Author Topic: Competitive Balance Tax  (Read 4766 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online PowerBoater69

  • Posts: 12566
    • Twitter
Re: Competitive Balance Tax
« Topic Start: January 01, 2018, 02:55:56 PM »
The Nats media probably wants to overlook that he denied the luxury tax thing. I mean, the Nats probably won't win an appeal at how to calculate AAV on certain salaries, and it is public knowledge what most of the players are making by AAV. Rizzo isn't wrong that they haven't gone over yet because arbitration salaries have not been awarded. Still, an estimate of arbitration salaries plus NOT signing Kintzler and Adams would have had around 7 Million of wiggle room below the Luxury tax threshold. Unless the Nats expect to have most of the arb guys just take HUGE pay cuts (which won't work in the arbitration process), that puts the Nats over. It might be Rizzo just playing his cards close to his vest because they are being cautious with the FA and trade markets. The Nats also know that they have an anchor in Wieters for the coming season, and it won't be easy to offload Wieters AND get back a quality catcher that would help the team for a few years.

Strasburg is being counted as a $25M/year cap hit, but his 2023 salary is $45M, what happens if he opts out after 2019 or 2020? There is about $4 million per year being counted against the Nats that is over what is guaranteed if he opts out. Not enough to make up the difference between the cap and the $7M the Nats were reported to have gone over.

I keep going back to Rizzo's statement that the team didn't go over, obviously he knows something that isn't public and I would not count the team out in a dispute. An interesting comment I read on Talk Nats the other day was that the claims of the MASN dispute holding down the Nats spending go out the window when the Nats are trying to stay under the cap.