Rosenthal: Tanaka signs with Yankees

EvilEmpire

paying for his sins
Moderator
SoSH Member
Apr 9, 2007
17,178
Washington
glennhoffmania said:
 
There are very few times I'd bet the over if the number is 97.  But I was kidding, since another 28 win improvement would put them at 125 wins this year.
I know you were kidding. I was just curious how likely you thought 97 wins was for the Sox. They had an amazing run last season and really seemed to validate the virtues of team chemistry -- the good kind, not the ARod kind. It was also a little like they caught lightning in a bottle though. If they fall off that 97-win pace a bit, there might be some more opportunity for the Yankees and others. The wildcards were at 92 wins.

I think the Yankees certainly have a shot at the playoffs unless they get devastated by injuries again.
 

ForceAtHome

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 23, 2008
4,011
Maine
glennhoffmania said:
 
Sure, they're better than last year.  Last year they had a pythag of 79 wins.  The question isn't whether they're better.  The question is whether they did enough to become a 95 win team again.  I don't think they did.
 
Do the Yankees really need to win 95 games? Since the second wild card was introduced two seasons ago, the bar to get into the AL playoffs has been 92-93 wins. If you factor in the second wild card retroactively to prior seasons, the bar has been even lower. Over the past 10 seasons, the 2nd wild card team has ranged from 87-93 wins with a mean of 90.2 wins and median of 90 wins. If the Yankees can win 87-93 games, they will almost certainly be in contention for the playoffs (via the wild card game at least).
 
Lowest win total of AL playoff teams by season:
2013: 92 wins
2012: 93 wins
2011: 91 wins (90 with 2nd WC)
2010: 95 wins (89 with 2nd WC)
2009: 95 wins (87 with 2nd WC)
2008: 95 wins (89 with 2nd WC)
2007: 94 wins (88 with 2nd WC)
2006: 95 wins (90 with 2nd WC)
2005: 95 wins (93 with 2nd WC)
2004: 98 wins (91 with 2nd WC)
 
I think the Yankees are certainly a talented enough team to threaten 87+ wins. I don't like that they signed Tanaka. I think he unquestionably makes them better and pushes them right on the fringe of being a potential wild card/playoff contender. With their financial muscle, there's no reason they can't add other pieces (e.g., Garza, Drew) to help push them further into playoff contention.
 

DennyDoyle'sBoil

Found no thrill on Blueberry Hill
SoSH Member
Sep 9, 2008
42,271
AZ
I don't believe the Yankees planned to blow away $189 all along.  I have a feeling if they had failed to sign Tanaka -- if the Mariners had gone crazy or something -- they still might have given it a go.  
 
It will be interesting to see if they sign Drew at this point -- if they do, it does tend to suggest they were thinking about trying to stay under $189, but not that's no longer an option, they might as well.  Unlike everyone else, the QO only costs them a second round pick, because they already have lost their others.
 

Rovin Romine

Johnny Rico
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
23,673
Miami (oh, Miami!)
RedOctober3829 said:
Cashman said they were on Tanaka ever since March and the A Rod money had nothing to do with their willingness to go over 189. If they had known all along they would spend on Tanaka with all their payroll obligations, why wouldn't they go all out to sign Cano? This offseason of total knee jerk spending because they missed the playoffs. They have no long term plan in place because their minor league system is total shit. You can't sustain long term success without homegrown players and that's why they won't be returning to their success of the late 90s.
 
Well, you can sustain long term success if you're willing to exploit the free agent market by:
a) signing the best available players to short rich deals
b) signing the best available players to long rich deals which you're willing to subsidize in future trades (to get rid of them when their prime is past).
 
That's basically the post 80s Yankee Model.  Wells, Cone, Clemens*, Irabu, Soriano, Mussina, Hernandez, et.al. were bought or singed as FAs.  Sure, the Yanks had Jeter, Williams, Rivera, Posada, Petite - but those guys resigned or extended at premium FA rates with the Yanks.  
 
