Blake Snell to Dodgers: 5 years, $182 million

[DeJesus Built My Hotrod]

I have no idea, but optics have nothing to do with how much a contract is worth or how much it should be taxed.

If I signed a 1 year, 1 million dollar contract tomorrow that stated I would get nothing now but a 1M payment in 2050, that wouldn't be worth close to 1M in 2024. Someone can do the math with todays interest rates but it certainly would be worth substantially less than a million bucks.

None of this is complicated and the math can be done on your phone calculator or people can simply run it through chatGPT/Gemini etc.

Deferred payments aren't meant to fool anyone except headline writers and fans who don't like math. The parties each get something in exchange for the arrangement - they player gets compensated for the deferral in the structure of the contract and the team gets a smoother CBA hit.

Finally, the idea of changing Federal or State tax policy to curtail a professional sports team from spending too much on free agents seems all sorts of unrealistic and sets a terrible precedent. Fans should want all owners to compete - not try to put the shackles on those who are investing in their franchises.

If the league wants to adjust the CBA etc to engineer more parity, that's another story but going after tax policy because Guggenheim puts their heft behind their product seems silly.

 

[Red(s)HawksFan]

Would Juan Soto be looking for $700 million if Shohei hadn't just signed for what was reported as $700 million? The higher number is extremely important to agents looking to shift the window of plausible contracts.

Yes?

Soto is three years younger than Ohtani was last winter. He's going to get a longer contract so he's going to make up some of the difference purely in the extra years even at the same AAV.

10/460 = 46M a year
15/700 = 46.67M a year

 

[radsoxfan]

None of this is complicated and the math can be done on your phone calculator or people can simply run it through chatGPT/Gemini etc.

Deferred payments aren't meant to fool anyone except headline writers and fans who don't like math. The parties each get something in exchange for the arrangement - they player gets compensated for the deferral in the structure of the contract and the team gets a smoother CBA hit.

Finally, the idea of changing Federal or State tax policy to curtail a professional sports team from spending too much on free agents seems all sorts of unrealistic and sets a terrible precedent. Fans should want all owners to compete - not try to put the shackles on those who are investing in their franchises.

If the league wants to adjust the CBA etc to engineer more parity, that's another story but going after tax policy because Guggenheim puts their heft behind their product seems silly.

I didn't say it was complicated, I just said someone could do it for me if they want

And yes I agree this is all fair game for all teams and there is nothing wrong with it.

The only "confusion" is the total contract value in media reports is not reflective of a true value. This only matters to agents (and I guess fans who don't understand how the math, time, and interest rates work).

Any of the competing teams would definitely sign Soto to the Ohtani contract right now. It was honestly a below market contract for Ohtani (I thought he might get 500M+ without deferrals) and would definitely be below market for Soto.

 

[DeJesus Built My Hotrod]

I didn't say it was complicated, I just said someone could do it for me if they want

And yes I agree this is all fair game for all teams and there is nothing wrong with it.

The only "confusion" is the total contract value in media reports is not reflective of a true value. This only matters to agents (and I guess fans who don't understand how the math, time, and interest rates work).

Any of the competing teams would definitely sign Soto to the Ohtani contract right now. It was honestly a below market contract for Ohtani (I thought he might get 500M+ without deferrals) and would definitely be below market for Soto.

Agree on the Ohtani deal and I know you were simply pointing out that the math isn't that hard.

In any event, these discussions about contracts and the CBA are kind of useless without knowing what each team's finances look like.

 

[sean1562]

So the Dodgers now have the following players vying for spots in the starting rotation:

Ohtani
Yamamoto
Snell
Glasnow
Dustin May
Bobby Miller
Gavin Stone
Tony Gonsolin
Clayton Kershaw

I think I missed a prospect or two in there. Where does Sasaki fit into this? Would he want to go to a team that has become know for being aggressive with young pitchers at the expense of possible injuries? This feels like a move you make when you know Sasaki has decided to look elsewhere. I just don't see how they even have space for him now. Sure, a ton of those guys are injury prone, but Sasaki still needs to perform well to get a megadeal in the future and 6th starter/injury replacement seems like a less than ideal role for him to demonstrate his value.

