, Verlander, Scherzer in a deciding playoff game. And for $22mm a year that's what I want.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 257
  • Created
  • Last Reply
Again, the $189 was a goal; never a mandate. And once they go over it the LT is what it is. So they may as well blow the doors off the payroll because they'll get hit with the LT whether they are $1 over or $20M over. They're not done yet.

A team only pays luxury tax on the amount by which they are over the cap. So, it does matter quite a bit whether they are over by $1 mm or $20 mm. In the first scenario, the tax is $500k, in the second scenario, it's $10 mm.

The big reason the Yankees wanted to get under the cap, however, was to "reset" their tax rate. The tax rate goes up for each consecutive year (up to four years) that a team is over the cap. A first time offender pays 17.5% of the amount by which they exceed the cap, two-time offender 30%, three-time offender 40%, four-time offender 50%. So, if the Yankees could have stayed under the cap, not only would they have avoided any luxury tax for 2014, they would have lowered the tax rate for the following three seasons even if they were over the cap in those years. It adds up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A team only pays luxury tax on the amount by which they are over the cap. So, it does matter quite a bit whether they are over by $1 mm or $20 mm. In the first scenario, the tax is $500k, in the second scenario, it's $10 mm.

The big reason the Yankees wanted to get under the cap, however, was to "reset" their tax rate. The tax rate goes up for each consecutive year (up to four years) that a team is over the cap. A first time offender pays 17.5% of the amount by which they exceed the cap, two-time offender 30%, three-time offender 40%, four-time offender 50%. So, if the Yankees could have stayed under the cap, not only would they have avoided any luxury tax for 2014, they would have lowered the tax rate for the following three seasons even if they were over the cap in those years. It adds up.

Must spread rep... Thanks for clarifying that. I've wondered the mechanics of the staying under $189mm for some time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So the O's and Yankess had the same record in 2013.

The Yankees add Beltran, Ellsbury, McCann, & Tanaka + BRob, Scott Siezmore + Kelly Johnson + healthy Jeter(???)

The Yankees lose Cano, ARod, V. Wells, Chris Stewart

The Orioles add Ryan Webb, Jemile Weeks, David Lough

The Orioles lose Scott Feldman, Jason Hammel, Jim Johnson, BRob, Danny Valencia

And folks think the O's will finish ahead of the Yanks in the AL East???

We have a last place starting rotation... and that's if they stay healthy and pitch to their career norms. An injur to Tillman, MGon, or Chen and we have a 95 loss starting rotation.

But sure we'd all rather root for the loveable losers than see our owner spend some money on talent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A team only pays luxury tax on the amount by which they are over the cap. So, it does matter quite a bit whether they are over by $1 mm or $20 mm. In the first scenario, the tax is $500k, in the second scenario, it's $10 mm.

The big reason the Yankees wanted to get under the cap, however, was to "reset" their tax rate. The tax rate goes up for each consecutive year (up to four years) that a team is over the cap. A first time offender pays 17.5% of the amount by which they exceed the cap, two-time offender 30%, three-time offender 40%, four-time offender 50%. So, if the Yankees could have stayed under the cap, not only would they have avoided any luxury tax for 2014, they would have lowered the tax rate for the following three seasons even if they were over the cap in those years. It adds up.

Thanks for the clarification. Apparently the Yankees don't care about the LT.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Look at the bright-side everyone, this means the Yanks will be over the salary threshold for years to come and the O's will get more revenue sharing money!

Minor correction. Angelos will get more revenue sharing money. It will remain to be seen whether the Orioles ever see any of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is the going rate for a TOR starter. On a side note must be nice to have a owner that goes for it. Right now the Orioles are a 4th place team in the AL East.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p>Buoyed by Yankees signing of Tanaka, <a href="https://twitter.com/search?q=%23Orioles&src=hash">#Orioles</a> will sign Hideo Nomo to a multi year deal <a href="https://twitter.com/search?q=%23notreally&src=hash">#notreally</a></p>— Ken Weinman (@KenWeinmanSport) <a href="

">January 22, 2014</a></blockquote>

<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

Don't worry Ken we will sign Tomko.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p>Buoyed by Yankees signing of Tanaka, <a href="https://twitter.com/search?q=%23Orioles&src=hash">#Orioles</a> will sign Hideo Nomo to a multi year deal <a href="https://twitter.com/search?q=%23notreally&src=hash">#notreally</a></p>? Ken Weinman (@KenWeinmanSport) <a href="
">January 22, 2014</a></blockquote>

<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

Don't worry Ken we will sign Tomko.

Are you upset that we didn't give 22 million dollars a year to a pitcher that has never thrown a pitch in the MLB?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Minor correction. Angelos will get more revenue sharing money. It will remain to be seen whether the Orioles ever see any of it.

Not anymore. Teams have to report how they have spent their revenue sharing dollars, no more debt service for example.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are you upset that we didn't give 22 million dollars a year to a pitcher that has never thrown a pitch in the MLB?

No I'm upset we have a 83m payroll right now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.




×
×
  • Create New...