*demanded a trade to the Yanks, then signed multiple times as a FA.
 

Sampo Gida

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 7, 2010
5,044
I am happy the Yankees realized that the savings from 189 would have been eaten up by lost revenues from not fielding a competitive team.  Of course, they only repeated the "its a goal not a mandate" a zillion times, but they had me wondering if JA was right.
 
As for the Yankees throwing away money, they have actually cut payroll in 2014 (thanks to Arods suspension). 
 
I now consider the Yankees in the race for the division.  Obviously, they have to get some luck on the injury front and they still have a couple of holes to fill
 
Be interesting to see if they go after Drew now.  Jeter is not going to play SS every day.  Drew has expressed a willingness to play other positions.  Cashman said today he sees Johnson as a platoon player and he has not played much 3B, and Tanaka is a GB pitcher who needs a solid IF defense.  Drew can play 3B and either switch over to SS on days Jeter needs a rest, preferably on days Tanaka pitches, or they could use Brendan Ryan at SS and keep Drew at 3B.
 
They also need another BP arm or two.
 

ivanvamp

captain obvious
Jul 18, 2005
6,104
Sampo Gida said:
I am happy the Yankees realized that the savings from 189 would have been eaten up by lost revenues from not fielding a competitive team.  Of course, they only repeated the "its a goal not a mandate" a zillion times, but they had me wondering if JA was right.
 
As for the Yankees throwing away money, they have actually cut payroll in 2014 (thanks to Arods suspension). 
 
I now consider the Yankees in the race for the division.  Obviously, they have to get some luck on the injury front and they still have a couple of holes to fill
 
Be interesting to see if they go after Drew now.  Jeter is not going to play SS every day.  Drew has expressed a willingness to play other positions.  Cashman said today he sees Johnson as a platoon player and he has not played much 3B, and Tanaka is a GB pitcher who needs a solid IF defense.  Drew can play 3B and either switch over to SS on days Jeter needs a rest, preferably on days Tanaka pitches, or they could use Brendan Ryan at SS and keep Drew at 3B.
 
They also need another BP arm or two.
Drew will help them defensively, but his bat doesn't really play well at 3b, does it?
 

ForceAtHome

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 23, 2008
4,011
Maine
ivanvamp said:
Drew will help them defensively, but his bat doesn't really play well at 3b, does it?
 
As a team, here's what the Yankees got from 3B last year: .231/.293/.340/.633. With Nunez/Ryan/Johnson looking like the likely candidates to get ABs at third for the Yankees in 2014 until another move is made, it's not as though the bar to improve is high.
 
Heck, the 3B spot as a whole around the AL was a modest .261/.323/.419/.742 last year. For comparison, Drew slashed .253/.333/.443/.777 in 2013. And who knows -- maybe that short porch could help Drew hit close to 20 HR?
 

Wingack

Yankee Mod
Moderator
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
34,360
In The Quivering Forest
I like the move. I still think that this team still needs some bullpen depth. I would like to see them gamble on some injured guys like Balfour, Hanrahan or Bailey.
 

Sprowl

mikey lowell of the sandbox
Dope
SoSH Member
Jun 27, 2006
34,437
Haiku
Tanaka, McCann and Ellsbury are three major acquisitions, each the best available player at their high-skill positions. If the Yankees stay healthy, they are again formidable, and hatable.
 
 
 
(climbs Orthanc, summons plague-ridden storm over Yankee Stadium)
 

Sampo Gida

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 7, 2010
5,044
I think one has to consider the revenue jump the Yankees will get with Tanaka in evaluating the deal.  If you consider he could put an additional 5-8 thousands fans in the park on days he pitches and at 85 dollars a pop that's 6-8 million right there.    In stadium merchandise sales, sponsorships and ads could equal that.  Plus the additional revenue in games he does not pitch from the team going to a non-competive team to one which could compete could help them recover the 58 million the lost in ticket sales last year per the WSJ report that was linked in the other thread.
 
ivanvamp said:
Drew will help them defensively, but his bat doesn't really play well at 3b, does it?
 