 

[E5 Yaz]

So the Dodgers now have the following players vying for spots in the starting rotation:

Ohtani
Yamamoto
Snell
Glasnow
Dustin May
Bobby Miller
Gavin Stone
Tony Gonsolin
Clayton Kershaw

I think I missed a prospect or two in there. Where does Sasaki fit into this? Would he want to go to a team that has become know for being aggressive with young pitchers at the expense of possible injuries? This feels like a move you make when you know Sasaki has decided to look elsewhere. I just don't see how they even have space for him now. Sure, a ton of those guys are injury prone, but Sasaki still needs to perform well to get a megadeal in the future and 6th starter/injury replacement seems like a less than ideal role for him to demonstrate his value.

Sasaki would be in the Top 5 starters on that list, easily. If the Dodgers felt like they had a glut, they could use an arm or two as trade bait

 

[jon abbey]

Sasaki is actually a better fit for a team with an already full rotation, he is not going to be able to pitch every 5th day for at least a year or two (Yamamoto basically didn't this whole season and he is much more experienced).

 

[BaseballJones]

Yeah, LA won't have any problem adding Sasaki. That rotation is bound to suffer some injuries, but if not, they can always trade their lesser arms for prospects or something. Everyone needs pitching.

 

[Jace II]

Finally, the idea of changing Federal or State tax policy to curtail a professional sports team from spending too much on free agents seems all sorts of unrealistic and sets a terrible precedent.

I don't think most are suggesting that governments should change tax policy to alter MLB free agency dynamics. They would be changing tax policy to ensure they can actually collect taxes for wages earned in their locale. That's the purpose of the bills linked in this thread.

 

[DeJesus Built My Hotrod]

I don't think most are suggesting that governments should change tax policy to alter MLB free agency dynamics. They would be changing tax policy to ensure they can actually collect taxes for wages earned in their locale. That's the purpose of the bills linked in this thread.

Wasn't it introduced specifically because of Otahni's deal?

 

[DeadlySplitter]

Ignore the last sentence, it’s wrong

View: https://twitter.com/JonHeyman/status/1861842369798148524

 

[Jace II]

Wasn't it introduced specifically because of Otahni's deal?

Of course, but because on its own it represents $50-90M of lost state tax revenue, and is potentially a lucrative precedent for similarly wealthy earners across sports and other sectors. It's not because the CA state legislature wants the Dodgers to level the playing field with teams from other states.

 

[DeJesus Built My Hotrod]

Of course, but because on its own it represents $50-90M of lost state tax revenue, and is potentially a lucrative precedent for similarly wealthy earners across sports and other sectors. It's not because the CA state legislature wants the Dodgers to level the playing field with teams from other states.

There are people in this thread claiming this issue needs to be addressed. Its an edge case.

 

[Senator Donut]

There are people in this thread claiming this issue needs to be addressed. Its an edge case.

I wouldn't say that 40% of the Dodgers starting rotation registers as an "edge case."

 

[radsoxfan]

Ignore the last sentence, it’s wrong

View: https://twitter.com/JonHeyman/status/1861842369798148524

Heyman says the weirdest stuff. It's less than 36M because of the deferrals, not because the signing bonus "doesn't count".

Someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but it does seem to me there is a bit of a loophole for signing bonuses in favor of clubs that can afford it. The CBT is normalized to the length of the contract, but this doesn't always reflect the true value of the contract with a big signing bonus.

For example, a 10 year 100M contract has a CBT value of 10M per year. But the present value of the 10M paid in 2034 less than 10M today.

A 10 year contract with 99M paid up front and 100k per year (still 10 year/100M contract) is worth significantly more than 10 year/100M contract paid evenly over 10 years. But my understanding is that the CBT for these is the same. In other words, they appropriately discount the deferrals, but they don't appropriately add a surcharge to the signing bonus.

