Notice: Trying to get property 'display_name' of non-object in /var/www/html/wp-content/plugins/wordpress-seo/src/generators/schema/article.php on line 52

Taking stock of the Yankees this offseason is a little like watching The Walking Dead. With the injuries to Alex Rodriguez and Derek Jeter, the left-side of the infield has decimated, and who knows how their future Hall of Fame closer, Mariano Rivera, will rebound from his injury last year? At a time when getting aggressive in free agency would be part and parcel for the Yankees, they are, instead, paring back. As strange as it sounds, “fiscal restraint”—whatever that is for the Yankees—has become a hot topic. In interview after interview, be it Hal Steinbrenner or Brian Cashman, talk of getting below “189” seems to find its way into the conversation.

For the uninitiated, “189” is a reference to MLB’s luxury tax ceiling of $189 million in player payroll that is set to hit in 2014. The Yankees have said that they are serious about getting under the figure by then, when the tax rate for the club would hit a whopping 50 percent for every dollar over that $189 million threshold. Last year, the Yankees had a luxury tax bill of $13,896,069, and they’ll certainly be paying again this year when the end-of-year payroll figures are released just before the holiday. As of 2011, the Bronx Bombers have paid $206,109,142 in luxury tax penalties, or 91 percent of the $227,119,157 total collected since 2003. It’s been painful to the Yankees’ wallet, so getting under that $189 million threshold is all about avoiding the luxury tax, right? In part, but there is something else to consider.

The current CBA features an additional mechanism to thwart lavish player payroll spending via penalties through the revenue-sharing system. In the new labor deal, the top 15 clubs by market size now have some of the revenue-sharing money that they pay into set aside and transferred to the likes of the Pirates and Royals. Depending on whether they break the luxury tax threshold (as well as how many consecutive times they break it), they’ll now get hit with an additional tax beginning in 2013

It works like this: for each year of the labor agreement, the top 15 clubs by market size are disqualified from receiving  a growing percentage of net revenue-sharing proceeds they otherwise would have been entitled to.  However (and here’s where the Yankees fit in), the CBA provides a clause by which these revenue-sharing funds are rebated for clubs that don’t break the luxury tax ceiling. The percentage of the revenue-sharing rebate that gets penalized if a team breaks the luxury tax ceiling escalates for each consecutive year: 25 percent for the first offense, then 50 percent, 75 percent, and eventually none of it comes back depending on how many years in a row the team blows through the luxury tax ceiling. It’s this escalating tax rate in two locations (the tax you get hit with for going over the luxury tax ceiling on top of the percentage of revenue-sharing held for being a top 15 market club) that can add extra pain to the Yankees’ wallet.

So when you think about it, the Yankees really have four reasons to get under the luxury tax threshold. For one, they will be lowering the actual payroll to $189 million, which is a savings by itself. In doing so, they avoid paying the luxury tax penalty, and they don’t lose revenue-sharing money through the new “Market Disqualification Refund.” It’s the fourth reason that could be of particular interest, though; if or when the Yankees finally break the consecutive year cycle of being over the luxury tax threshold, those steep tax rates reset. Thus, in the eyes of the CBA, it’s as if the Yankees have never been a luxury tax offender before. That could be an enticing position for the Yankees to be in. With the four aspects in combination, isn’t there the capacity to then step back on the pedal and fire up the spending machine in, say, 2015? The timing would certainly be interesting; the current contracts of Mark Teixeira and CC Sabathia are set to expire in 2016, and Alex Rodriguez’s expires the year after.

In the end, it’s the Yankees. There’s nothing to say that, at any point, they won’t drop the hammer as they’ve done so many times in the past. In looking at the larger picture, while the luxury tax and this new wrinkle with revenue-sharing seems squarely targeted at the Yankees, the league may be setting its sights a coast away on the Dodgers, who will almost certainly break the luxury tax threshold next season and likely a few more to come.

Thank you for reading

This is a free article. If you enjoyed it, consider subscribing to Baseball Prospectus. Subscriptions support ongoing public baseball research and analysis in an increasingly proprietary environment.

Subscribe now
You need to be logged in to comment. Login or Subscribe
Tough to see people paying actual American dollars to watch that baseball team.
Posted this on the wrong article. I am in fact an idiot.
It will be interesting to see if the potential strategy of waiting until 2015 to "fix" their roster works given how many superstarts are getting locked up by their original club. Having all the money in the world is not so useful if the best players are not for sale.
Maury is the rebate talked about something new?
Always enjoy your work Maury. I could definitely see the Yankees dialing it up again in 2015, no doubt about that.

The Dodgers seem to be taking it to a whole new level though.

This penalty was designed with the thought that it would make things a bit more fair for the lower revenue clubs, but do you think it will do anything to address the way players values on the open market can be artificially inflated by teams like the Dodgers, Angels, and Yankees when they drastically overpay?

Lower tier talent is getting more money than they otherwise would have in years past - at least that's my observation this off-season so far.

What are your thoughts on that?
Maury -- some time ago, there was a discussion about the Dodgers shielding all but the first $84M of RSN (and presumably, local terrestrial) TV revenue from revenue sharing. Is that a different pile of money, or do the Dodgers have a unique, blanket exemption from revenue sharing that will keep them in the stratosphere of league spenders?
If you ask MLB, they'll tell you all net local revenue (which this TV $ is) is counted for revenue sharing purposes. But, due the the bankruptcy agreement, it is capped. It's something that's piling more economic disparity in this new environment in which the Dodgers are already getting this massive revenue boost over everyone else.
Could you throw a number on the difference between the Yankees' finances if they spend $190M vs. $189M in 2014? Is it $100M over the next 4 years? $40M? $250M?