Well. 3B would be temporary, we all know Jeters days as a SS are coming to an end, and soon.   Drews numbers could look considerably better at 3B if he is platooned. 
 

jon abbey

Shanghai Warrior
Moderator
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
70,713
People keep citing Boston's jump from 2012 to 2013 as an example of what is possible, but even as an extreme turnaround case, that is only possible with young players like Bradley and Bogaerts and Middlebrooks ready to fill in for depth. NY is really thin if and when guys inevitably go down, and their bullpen is quite thin currently even with everyone healthy. 
 

ForceAtHome

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 23, 2008
4,011
Maine
jon abbey said:
People keep citing Boston's jump from 2012 to 2013 as an example of what is possible, but even as an extreme turnaround case, that is only possible with young players like Bradley and Bogaerts and Middlebrooks ready to fill in for depth. NY is really thin if and when guys inevitably go down, and their bullpen is quite thin currently even with everyone healthy. 
 
The aforementioned young players really didn't do that much for the 2013 Red Sox though. Bradley, Jr. hit .189 in 107 PA, Middlebrooks hit .227 in 374 PA, and Bogaerts had just 50 regular season PA in which he hit .250. All three posted an OPS of .600-something. The three of them combined had a negative bWAR and a negligible 0.3 fWAR.
 
The Red Sox success in 2013 had a lot more to do with regulars playing well and staying on the field than the young guns. On the offensive side, it had more to do with the good Ellsbury and very positive seasons from guys like Victorino/Napoli/Saltalamacchia/Drew. If the Yankees get a bit lucky with health and performance, I think they could certainly win 87-93 games and vie for a wild card spot.
 

Sampo Gida

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 7, 2010
5,044
jon abbey said:
People keep citing Boston's jump from 2012 to 2013 as an example of what is possible, but even as an extreme turnaround case, that is only possible with young players like Bradley and Bogaerts and Middlebrooks ready to fill in for depth. NY is really thin if and when guys inevitably go down, and their bullpen is quite thin currently even with everyone healthy. 
 
Bradley and Bogaerts had little to do with the turnaround IMO and WMB was the starting 3B after a strong 2012 before he was injured.  Iglesias helped to fill in for WMB and as trade bait for Peavy, but It was free agent signings like Victorino, Gomes, Drew, Napoli, Dempster and Uehara that put them on top, as well as relatively injury free seasons for Papi. Pedroia, Lackey and Ellsbury and bounceback season (or at least 2nd half) from Lester.   The main story of 2013 was not a youth driven success story.
 
The Yankees have added significant free agent signings thus far this year although some of that was offset with the loss of Cano, and hope for injury free seasons for Jeter, Tex, et all and a bounce back season from CC.  They don't need a 28 game turnaround, just a 10-15 game turnaround.  They have to have some luck on the injury front for position players like the Red Sox did last year, but that's something you can't control.  
 
The bullpen is just a couple of additions away from being robust, and I think you could see Banuelos pitch out of the bullpen if the 2nd half as they seek to limit his innings 
 

Hoplite

New Member
Oct 26, 2013
1,116
ForceAtHome said:
 
The aforementioned young players really didn't do that much for the 2013 Red Sox though. Bradley, Jr. hit .189 in 107 PA, Middlebrooks hit .227 in 374 PA, and Bogaerts had just 50 regular season PA in which he hit .250. All three posted an OPS of .600-something. The three of them combined had a negative bWAR and a negligible 0.3 fWAR.
 
The Red Sox success in 2013 had a lot more to do with regulars playing well and staying on the field than the young guns. On the offensive side, it had more to do with the good Ellsbury and very positive seasons from guys like Victorino/Napoli/Saltalamacchia/Drew. If the Yankees get a bit lucky with health and performance, I think they could certainly win 87-93 games and vie for a wild card spot.
 