 

[DeJesus Built My Hotrod]

I wouldn't say that 40% of the Dodgers starting rotation registers as an "edge case."

It absolutely is - its also unique to pro sports and likely only baseball. Also, the legislator who championed the solution is in the Bay Area and we are as provincial as the folks in New England so my guess is it might have been informed by, say Giants fandom, but I dont know that to be the case. Of course if CA were to figure out how to tax this money more effectively it would potentially hurt the Giants and Padres too.

$90mm is a lot (I haven't checked their math on that but will assume its correct) but it barely is a blip when compared to the CA state budget. Maybe they go after this deferred money but I can't see it happening given all the other issues the state has to deal with at present.

 

[BaseballJones]

Heyman says the weirdest stuff. It's less than 36M because of the deferrals, not because the signing bonus "doesn't count".

Someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but it does seem to me there is a bit of a loophole for signing bonuses in favor of clubs that can afford it. The CBT is normalized to the length of the contract, but this doesn't always reflect the true value of the contract with a big signing bonus.

For example, a 10 year 100M contract has a CBT value of 10M per year. But the present value of the 10M paid in 2024 less than 10M today.

A 10 year contract with 99M paid up front and 100k per year (still 10 year/100M contract) is worth significantly more than 10 year/100M contract paid evenly over 10 years. But my understanding (correct me if I'm wrong) is that the CBT for these is the same. In other words, they appropriately discount the deferrals, but they don't appropriately add a surcharge to the signing bonus.

If a guy signs a regular contract for $10m a year for 10 years (so $100m total), each year being $10m, doesn't each year of the contract count as....$10m for purposes of the CBT? $10m in current dollars will be equivalent to about $13.4m in 2034. I don't know how to do the math, but it seems to me that $10m in 2034 is worth about $7.5m in 2024 dollars.

So why doesn't MLB calculate all contracts this way for the purpose of the CBT? Why only contracts that have deferments?

 

[mikcou]

If a guy signs a regular contract for $10m a year for 10 years (so $100m total), each year being $10m, doesn't each year of the contract count as....$10m for purposes of the CBT? $10m in current dollars will be equivalent to about $13.4m in 2034. I don't know how to do the math, but it seems to me that $10m in 2034 is worth about $7.5m in 2024 dollars.

So why doesn't MLB calculate all contracts this way for the purpose of the CBT? Why only contracts that have deferments?

Because no money is deferred under that deal? In theory, the luxury tax threshold going up should account for standard contract structures with flat pay (i.e., if luxury tax thresholds increased at inflationary rates, a flat contract would have a declining share of the threshold year over year in the exact manner you are describing). Now, it generally has not because the owners have done a very good job holding the thresholds to sub-inflation rate growth (i.e., shrinking the thresholds in real terms).

 

[simplicio]

It absolutely is - its also unique to pro sports and likely only baseball. Also, the legislator who championed the solution is in the Bay Area and we are as provincial as the folks in New England so my guess is it might have been informed by, say Giants fandom, but I dont know that to be the case. Of course if CA were to figure out how to tax this money more effectively it would potentially hurt the Giants and Padres too.

$90mm is a lot (I haven't checked their math on that but will assume its correct) but it barely is a blip when compared to the CA state budget. Maybe they go after this deferred money but I can't see it happening given all the other issues the state has to deal with at present.

It was specifically reported that they were concerned the practice could migrate to other high-earing industries.

Ohtani’s contract structure is viewed as unique and not likely to be duplicated across the industry because the two-way star’s income streams from endorsements are unrivaled among major league players. For high earners outside baseball, though, the contract sets a potential precedent in a state whose top tax rate of 13.3 percent is among the highest in the nation.

“That is my concern,” said Becker, who represents the 13th Senate District covering portions of Santa Clara and San Mateo counties — areas that include much of Silicon Valley’s immense tech wealth. “It’s certainly a precedent for athletes but also could be used by executives to structure their compensation.”

Because high earners would have to establish out-of-state residency to avoid paying taxes on deferred amounts, Becker said the current tax code encourages people like Ohtani to leave the state.

