Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
As an example, when the Red Sox signed Matsuzaka, Boras was pi55ed off that the Red Sox said, essentially, "Look, we think the guy is worth about $100 million. But the rules end up giving half that to his NPB team. We'll give him the other half." And Boras complained but eventually Matsuzaka signed. So, let's say that the posting fee had counted toward the luxury tax when Matsuzaka was being posted and the Sox and Mets and others would only go up to, say, $35 million. Instead of Matsuzaka getting a total of $50 million, he would have gotten $65 million. How could the MLBPA possibly be against that?! How will they explain to the players that they'd rather see money go to Rakuten than to Tanaka, a soon to be MLB player?
There has been speculation that the fee could even exceed $100 million, and that’s before the winning team negotiates a contract with the righthander, expected to be in the range of six years and $65 million-$70 million.
If MLB started counting posting fees towards the luxury tax the MLBPA would file a grievance that would be upheld in about 5 seconds.
I know this is just speculation but that's insane. A $100 million posting fee plus a 6/$65 contract would work out to $27.5 million per year for a guy that has never pitched in MLB. He'd be the most expensive pitcher (though not actually the highest paid) in MLB history.
the top three posting teams should have the right to negotiate with the player...it might be a little chaotic, but it seems the most fair(although I doubt the current owner/team of the player would like that, as you would then have three different posting fees)
Isn't the luxury tax formula part of the CBA? It's not like ObamaCare - Selig can't just change it anytime he finds it convenient.
The luxury tax is a Yankees and now Dodgers tax and that's really about it.
I do have to chuckle at the idea of the Yankees and Pirates squabbling over this. Makers vs takers writ small.
Wouldn't it lower posting fees but have no effect on the amount of money going to the player?
Sounds like something a welfare-sucking taker would say to make themselves feel better about their parasitic nature.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
Login to Join ()
Page rendered in 2.6704 seconds, 58 querie(s) executed