greasywheels121 Posted December 28, 2004 Share Posted December 28, 2004 This time, Yankees not alone in owing luxury tax Dec. 27, 2004 SportsLine.com wire reports NEW YORK -- The Boston Red Sox got an extra bill after winning the World Series. Boston, Anaheim and the New York Yankees must pay baseball's luxury tax, according to final figures compiled by the commissioner's office. The Yankees are required to pay $25,026,352, according to a Dec. 21 memorandum that was sent to all major league teams. Boston owes $3,155,234 for exceeding the payroll threshold of $120.5 million and Anaheim got a bill for $927,059. Checks for the competitive-balance tax, as it is formally known, are due at the commissioner's office by Jan. 31. "The CBT is now an important part of baseball's economic landscape," Red Sox owner John Henry said in an e-mail Monday. "From my perspective, even though it costs us, the stronger the CBT is in the future, the stronger the sport is going to be. It is a much more productive form of taxation than that of strictly revenue taxation because the economic incentives for teams are not damaged." In 2003, the first year of the new luxury tax, the Yankees were the only team to pay, owing $11,798,357, according to the team's latest revised bill. Because they exceeded the threshold a second time, the Yankees were taxed at a rate of 30 percent for the amount they were over. Boston and Anaheim were taxed at a 22.5 percent rate. If the Yankees go over the 2005 threshold of $128 million, which appears certain, they would be taxed at a 40 percent rate. New York also estimates it will give up about $60 million as part of baseball's revenue-sharing plan this season, meaning the Yankees will send the commissioner's office about $85 million of their estimated $315 million revenue in 2004. Boston's revenue-sharing payment is estimated at approximately $42 million on revenue of at least $220 million. The Yankees easily finished ahead of other teams in the regular payrolls figures for the sixth straight season, winding up at a record $187.9 million, $18 million above the previous mark they set in 2003. Boston, which overcame a 3-0 deficit against the Yankees in the American League Championship Series and won the World Series for the first time since 1918, was second at $130.4 million. Anaheim, defeated by the Red Sox in the first round of the playoffs, was third at $115.6 million, followed by the New York Mets ($103.2 million), Los Angeles ($101.7 million), the Chicago Cubs ($100.7 million) and Philadelphia ($97.4 million). St. Louis, swept by Boston in the World Series, was eighth at $92.8 million. At the other end, Tampa Bay finished with the lowest payroll for the third straight season. At $24.4 million, the Devil Rays had the lowest figure for any team since 2000. Milwaukee was 29th at $29.6 million, down from $43.3 million, and Pittsburgh was 28th at $32.5 million, down from $53.3 million. Texas fell from fifth at $103.3 million to 13th at $79.2 million, Atlanta went from sixth at $98 million to 12th at $79.4 million, Seattle dropped from seventh at $97.7 million to 11th at $81.8 million and Arizona declined from 11th at $83.8 million to 15th at $68.4 million. Anaheim rose from 12th at $80 million to third, the Cubs increased from 10th at $84 million to sixth and Philadelphia went up from 15th at $71.5 million to seventh. Payrolls include salaries, prorated shares of signing bonuses, earned bonuses, buyouts of 2004 options and cash transactions. For the luxury tax, which is based on 40-man rosters, the average annual values of contracts and includes benefits, the Yankees finished with a payroll of $203.9 million, while Boston was at $134.5 million and Anaheim at $124.6 million. Many midlevel teams appear to be spending money on free agents this offseason, possibly because of the shift in economics created by increased revenue sharing. That could push the average salary higher next season. According to the players' association, the average dropped 2.5 percent this year to $2,313,535 from $2,372,189, the first decrease since 1995 and only the third since record-keeping began in 1967. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qwerty Posted December 28, 2004 Share Posted December 28, 2004 They are nothing like the yankees though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greasywheels121 Posted December 28, 2004 Author Share Posted December 28, 2004 They are nothing like the yankees though. I was waiting for that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kogs35 Posted December 28, 2004 Share Posted December 28, 2004 all together your bill is 85 mill by jan31 mr. steinbrener Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rex Kickass Posted December 28, 2004 Share Posted December 28, 2004 Dumb question: What happens with all that money? Does it get redistributed to the other 29 MLB teams? Or is that how they're funding the Expos? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rex Hudler Posted December 28, 2004 Share Posted December 28, 2004 Dumb question: What happens with all that money? Does it get redistributed to the other 29 MLB teams? Or is that how they're funding the Expos? it gets redistributed.......... not sure exactly how, but I do not believe it is in equal shares Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WilliamTell Posted December 28, 2004 Share Posted December 28, 2004 Are any of you guys in favor of a salary cap??? