The LoHud Yankees Blog

A New York Yankees blog by Chad Jennings and the staff of The Journal News


Eli Whiteside sighting! Now playing for the Rangers

Posted by: Chad Jennings - Posted in Misc on Dec 12, 2012 Print This Post Print This Post | Email This Post Email This Post

Seriously, this guy just can’t find a place to stay.

Eli Whiteside has been claimed off waivers again. This time it’s the Rangers who have nabbed the backup catcher. This winter he’s been designated for assignment by the Giants, claimed by the Yankees, signed by the Yankees, designated for assignment by the Yankees, claimed by the Blue Jays, designated for assignment by the Blue Jays and claimed by the Rangers.

Considering Texas already has Geovany Soto and seems to be a possible landing spot for A.J. Pierzynski, this might not be the last time Whiteside changes teams this winter. It’s certainly not the first.

Comments

comments

 
 

Advertisement

25 Responses to “Eli Whiteside sighting! Now playing for the Rangers”

  1. chicken little December 12th, 2012 at 5:11 pm

    On the bright side, Whiteside is wanted (sort of).

  2. Nick in SF December 12th, 2012 at 5:28 pm

    As I understand it, the whole tax savings business is pretty simple, but maybe my understanding of it is overly simplistic.

    As it stands now, the Yanks pay a 40% penalty Luxury Tax on every dollar they spend over $178M. They pay this maximum rate because they’re chronic offenders.

    In 2014 the penalty Luxury Tax rate goes up to 50% chronic offenders but the threshold to reach this penalty rises to $189M.

    If they can get and stay under $189M for 2014 then their penalty rate for going over in the future would be reset to 17% for the first offense.

    The money the Yanks pay in Luxury Tax goes to various MLB programs; it is not redistributed to low-revenue teams. What is redistruted to low-revenue teams is a tax on revenue, which are not directly tied to the payroll. This is called Revenue Sharing.

    The benefit in staying under the $189M for three consecutive years would be in receiving a partial rebate on Revenue Sharing payments.

    Jerkface, does that all sound correct?

  3. Jerkface December 12th, 2012 at 5:30 pm

    Yes except that they paid 42.5% in 2012, and will pay 50% tax in 2013.

  4. pat December 12th, 2012 at 5:33 pm

    MarcCarig
    Here’a how the game works: Every time Eli Whiteside gets claimed off waivers, we do a shot.

  5. Doreen December 12th, 2012 at 5:39 pm

    Nick in SF -

    I heard Cashman on MLB-sirius and he talked about the savings that would occur in revenue sharing, that that is the biggest fish, so to speak, and so I’m guessing they’re in this for the long haul.

    I’m thinking the Yankees are tired of giving their money away to teams that then choose not to spend it? Maybe?

  6. Jerkface December 12th, 2012 at 5:42 pm

    I’m thinking the Yankees are tired of giving their money away to teams that then choose not to spend it? Maybe?

    They don’t have much of a choice in the matter. They will still give their money away to those teams. The revenue sharing is 4 teams (braves, oak, wash, tor) getting their revenue sharing money taken away. Once they lose it, the Yankees will still be giving the same amount it’ll just go in greater proportion to the worse off teams.

  7. Nick in SF December 12th, 2012 at 5:43 pm

    Thank you. So, as you and others have said, the greatest savings they’ll see in lowering their 2014 payroll will be in the reduction of the payroll itself, which includes the 50% penalty on every dollar above $189M.

    So, if they end up with a $190M payroll in 2014, they will not lower their penalty rate for future years but they will still get the benefit of not spending all the money they’re not spending, which is still a large amount of money.

    Lowering the penalty rate might be a worthy goal if they plan to ramp up spending again in a major way for a future single year. But if they’re fairly close to the $189M anyway, the difference in penalty tax rates makes for a very small number of dollars in the context of what they spend and make.

  8. Jerkface December 12th, 2012 at 5:50 pm

    I think the key for them is getting under 189 so they can collect the revenue sharing rebates, meager though they are in comparison to overall revenues. If they end up close but no cigar on 189, I think they’d prefer to just spend normally in that instance. Seems like it wouldn’t really be worth it to get so close and not get under, unless their goal is truly just to pinch pennies.

  9. Nick in SF December 12th, 2012 at 6:00 pm

    Getting from $210 to $190M (made up numbers) isn’t pinching pennies, it’s still a savings of $30M ($20M plus not paying 50% tax on that $20M). A lot of this savings is going to come just from not replacing expensive legacy contracts with equally expensive contracts. So when Mo finally does retire, don’t replace him with Soriano, replace him with DRob or Montgomery, etc.

    But yes, getting the Revenue Sharing rebate would be the other big chunk of change sitting at the end of the rainbow. I don’t really even object to them going after that either, but must that process begin in 2014, as opposed to 2015-2017? If Mo has a blast this year and wants to give it one more go in 2014, are they saying no because of the magic $189M for that year?

  10. jacksquat December 12th, 2012 at 6:01 pm

    The Braves made an “aggressive” offer for Shin-Soo Choo before the Reds acquired him, Ken Rosenthal of FOX Sports reports (on Twitter). The Mariners were also involved, but their offer wasn’t as strong.

    Granderson?

