This Years final Payroll figures

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Majorball

Majorball

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 7, 2013
Messages
2,182
Likes
90
Points
48
Yanks to pay 28 million luxury tax for 2013 courtesy of ESPN New York

Team Final Payroll
Yankees $237M
Dodgers* 236.9
Red Sox* 176.5
Phillies 166.2
Tigers* 154.7
Angels 143.7
Giants 141.3
Rangers 137.2
Blue Jays 125.9
Nationals 120.9
Cardinals* 119.6
White Sox 116.7
Reds* 116.1
Orioles 103.3
Cubs 100.9
Braves* 95.3
Mets 95.1
Brewers 92.7
Mariners 91.1
Diamondbacks 90.2
Indians* 88.9
Royals 86.6
Rockies 78.8
Twins 76.1
Pirates* 74.6
Padres 74.2
A's* 71.1
Rays* 64.6
Marlins 42.3
Astros 29.3
*Made playoffs
 
Yanks luxury tax almost more than the stros payroll. That's bullshit. Houston should not get one penny.

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk
 
...the Yanx have now paid $250 Mil in Lux Tax since it began...and some people actually insist that the money goes to smaller market teams.
 
... the "$189" figure is pretty much dead. With ARod's salary, they're already over...without ARod's salary, they only have about $9 Mil left to spend.

...of course, they could increase that by cutting/trading some players but I'm not sure that will happen.
 
If they move Gardner, Ichiro and Wells, and lose Arod for the year, then they can still pay a Tanaka and be close to the $189, I think...
 
...^^^Ichiro costs the most, so I'd imagine that he's the odd man out...Wells' salary is peanuts but he won't bring much in return...Gardner would bring more in a trade.
 
Heres a yankee novelty. Trade gardner, Ichiro etc. and get back cost controlled players :devilwink::devilwink:
 
...but can those cost controlled players produce right away and at least equal Gardner's value?...if not, it would mean "subtraction by addition".
 
BigDaddyAl1973 said:
Yanks luxury tax almost more than the stros payroll. That's bullshit. Houston should not get one penny.

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...


...this is a common misconception about the Lux Tax...smaller market teams do not get Lux Tax money and people often confuse it with "revenue sharing" which is a completely separate and different deal entirely.


"Money raised through the luxury tax is set aside for industry development — not revenue sharing, as is commonly thought. It is distributed as such: the first $2.5 million is reserved for potential refunds, and then 75% is given to fund player benefits and 25% goes to the Industry Growth Fund "


http://www.fangraphs.com/library/business/luxury-tax/
 
yankeesince59 said:
...this is a common misconception about the Lux Tax...smaller market teams do not get Lux Tax money and people often confuse it with "revenue sharing" which is a completely separate and different deal entirely.


"Money raised through the luxury tax is set aside for industry development — not revenue sharing, as is commonly thought. It is distributed as such: the first $2.5 million is reserved for potential refunds, and then 75% is given to fund player benefits and 25% goes to the Industry Growth Fund "


http://www.fangraphs.com/library/business/luxury-tax/
Click to expand...

While what you said is true, they are getting money through the revenue sharing... and that shouldn't happen when their payroll is so miniscule... If there is a tax for going above $XMillion, there should be a similar tax for going under $YMillion... I would suggest the minimum should be either 65 or 75 Million. I don't know how the players wouldn't go for that...
 
yankeesince59 said:
...this is a common misconception about the Lux Tax...smaller market teams do not get Lux Tax money and people often confuse it with "revenue sharing" which is a completely separate and different deal entirely.


"Money raised through the luxury tax is set aside for industry development — not revenue sharing, as is commonly thought. It is distributed as such: the first $2.5 million is reserved for potential refunds, and then 75% is given to fund player benefits and 25% goes to the Industry Growth Fund "


http://www.fangraphs.com/library/business/luxury-tax/
Click to expand...

Thank you for correcting me.

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk
 
Hammerojustice said:
While what you said is true, they are getting money through the revenue sharing... and that shouldn't happen when their payroll is so miniscule... If there is a tax for going above $XMillion, there should be a similar tax for going under $YMillion... I would suggest the minimum should be either 65 or 75 Million. I don't know how the players wouldn't go for that...
Click to expand...


...yeah, and like I said, revenue sharing is separate from Lux Tax and mostly collected through TV/Cable deals. I saw a graphic the other day about some of the newer and pending TV deals for different teams and it's mind boggling. The Yanx' deal, ($90 Mil per year) which once was seen as a huge advantage over other teams is now only good for 5-6 place when compared to teams that have struck new deals in their area. For example, the Dodgers new deal is worth a whopping $340 Mil per year and I believe the Rangers and Angels deals are more double what the Yanx rake in. This is all money that is over and above ticket sales and concessions and other sales and really gives some teams a massive advantage over other team. In comparison, there are 4-5 smaller market teams that receive $20 Mil or less per year for TV rights.
...so while I once favored requiring teams to a spending minimum or a "floor", I just can no longer see how to do it because I think there will always be bottom feeders simply because of demographics and other factors. Some of these teams, such as the Rays and A's, always seem to field very competitive teams. Without revenue sharing some of the smaller market teams would likely fold eventually.
 
yankeesince59 said:
...yeah, and like I said, revenue sharing is separate from Lux Tax and mostly collected through TV/Cable deals. I saw a graphic the other day about some of the newer and pending TV deals for different teams and it's mind boggling. The Yanx' deal, ($90 Mil per year) which once was seen as a huge advantage over other teams is now only good for 5-6 place when compared to teams that have struck new deals in their area. For example, the Dodgers new deal is worth a whopping $340 Mil per year and I believe the Rangers and Angels deals are more double what the Yanx rake in. This is all money that is over and above ticket sales and concessions and other sales and really gives some teams a massive advantage over other team. In comparison, there are 4-5 smaller market teams that receive $20 Mil or less per year for TV rights.
...so while I once favored requiring teams to a spending minimum or a "floor", I just can no longer see how to do it because I think there will always be bottom feeders simply because of demographics and other factors. Some of these teams, such as the Rays and A's, always seem to field very competitive teams. Without revenue sharing some of the smaller market teams would likely fold eventually.
Click to expand...

I agree there will always be bottom feeders, BUT I'm just saying raise the bottom so the bottom feeders aren't quite as low...
 
It was always to my understanding that the extra money goes to the lower market teams they can use it to get better players. Apparently teams like the Astro's never got the memo & decided to pocket the money instead of investing it back into the team. Why is no one addressing this?
 
Rick2583 said:
It was always to my understanding that the extra money goes to the lower market teams they can use it to get better players. Apparently teams like the Astro's never got the memo & decided to pocket the money instead of investing it back into the team. Why is no one addressing this?
Click to expand...

who knows, but it needs to start happening...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top