I don't think it was about the younger players as much as it was about the team depth. The Red Sox had a lot go right for them in 2013, but they also did have some things go wrong. They lost two closers and a set up man to injury, David Ortiz was out at the beginning of the year, Clay Buchholz missed quite a bit of time, Will Middlebrooks had a pretty terrible year. And in all of those cases, we had formidable backups that were able to step in and produce, or we were able to trade one of our backups (Iglesias) for depth at a position. I think the kind of depth that the 2013 Red Sox had really set them apart from teams like the Blue Jays who put together a bunch of stars but then fell apart when some of them got hurt or were ineffective. And I don't currently see that kind of depth on the Yankees. They're hurting for primary players at multiple infield positions and much of the bullpen.
 

Sampo Gida

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 7, 2010
5,044
geoduck no quahog said:
I wonder is that backed up by Red Sox data?
 
Not sure also, but this from a wsj article
 


Had the Yankees failed to reach the playoffs in 2012, their ticket and suite revenues would have been closer to $300 million rather than $353 million, the people said. Similarly, in 2010 and 2011, postseason games accounted for $59 million and $58 million of all such revenues, respectively.
 
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303997604579238550215265832
 
Red Sox have a smaller stadium and probably lower ticket prices so the benefit is likely smaller.
 
The Rays supposedly made 17.7 million in 2008 post season from financial documents released on Deadpsin.
 
http://www.bizofbaseball.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=4716:inside-the-numbers-how-mlb-postseason-gate-revenues-are-split&catid=26:editorials&Itemid=39
 
I think more important than the revenue earned in the post season is its effects on attendance and sponsorships for the following year.  Since the Red Sox are pretty close to selling out every game anyways, they may not suffer from missing the post season as much as the Yankees do, although making the post season gives them an opportunity to raise ticket prices more than the could otherwise.  Attendance in the regular season can be somewhat of a lagging indicator, the Red Sox attendance drop last year was directly relates to 2012. The Yankees could have been looking at substantial attendance drops in 2014 after 2013, but their offseason may have helped dampen that some.  Remember, going into 2013 the expectations for the Red Sox were pretty low, perhaps too low which hurt advance ticket sales.  Yankee fans will have higher expectations now, although perhaps too high, and they may even see an attendance jump.
 

BigPapi23

New Member
Nov 10, 2006
1
Farrell on Tanaka: 'They signed a very good pitcher'
 
http://csnne.nbcsports.acquia-ps.com/boston-red-sox/farrell-tanaka-they-signed-very-good-pitcher
 

"With all the reports that we have,'' said John Farrell, "they've signed a very good pitcher. We're going to see how quickly he transition
 

Said outfielder Jonny Gomes: "People can go out and sign whoever they want right now. Boxing rules, we still have the belt; whoever else
reloads.''

 

 
 
 

Gomes joked: "That's flattering, right? [Brian] Cashman and [Joe] Girardi are about as professional as you're going to
get. They run a pretty tight camp. But it's kind of interesting -- $500 million and you still have some questions.
 

 
 

"You've got McCann, who hasn't been in the American League before; a pitcher who hasn't pitched a game [in the big leagues]. You've got some
guys playing different positions. But they've got some true professionals over there. And it's about winning the summer, it's not about winning the winter. [Winning during the season] is what we're going to try to do again.''

 
 

JimD

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 29, 2001
8,681
I don't get how any Sox fan would now be bothered by the Yankees making a legitimate big deal to improve their team.  They were always going to do that as long as the Steinbrenner clan runs the club.  I'd have been a lot more concerned if Cashman starting copying Ben's blueprint and engaged in a legitimate reload and rebuild of the farm system.
 

wade boggs chicken dinner

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 26, 2005
30,482
ivanvamp said:
I know they're spending money like crazy, but there's no way that the 2014 roster isn't significantly improved over the 2013 roster.  
 