  11. Jerkface December 12th, 2012 at 6:03 pm

    I don’t really even object to them going after that either, but must that process begin in 2014, as opposed to 2015-2017

    Well probably because they wont be able to get any rebates in 2017. Though 2015 wouldn’t be bad. The program only extends from 2013-2016. 25%,50%,75%,100% forfeiture in that order.

  12. G. Love December 12th, 2012 at 6:03 pm

    I’m telling you, we’re going to end up re-signing Swisher and trade Grandy to the Braves before all is said and done. Unless a team gets stupid with dollars/years on Swisher, I think the Yankees are going to look at paying him 12-15 million for 3-4 years as a value buy and dump Grandy.

    I don’t have inside info on this or anything – just a hunch.

  13. Jerkface December 12th, 2012 at 6:04 pm

    Their thinking probably was, with current contracts it is impossible to get under 178 by 2013, so we’ll shoot for 2014 when everything expires and the limit is raised.

  14. Patrick December 12th, 2012 at 6:05 pm

    The Braves made an “aggressive” offer for Shin-Soo Choo before the Reds acquired him, Ken Rosenthal of FOX Sports reports (on Twitter). The Mariners were also involved, but their offer wasn’t as strong.

    Granderson?

    What do you want back?

  15. Nick in SF December 12th, 2012 at 6:08 pm

    What I’m grasping at is this: some form of rebuilding/reloading is coming just because Mo/Andy are on the way out after this season or maybe next season, Jeter who knows exactly but within a relatively short time as well, and Kuroda will be gone soon as well. That’s a lot of money saved right there.

    The kids on the farm, should they make it, still won’t all be ready by 2014. Don’t go nuts to get to a number in 2014 when the new era is coming soon after.

  16. The Return of Stoneburner December 12th, 2012 at 6:10 pm

    pretty interesting stuff

    Scenario 1 ($210M to $189M in 2014, returns to $210M in 2015 and beyond): total savings of $55M, CBA savings of $23M.
    Scenario 2 ($210M to $189M in 2014, stays at $189 for 3 seasons): total savings of $147M, CBA savings of $53M.
    Scenario 3 ($210 to $189M in 2014, stays at $189 for 2 of 3 seasons): total savings of $116M, CBA savings of $54M
    Scenario 4 ($220M to $189M in 2014, returns to $220M in 2015 and beyond): total savings of $76M, CBA savings of 29M.
    Scenario 5 ($220M to $189M in 2014, stays at $189M for 3 seasons): total savings of $199M, CBA savings of $59M.
    Scenario 6 ($220M to $189M in 2014, stays at $189M for 2 of 3 seasons): total savings of $152M, CBA savings of $59M.

  17. Nick in SF December 12th, 2012 at 6:11 pm

    The Revenue Sharing rebate program doesn’t go on indefinitely? Or is the CBA only in effect until 2017…?

  18. Jerkface December 12th, 2012 at 6:12 pm

    The Revenue Sharing rebate program doesn’t go on indefinitely?

    Nope, the point of it is to phase out those top 15 market teams who are receiving it. After 2016 they’ll no longer be eligible for it. The CBA is also expired then, so they may create some new crazy scheme.

  19. blake December 12th, 2012 at 6:13 pm

    “What do you want back?”

    What I’ve been saying for like a month now….something like Randall Delgado and Nick Ahmed…..although since the Indians got Bauer essentially for Choo Id at least ask for Teheran

  20. blake December 12th, 2012 at 6:15 pm

    “I’m telling you, we’re going to end up re-signing Swisher and trade Grandy to the Braves before all is said and done”

    If Swisher would take a one year deal and Granderson would bring a decent return then Id do that….. Of course Swisher wont take a one year deal most likely

  21. blake December 12th, 2012 at 6:16 pm

    @jcrasnick: #Braves pursued Shin-Soo Choo to play LF, as @Ken_Rosenthal reported. Choo would have given them three 20-20 guys in OF.

    Granderson

  22. RMS December 12th, 2012 at 6:17 pm

    Why would Cashman trade Granderson? Isn’t he one of Cashman’s lefty “big hairy monsters?”

  23. blake December 12th, 2012 at 6:18 pm

    RMS says:
    December 12, 2012 at 6:17 pm
    Why would Cashman trade Granderson? Isn’t he one of Cashman’s lefty “big hairy monsters?”

    He wouldn’t unless they sign Hamilton first….or trade for somebody to replace him.

  24. blake December 12th, 2012 at 6:20 pm

    Now that Towers had his SS….I wonder if something like ….Granderson, Nova, Williams, and another guy would be in the ballpark for Upton? Probably no but I hope Cash is asking

  25. ron December 12th, 2012 at 6:36 pm

    I would never trade granderson,nova,williams,and another for upton.

    Insane.

    Upton will eventually cost money,or never be great,so i’d just keep granderson,or swisher,or sign hamilton,instead of giving up a ml pitchewr,a good ml cf,and a few great prospects,for one player with 17 hr/67 rbi,ops’d under .800,.355 obp,in 2012.

    That would set us back years.

    We would be better off trading cano,and granderson for either prospects,or ml players,or some combination,then signing hamilton.

Leave a comment below


Sponsored by:
 

Search

    Advertisement

    Follow

    Mobile

    Read The LoHud Yankees Blog on the go by navigating to the blog on your smartphone or mobile device's browser. No apps or downloads are required.

Advertisement

Place an ad

Call (914) 694-3581