“We should encourage people to stay here, which I believe this actually does,” Becker said.

 

[mikcou]

Heyman says the weirdest stuff. It's less than 36M because of the deferrals, not because the signing bonus "doesn't count".

Someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but it does seem to me there is a bit of a loophole for signing bonuses in favor of clubs that can afford it. The CBT is normalized to the length of the contract, but this doesn't always reflect the true value of the contract with a big signing bonus.

For example, a 10 year 100M contract has a CBT value of 10M per year. But the present value of the 10M paid in 2034 less than 10M today.

A 10 year contract with 99M paid up front and 100k per year (still 10 year/100M contract) is worth significantly more than 10 year/100M contract paid evenly over 10 years. But my understanding is that the CBT for these is the same. In other words, they appropriately discount the deferrals, but they don't appropriately add a surcharge to the signing bonus.

Yes, thats right. That is another potential arbitrage of the rules (albeit one much more rarely used than deferrals).This all comes form the idea that MLB decided they did not want teams to be able to game the thresholds by using large amounts of space in single years where they have substantial space so just came up with the convention that everything will be AAV.

 

[mikcou]

It was specifically reported that they were concerned the practice could migrate to other high-earing industries.

Ohtani’s contract structure is viewed as unique and not likely to be duplicated across the industry because the two-way star’s income streams from endorsements are unrivaled among major league players. For high earners outside baseball, though, the contract sets a potential precedent in a state whose top tax rate of 13.3 percent is among the highest in the nation.

“That is my concern,” said Becker, who represents the 13th Senate District covering portions of Santa Clara and San Mateo counties — areas that include much of Silicon Valley’s immense tech wealth. “It’s certainly a precedent for athletes but also could be used by executives to structure their compensation.”

Because high earners would have to establish out-of-state residency to avoid paying taxes on deferred amounts, Becker said the current tax code encourages people like Ohtani to leave the state.

“We should encourage people to stay here, which I believe this actually does,” Becker said.

Its a bit of a strange concern to be starting now given executives (and many others with say NQDC plans) have been structuring their pay under these rules for almost 30 years.

 

[DeJesus Built My Hotrod]

It was specifically reported that they were concerned the practice could migrate to other high-earing industries.

Ohtani’s contract structure is viewed as unique and not likely to be duplicated across the industry because the two-way star’s income streams from endorsements are unrivaled among major league players. For high earners outside baseball, though, the contract sets a potential precedent in a state whose top tax rate of 13.3 percent is among the highest in the nation.

“That is my concern,” said Becker, who represents the 13th Senate District covering portions of Santa Clara and San Mateo counties — areas that include much of Silicon Valley’s immense tech wealth. “It’s certainly a precedent for athletes but also could be used by executives to structure their compensation.”

Because high earners would have to establish out-of-state residency to avoid paying taxes on deferred amounts, Becker said the current tax code encourages people like Ohtani to leave the state.

“We should encourage people to stay here, which I believe this actually does,” Becker said.

I read the argument. I don't buy it or it suggests this person doesn't understand how most businesses work.

Outside of a sports CBA like baseball has which creates a system that rewards AAV smoothing, there aren't many industries that pay high enough salaries that can smooth out the deferral period. Ham and eggers like me aren't suddenly deferring my salary in exchange for a larger overall payout.

Furthermore, Othani and Snell and anyone else who takes these deferrals are also exposing themselves to the credit risk of the Dodgers and Guggenheim. That feels like a safe bet but there is a small risk that something changes and they won't be able to pay.

Now think about a C suite person that maybe gets a salary high enough to take this sort of deal from, say a tech company. We all know that high flying companies can fall on hard times, not to mention that most of this sector compensates via equity anyway, so executives in that industry don't feel like they will want these sorts of deals.

In short, it feels like this sort of thing will be limited to a very unique set of circumstances. But people have started political movements around crazier ideas.

 

[axx]

You'd be surprised at what Techbros get. But those RSUs are taxed like income I think and not like deferrals. The old skool stock options where you execute it like 10, 20 years later doesn't happen much anymore apparently.