You would hope they've improved - I haven't done the math, but I believe their new FAs (including Tanaka) will be paid $91M next year, which is more than the current payroll of the Os (and many other teams).

So basically, they've bought themselves a new team.
 
Thinking about it, I have to think what has happened is that Cashman was told to get under $189M, but Hal decided that he wanted Tanaka so Hal got what he wanted.  If this is true, I wonder if Cashman is still on some kind of budget.
 

Hoplite

New Member
Oct 26, 2013
1,116
It sounds like the Yankees may have outbid themselves by $35 million.
 
 
 
The Cubs made a final bid at six years and $120 million, according to a source close to the negotiations. 
 
http://www.csnchicago.com/cubs/yankees-blow-away-cubs-tanaka-sweepstakes
 
 
The Yankees and Chicago Cubs were believed to have outbid the Dodgers by "a decent amount," according to one person familiar with the Tanaka sweepstakes. Another said the Dodgers were "not anywhere close."
 
http://www.latimes.com/sports/baseball/mlb/dodgers/la-sp-tanaka-dodgers-20140123,0,3688412.story#axzz2rB5hyWN0
 

JimD

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 29, 2001
8,681

Hoplite

New Member
Oct 26, 2013
1,116
JimD said:
 
If you factor in the extra year at an AAV of $22 million, then they really only outbid the Cubs by $13 million or so.
 
Weird that the Dodgers weren't even close at the end.
 
The Dodgers reportedly weren't sold on him being a very good pitcher. It sounds like the Yankees had the highest opinion of Tanaka by a pretty wide margin (at least according to what Tanaka said). It looks like Cashman also got fooled in to the opt out clause. He said he included it because Tanaka's agent said every other serious offer included one and now it's being reported that the Cubs offer for $120 million didn't include one.
 

jon abbey

Shanghai Warrior
Moderator
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
70,713
jtn46 said:
If the market says Tanaka is worth $175 million (including the posting fee) there is no way Garza is only worth $48 million.
 
He just signed with Milwaukee for 4/52, I was pretty close at 4/48. 
 

Sprowl

mikey lowell of the sandbox
Dope
SoSH Member
Jun 27, 2006
34,437
Haiku
jon abbey said:
 
He just signed with Milwaukee for 4/52, I was pretty close at 4/48. 
 
Even closer, since the Brewers have to pay a premium for free agents, because Milwaukee. I'm surprised that Garza settled for such a low annual value, but I suppose that he has heard Time's winged chariot hurrying near, and wanted the years.
 

Jaylach

Gamergate shitlord
Sep 26, 2007
1,636
Vernon, CT
EvilEmpire said:
That's fair. I wouldn't predict that it happens again with Boston this year either ;)

Seriously though, so much of the success and failure of the Yankees and Sox over the years has depended on player health. Those dice have yet to roll, so many things still seem possible.

Yankees are way more vulnerable to injuries though. That's for sure.
 
This is where I'm at, though probably a different place on the line. 
 
So much of a team's success (in any league) depends on player health. The Red Sox were able to stay fairly healthy last year. How? Not their incredible medical staff but by having a lot of young (younger players typically get injured less) talent on the 25 man roster and then having a lot of young talent stashed away to deal with the inevitable injuries that will happen. 
 
I don't see the Yankee's having any young talent nor all that much young talent stashed away in the minors. Fielding a starting 9 of 30 and over, with little to no real young talent to fill in when they get hurt, seems like a Red Sox fan's dream come true.
 

Sampo Gida

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 7, 2010
5,044
Jaylach said:
 
This is where I'm at, though probably a different place on the line. 
 
So much of a team's success (in any league) depends on player health. The Red Sox were able to stay fairly healthy last year. How? Not their incredible medical staff but by having a lot of young (younger players typically get injured less) talent on the 25 man roster and then having a lot of young talent stashed away to deal with the inevitable injuries that will happen. 
 