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rex Kickass Posted December 28, 2004 Share Posted December 28, 2004 No. Market forces are just fine. Baseball is exempt from anti-trust laws which means that they can collude, so if they really want to set a ceiling, they oughta do it in the smokey back room and let the players get what they can get. Smart teams will find a way to win with the salary cap that they set. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted December 28, 2004 Share Posted December 28, 2004 Are any of you guys in favor of a salary cap??? I am in favor of a salary range and something to restore the competitive balance. I would even be interested in a plan where teams are aligned based on payrolls not traditional or geographic lines. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Palehosefan Posted December 28, 2004 Share Posted December 28, 2004 I'm also in favor of a salary cap. Football is amazingly balanced due to the cap, its a great sport to watch because any team can pop up and win in almost any year. Baseball you know the Yankees, Red Sox, etc are always going to be there because they don't have to rebuild, just re-load. Other teams have to hire a baseball genius as a GM just to compete. I wouldn't mind the cap being somewhere around 100-120 million, which would mostly hurt the Yankees, but it would also free up FA's to come to other teams instead of always signing with the Yankees and could create parity. I'm also in favor of a baseball floor, or a minimum salary for teams. It would make owners that aren't interested in having their team compete for championships either sell the team or dish out the money. They could make the minimum salary for a team at something around 40 million. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WilliamTell Posted December 29, 2004 Share Posted December 29, 2004 Yeah for the most part I'm in favor of salary caps. Football has been more interesting because of it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YASNY Posted December 29, 2004 Share Posted December 29, 2004 A salary cap should be balanced by a salary floor. Otherwise, I'm in favor of it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted December 29, 2004 Share Posted December 29, 2004 A salary cap should be balanced by a salary floor. Otherwise, I'm in favor of it. Exactly why the NFL is so successful. No Yankees, but no Tampa Bay's either. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rex Kickass Posted December 29, 2004 Share Posted December 29, 2004 No Yankees? Maybe not but last time I checked, Green Bay has been the equivalent of the Atlanta Braves, always making the postseason. Much like the Braves, they only have the one ring to show for it. The Patriots have won two of the last three superbowls and look primed to get to this years. Football has more parity because every game counts. Not so good teams that get a hot streak can get a lot further. A four game win streak in FB is like a twenty game win streak in Baseball. If baseball had a 16 game season, we'd have a lot more parity too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Queen Prawn Posted December 29, 2004 Share Posted December 29, 2004 No Yankees? Maybe not but last time I checked, Green Bay has been the equivalent of the Atlanta Braves, always making the postseason. Much like the Braves, they only have the one ring to show for it. The Patriots have won two of the last three superbowls and look primed to get to this years. Since about '92 or '93 (too lazy to look it up). Before then they weren't all that great during the late 70s and 80s (at least the 80s). It's also helped the Pack that the division they are in is as weak as the one that holds the Sox. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rex Kickass Posted December 29, 2004 Share Posted December 29, 2004 How many rings did the Yankees get in the 80s? The Indians had a lot of lean years before they dominated our division for most of the 90s. The Twins had lean years too. It has nothing to do with the need for a salary cap, it has everything to do with a desire to win. The A's have shown that you can be successful without spending tons of cash, so did the Marlins last year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlaSoxxJim Posted December 29, 2004 Share Posted December 29, 2004 How many rings did the Yankees get in the 80s? The Indians had a lot of lean years before they dominated our division for most of the 90s. The Twins had lean years too. It has nothing to do with the need for a salary cap, it has everything to do with a desire to win. The A's have shown that you can be successful without spending tons of cash, so did the Marlins last year. But that's just a statistical numbers game. With 25 small- to middle-market teams, there's bound to be one or two teams every year that catch lightning in a bottle. Picking WHICH team it's going to be is another matter. 9 times out of 10 you know the moneyed teams are going to be at or near the top of their divisions. And 9 times out of 10, the majority of the small-market teams are not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rex Kickass Posted December 29, 2004 Share Posted December 29, 2004 Yes, like the Texas Rangers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.