 

[mikcou]

I read the argument. I don't buy it or it suggests this person doesn't understand how most businesses work.

Outside of a sports CBA like baseball has which creates a system that rewards AAV smoothing, there aren't many industries that pay high enough salaries that can smooth out the deferral period. Ham and eggers like me aren't suddenly deferring my salary in exchange for a larger overall payout.

Furthermore, Othani and Snell and anyone else who takes these deferrals are also exposing themselves to the credit risk of the Dodgers and Guggenheim. That feels like a safe bet but there is a small risk that something changes and they won't be able to pay.

Now think about a C suite person that maybe gets a salary high enough to take this sort of deal from, say a tech company. We all know that high flying companies can fall on hard times, not to mention that most of this sector compensates via equity anyway, so executives in that industry don't feel like they will want these sorts of deals.

In short, it feels like this sort of thing will be limited to a very unique set of circumstances. But people have started political movements around crazier ideas.

Yes, this is exactly why this has been a well known planning technique for execs and highly compensated employees in high tax-jurisdictions since the feds passed the law in the mid 90s. It is not used that much (or for a significant amount of money) because the intersection of: (1) employees who are receiving really material cash compensation (as compared to equity); (2) can afford to defer really substantial amounts of their compensation; and (iii) want to take that substantial of employer credit risk becomes a very small venn diagram.

More typically people make small deferrals as a part of a NQDC or similar plan that allows them to arbitrage federal and state rates with a relatively small amount of their comp packages while maintaining most of their cash comp.

Making major legislative changes over an extreme tail in the distribution isnt ever a great legislative response. MLB players themselves are substantially in the tial in that they do receive really substantial cash compensation. Ohtani is an extreme even in that tail that he has a material second income stream that allows him to not care that much that current cash is low.

 

[axx]

Yes, this is exactly why this has been a well known planning technique for execs and highly compensated employees in high tax-jurisdictions since the feds passed the law in the mid 90s. It is not used that much (or for a significant amount of money) because the intersection of: (1) employees who are receiving really material cash compensation (as compared to equity); (2) can afford to defer really substantial amounts of their compensation; and (iii) want to take that substantial of employer credit risk becomes a very small venn diagram.

Yeah. But in Ohtani's case, his risk is the US Government defaulting

Although I guess if that happens then he'd have a lot of other things to worry about.

 

[DeJesus Built My Hotrod]

Yes, this is exactly why this has been a well known planning technique for execs and highly compensated employees in high tax-jurisdictions since the feds passed the law in the mid 90s. It is not used that much (or for a significant amount of money) because the intersection of: (1) employees who are receiving really material cash compensation (as compared to equity); (2) can afford to defer really substantial amounts of their compensation; and (iii) want to take that substantial of employer credit risk becomes a very small venn diagram.

More typically people make small deferrals as a part of a NQDC or similar plan that allows them to arbitrage federal and state rates with a relatively small amount of their comp packages while maintaining most of their cash comp.

Making major legislative changes over an extreme tail in the distribution isnt ever a great legislative response. MLB players themselves are substantially in the tial in that they do receive really substantial cash compensation. Ohtani is an extreme even in that tail that he has a material second income stream that allows him to not care that much that current cash is low.

I still think the sponsor is a Giants fan. He represents San Mateo which is right next to San Francisco and San Francisco may hate LA more than Boston hates NY. The sports rivalries aren't the same but the regional pettiness is off the charts here. Because like NY, LA is pretty easy to loathe.

 

[lexrageorge]

Yeah. But in Ohtani's case, his risk is the US Government defaulting

Although I guess if that happens then he'd have a lot of other things to worry about.

Why? It's the Dodgers that owe the deferred money to Ohtani, not the US government.

 

[radsoxfan]

If a guy signs a regular contract for $10m a year for 10 years (so $100m total), each year being $10m, doesn't each year of the contract count as....$10m for purposes of the CBT? $10m in current dollars will be equivalent to about $13.4m in 2034. I don't know how to do the math, but it seems to me that $10m in 2034 is worth about $7.5m in 2024 dollars.