I don't see the Yankee's having any young talent nor all that much young talent stashed away in the minors. Fielding a starting 9 of 30 and over, with little to no real young talent to fill in when they get hurt, seems like a Red Sox fan's dream come true.
 
Not sure I would call a 30-34 yo old players that much more susceptible to injuries than 20 something players unless they have poor injury history.
 
I think WMB was the only starting position regular I would call young after Iggy moved on.  Salty, Ellsbury who has had an injury history, and Pedroia were all 28-29. Napoli was 31 with  a bad hip, Drew 30 coming off a bad ankle injury, Gomes 32 and Papi 37 off a bad achilles injury and Victorino at 32.  They were not old but there were some players with a recent injury history.
 
The Yankees certainly were an older team, but 2 of their most serious injuries in season were to Granderson and Teixeira at age 32 and 33.  Neither had a history with significant injuries  
 
The Yankees in 2014 certainly have some older players in Beltran (RF) , Jeter (SS), Roberts (2B) and Soriano (DH). and Tex is coming off wrist surgery, while McCann has had some injury issues recently, as has Ellsbury .   Neither Jeter nor Roberts going down is the end of the world IMO since their replacements may be as good if not better than I expect either to be,  Yankees acquired a young guy in Dean Anna who could surprise at 2B.  410 OBP and 73 SB in AAA, albeit in the PCL last year, and Brendan Ryan at SS is not hard to take defensively.  Ichiro as backup for Beltran is not great, and they don't really have much in terms of backup for Soriano or Tex.  Gardner could move to CF if something were to happen to Ellsbury but that moves Soriano to LF.  Yankees do have some young C prospects that could step up if McCann goes down.   They are not in a good position to trade for help during the season though, not like the Red Sox
 
The Red Sox probably could not replace 38 yo Ortiz or 30 yo Pedroia, and injury prone Sizemore seems to be the back up for JBJ. I don't think XB is easily replaceable at SS with Iggy not around.  However, they could pull off a trade in season by parting with some prospects or surplus pitching
 
Pitching wise, the Red Sox look a bit older than the Yankees, but they have plenty of depth.  Yankees would be in trouble if either Kuroda (39) or the shrinking CC
go down.  However, Pineda and Banuelos could be young depth that can help if they are fully recovered.
 
Some injuries can be anticipated or expected, others just come out of nowhere.   Red Sox may be better positioned to handle injuries than the Yankees, but as we saw in 2010-2012, too many injuries can bring down any team.
 

Sampo Gida

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 7, 2010
5,044
JimD said:
I don't get how any Sox fan would now be bothered by the Yankees making a legitimate big deal to improve their team.  They were always going to do that as long as the Steinbrenner clan runs the club.  I'd have been a lot more concerned if Cashman starting copying Ben's blueprint and engaged in a legitimate reload and rebuild of the farm system.
 
How is this Bens blue print?.  His first moves were to trade prospects for relief pitchers and one of his latter moves was to trade Iggy for an older SP'er for 14 months.  He did yield some prospects in that salary dump that was a gift from heaven, and probably a once in a  lifetime opportunity.  He did get a top 10 pick but had to lose 93 games to get it.  Most of the prospects in the pipeline for the Red Sox now were signed during Theos years.
 

StuckOnYouk

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 26, 2006
3,538
CT
He's referring to Ben's blueprint to sign Free Agents to less years in exchange for more per year. I don't know if Ben owns that blueprint but he utilized it to win the WS and he's sticking to it.
But he's got a very strong farm system to use as a backdrop while Cashman has done a hideous job of developing talent. So maybe it's not comparable.
 

Sampo Gida

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 7, 2010
5,044
StuckOnYouk said:
He's referring to Ben's blueprint to sign Free Agents to less years in exchange for more per year. I don't know if Ben owns that blueprint but he utilized it to win the WS and he's sticking to it.
But he's got a very strong farm system to use as a backdrop while Cashman has done a hideous job of developing talent. So maybe it's not comparable.
 
My bad then.  Yeah, I recommended the Yankees follow that blue print.  They probably could have signed Salty instead of McCann, but not sure what they could have done in the OF in lieu of Ellsbury.  Beltrans only 3 years.   Tanaka is pretty much on a 4 year deal if he is good.  Drew would be a good guy on that blue print and supposedly the Yankees are taking another look there.
 
http://www.cbssports.com/mlb/writer/jon-heyman/24418305/with-tax-no-longer-an-issue-yankeesare-now-looking-closely-at-drew
 
Of course, the Red Sox had a stronger core than the Yankees with Papi, Pedroia and Ellsbury.  The Yankees only had Jeter, Tex and Gardner as their core (assuming Cano was not an option), so they needed to add to the core to replace Cano and you can only do that with a longer deal
 

jon abbey

Shanghai Warrior
Moderator
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
70,713
Yeah, I think future CBAs really should take different tax burdens in different states/cities into account, it's especially unfair in capped sports like the NFL and NBA. 
 

Rough Carrigan

reasons within Reason
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
jon abbey said:
Yeah, I think future CBAs really should take different tax burdens in different states/cities into account, it's especially unfair in capped sports like the NFL and NBA. 
I strongly disagree.
If a city or state wants to have high tax burdens, then they should live with the consequences even the ones in life's candy store. 
 

glennhoffmania

meat puppet
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 25, 2005
8,411,586
NY
That is so wrong on just about every level.  I really wish we could stop having the same dumb tax discussion every time someone signs a big contract.
 

jon abbey

Shanghai Warrior
Moderator
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
70,713
Rough Carrigan said:
I strongly disagree.
If a city or state wants to have high tax burdens, then they should live with the consequences even the ones in life's candy store. 
 
But doesn't it go both ways? The larger revenues are also often entwined with the same decisions, why should the spending power be limited then? A cap is a cap, tax burdens are out of a team's control (again, this is much more applicable/relevant in the NFL and NBA than in MLB). 
 

Average Reds

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 24, 2007
35,330
Southwestern CT
There is a certain logic to what you are suggesting and I'm sure the MLBPA would be happy to agree.   But there is no chance the owners would agree to this.  Hell, the other owners would laugh the Yankees out of the room for bringing it up.
 

jon abbey

Shanghai Warrior
Moderator
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
70,713
Average Reds said:
There is a certain logic to what you are suggesting and I'm sure the MLBPA would be happy to agree.   But there is no chance the owners would agree to this.  Hell, the other owners would laugh the Yankees out of the room for bringing it up.
 
Yeah, again, my issue is much more with the other sports, and it's not solely a NY issue. It's unfair to everyone for sports teams in FL and TX to have the advantage of no state income tax when there are hard caps at work. 
 

Rough Carrigan

reasons within Reason
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
jon abbey said:
 
But doesn't it go both ways? The larger revenues are also often entwined with the same decisions, why should the spending power be limited then? A cap is a cap, tax burdens are out of a team's control (again, this is much more applicable/relevant in the NFL and NBA than in MLB). 
The cities and states that have those extraordinary tax burdens are also generally the bigger markets where players have more opportunities for making endorsement money.  So, I think it goes back to being perfectly fair that those cities, like New York, will just have to live with some of the downsides of being New York.  Boo hoo.
 

Average Reds

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 24, 2007
35,330
Southwestern CT
geoduck no quahog said:
I call Bullshit
 
It is bullshit.
 
As we have discussed, players are taxed where they play actual games, not based on the team they play for.  So a Yankees player would presumably expose half of his salary to New York State/City Income Taxes, but the other half of his salary would be subject to the State/City Income Taxes where the away games are played.
 
The burden for a NY player is still higher, but that example is a significant exaggeration.  (Note:  I am shocked - SHOCKED! - that an anti-tax PAC would do such a thing.) 
 