So why doesn't MLB calculate all contracts this way for the purpose of the CBT? Why only contracts that have deferments?

They just decided to normalize it to the total years of the contract, not the present day value. The delta here has increased because of how crazy long the contracts have gotten plus interest rates being higher. It didn't used to be that much of a difference.

In general I agree they should probably adjust the signing bonus stuff similarly to how they deal with deferrals so there is no way to game the system.

Right now the combination of big deferrals and big signing bonus basically can cancel out from the players perspective of present day value, while decreasing the tax number. This is exactly what the Dodgers did with Snell. The problem is not with how they deal with the deferrals, but with how they don't do the reverse with signing bonuses.

 

[axx]

Why? It's the Dodgers that owe the deferred money to Ohtani, not the US government.

My understanding is that the money withheld is to be put into "low risk" assets like Treasuries and AAA bonds, stuff like that. I think there's a perception that the cash out right now is only $2 million for Ohtani, that's not the case.

 

[GrandSlamPozo]

The Los Angeles CA State Income Tax Dodgers.

To me, this makes them very likable.

You like the fact that they're effectively stealing hundreds of millions of dollars of public funds?

 

[Lose Remerswaal]

You like the fact that they're effectively stealing hundreds of millions of dollars of public funds?

Do you pay more taxes than you have to?

 

[Tokyo Sox]

My understanding is that the money withheld is to be put into "low risk" assets like Treasuries and AAA bonds, stuff like that. I think there's a perception that the cash out right now is only $2 million for Ohtani, that's not the case.

I don't think this is correct. They're required to start funding the deferred part of the contract with "at least" $46mm a year starting in 2026 -- so the cash outlay really is only $2mm this year & next at least, if they want it to be -- but anyway the CBA basically says they can do whatever they want with the money once they start funding it. The funds need to be:

maintained in the form of unencumbered assets comprising cash or cash equivalents and/or registered and unrestricted readily marketable securities, unless a Club obtains the Parties’ prior written authorization of an alternative form

They can throw it into AAPL or an S&P tracker or whatever, and that's even if they don't obtain "authorization of an alternative form" which I'm guessing they did. Lets face it, it's Guggenheim, they've probably got a decent idea how to turn a pile of money into a much bigger pile of money, even with some restrictions.

The Ohtani structure, besides being of tremendous value, is also likely to be a net money maker for the Dodgers.

 

[NYCSox]

You like the fact that they're effectively stealing hundreds of millions of dollars of public funds?

For Christ sake no one is stealing anything. Again maybe the state should not have obscene income tax rates as that encourages tax avoidance schemes like this.

 

[nayrbrey]

Do you pay more taxes than you have to?

It’s called the lottery.

 

[OCD SS]

For Christ sake no one is stealing anything. Again maybe the state should not have obscene income tax rates as that encourages tax avoidance schemes like this.

C’mon, let’s not pretend that this contract structure is some kind of principled stand against the marginal tax rate at the state level, or that if it was at something deemed “more reasonable” then people in this income bracket would accept their tax burden.

I do not get the calls for the Dodgers to reign in their spending as some sort of problem that is solved by imposing a cap on player earnings, especially when teams continue to use their franchises to leverage other revenue streams, be they sports networks, real estate, or acting as a bank against deferred money. If it encourages other teams to compete (and spend), than it’s better for the sport than if owners can just sit back, do nothing, and watch their franchise values rise.

 

[GrandSlamPozo]

Do you pay more taxes than you have to?

Ignoring for a second your dishonest framing of the issue, if I was worth as much as Ohtani makes on his media endorsements alone then I would not structure a contract to defer almost all of my salary to a future date for the sole purpose of avoiding taxes, no. Even if it does make me less likeable in the eyes of forum posters who probably also complain about societal issues that could easily be fixed if we didn't have these loopholes allowing ultra wealthy people to avoid paying their fair share in the first place.