In terms of the total tax rate, there is also an assumption that 100% of the player's income is exposed to income taxes, which is a rather dubious assumption.
 

glennhoffmania

meat puppet
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 25, 2005
8,411,586
NY
jon abbey said:
 
Yeah, again, my issue is much more with the other sports, and it's not solely a NY issue. It's unfair to everyone for sports teams in FL and TX to have the advantage of no state income tax when there are hard caps at work. 
 
The impact isn't as significant as one might think.  Let's use a state rate of 6%.  Some states are higher (ie., CA and NY) and some are lower (ie., PA and MA).  Now let's take the absolutel worst case scenario: the player never leaves the state so all of his income is taxed in his home state with no credits and he has no deductions for state purposes, both of which are completely impossible.  The net effect of the state income tax is 3.6% since state taxes are deductible for federal purposes.  So using this completely unrealistic worst case scenario, FL and TX have a 3.6% advantage over this hypothetical state with an income tax.  The reality is it's much lower than 3.6% though.
 

Average Reds

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 24, 2007
35,330
Southwestern CT
glennhoffmania said:
 
The impact isn't as significant as one might think.  Let's use a state rate of 6%.  Some states are higher (ie., CA and NY) and some are lower (ie., PA and MA).  Now let's take the absolutel worst case scenario: the player never leaves the state so all of his income is taxed in his home state with no credits and he has no deductions for state purposes, both of which are completely impossible.  The net effect of the state income tax is 3.6% since state taxes are deductible for federal purposes.  So using this completely unrealistic worst case scenario, FL and TX have a 3.6% advantage over this hypothetical state with an income tax.  The reality is it's much lower than 3.6% though.
 
There is also the city tax for NY, but the point stands.
 
Given the way these taxes are actually levied, the relative disadvantage for NY in terms of state tax is probably less than 1% and the city taxes are probably in the 2% range.  It's not insignificant, but not nearly the handicap that people like to make it out to be.
 

threecy

Cosbologist
SoSH Member
Sep 1, 2006
1,587
Tamworth, NH
Average Reds said:
 
There is also the city tax for NY, but the point stands.
According to Forbes, the New York state tax would be applicable to days in which Tanaka plays, works out, or has a meeting in state.  I wonder if New York City allows this as well, or if they attempt to levy the city income tax on 100% of the income?

 
 

Montana Fan

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 18, 2000
8,879
Twin Bridges, Mt.
For those callers of bullshit, I know the dollars are extraordinary but would it be accurate to say that the various forms of government will take over 50% of Tanaka's earnings? While that may not seem like a lot to you, it does seem like a lot to me.
 

glennhoffmania

meat puppet
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 25, 2005
8,411,586
NY
Average Reds said:
 
There is also the city tax for NY, but the point stands.
 
Given the way these taxes are actually levied, the relative disadvantage for NY in terms of state tax is probably less than 1% and the city taxes are probably in the 2% range.  It's not insignificant, but not nearly the handicap that people like to make it out to be.
 
Sure but one doesn't have to live in NYC obviously.  NYC residents pay the most all things being equal, no doubt about it.  But when these broad generalizations are made by someone who knows nothing about tax laws (ie., the author of that article) it really grinds my gears.
 
I'm not a personal income tax expert but there's a reason why so many people are.  If it was as simple as some people make it sound the experts would be useless.
 

glennhoffmania

meat puppet
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 25, 2005
8,411,586
NY
Montana Fan said:
For those callers of bullshit, I know the dollars are extraordinary but would it be accurate to say that the various forms of government will take over 50% of Tanaka's earnings? While that may not seem like a lot to you, it does seem like a lot to me.
 
I'd say it's possible that various forms of government may take almost 50% of Tanaka's taxable income.  That's not the same thing as 50% of his earnings.  I have seen the tax returns of some people who make as much or more than Tanaka, and their effective rates are well below 50%, partly due to good tax planning.