For Christ sake no one is stealing anything. Again maybe the state should not have obscene income tax rates as that encourages tax avoidance schemes like this.

He resides in CA, works in CA and is probably one of the highest salaried earners in the entire state and isn't paying state tax on like 95% of his salary, that's effextively the same thing as stealing in my book. Doesn't matter if it's technically legal.

CA seems to be doing just fine in spite of its high taxes. Anecdotal obviously, I moved to San Diego in the summer and would love to spend the rest of my life here if I can, but I make an average salary and tax cheats like Ohtani aren't helping make it any more affordable for people like me. If paying taxes aren't your thing that's cool too, you're free to move to a tax haven like TX or NH where you can spend all of your time complaining about how inadequate their public services are.

 

[Tokyo Sox]

Ignoring for a second your dishonest framing of the issue, if I was worth as much as Ohtani makes on his media endorsements alone then I would not structure a contract to defer almost all of my salary to a future date for the sole purpose of avoiding taxes, no.

Perhaps you'll be heartened to know that the bolded doesn't accurately describe what Ohtani did.

 

[GrandSlamPozo]

Perhaps you'll be heartened to know that the bolded doesn't accurately describe what Ohtani did.

I didn't say that it did. I was asked if I pay more taxes than I have to (which is a ridiculous way to frame a tax avoidance scheme) and my answer is that I would not be concerned a single iota about reducing my tax burden if I made Shohei Ohtani money. HTH

(Keep in mind the context of this conversation is discussing whether dodging taxes makes you likeable, as another poster stated it did)

 

[Van Everyman]

Perhaps you'll be heartened to know that the bolded doesn't accurately describe what Ohtani did.

Can somebody please put “Nobody Puts Shohei in a Corner” in this poster’s sig?

/hugs

 

[Tokyo Sox]

I didn't say that it did. I was asked if I pay more taxes than I have to (which is a ridiculous way to frame a tax avoidance scheme) and my answer is that I would not be concerned a single iota about reducing my tax burden if I made Shohei Ohtani money. HTH

(Keep in mind the context of this conversation is discussing whether dodging taxes makes you likeable, as another poster stated it did)

Sure fair, and I respect your stance - it's admirable, no snark. And I appreciate you were replying to a specific question from @Lose Remerswaal with a hypothetical but regardless how one feels about the tax stuff, your posts ignore the other main motivation Ohtani had to sign this kind of a deal, which is that it gave the Dodgers huge flexibility in pursuing other free agents. Calling the entire thing a tax-avoidance scheme completely ignores that crucial aspect of the deal. As to the specific issue of taxes, you're stating your opinion as fact. I'll be mildly indignant on Lose's behalf that you'd call his framing dishonest. It's a question about the real world we all live in, not the loophole-free utopia of your dreams.

Can somebody please put “Nobody Puts Shohei in a Corner” in this poster’s sig?

/hugs

Shobae 4 Life

 

[Lose Remerswaal]

Sure fair, and I respect your stance - it's admirable, no snark. And I appreciate you were replying to a specific question from @Lose Remerswaal with a hypothetical but regardless how one feels about the tax stuff, your posts ignore the other main motivation Ohtani had to sign this kind of a deal, which is that it gave the Dodgers huge flexibility in pursuing other free agents. Calling the entire thing a tax-avoidance scheme completely ignores that crucial aspect of the deal. As to the specific issue of taxes, you're stating your opinion as fact. I'll be mildly indignant on Lose's behalf that you'd call his framing dishonest. It's a question about the real world we all live in, not the loophole-free utopia of your dreams.

Mildly indignant is accurate. Legal tax avoidance is something tens of millions of people practice. 401Ks, Trusts, Deferred income, etc, are all very popular. It’s great that you, @GrandSlamPozo would consider Shohei’s income to be “enough”, so do I. But I’m not in a position to judge the man, as @Tokyo Sox suggests, since we don’t know his reasons or have enough info to truly know his motivations.

 

[DeadlySplitter]

John Lackey light protection due to injury:

View: https://twitter.com/JonHeyman/status/1864022629599830421