Truth & Rumors > MLB

A-Rod's surgery remains on hold

Views
16644
Comments
493

08:17 AM ET 01.04 | Yankees general manager Brian Cashman still believes in the long ball -- it's just that he's having trouble keeping long-ball hitters. No date has been set for Alex Rodriguez's hip surgery and it's not expected to be performed until the middle of the month -- at the earliest. When asked for a potential return date for the third baseman, even [Cashman] wouldn't hazard a guess. Regardless, he admitted Rodriguez's absence only will add to the reduced role of home runs in The Bronx in the upcoming season. "I know a lot of people have told me they think home runs are bad," Cashman said. "I'm not one of them." ... The days of the Yankees being able to rely on homers at nearly every spot in the lineup appear to be over.

New York Post

Alex Rodriguez, Getty Images Alex Rodriguez, Getty Images
January 4, 2013  08:53 AM ET

Arod has his money, regardless of what happens. And, the Yankees would be best served if he now became disabled for the year (or better yet walked away forever due to this injury) and then the team could cash in the insurance they took out on him. But as far as I am aware the policy can only be invoked if he misses the year or retires due to injury.
AND, if the best case scenario (complete seperation from the team) occurred, then the Yanks could accomplish in one fell swoop their goal of reducing team payroll below the artificial cap beyond whcih the luxury tax kicks in. They also would be (hopefully) forced to face reality with one less aging so-called superstar.

January 4, 2013  09:06 AM ET
QUOTE(#1):

Arod has his money, regardless of what happens. And, the Yankees would be best served if he now became disabled for the year (or better yet walked away forever due to this injury) and then the team could cash in the insurance they took out on him. But as far as I am aware the policy can only be invoked if he misses the year or retires due to injury. AND, if the best case scenario (complete seperation from the team) occurred, then the Yanks could accomplish in one fell swoop their goal of reducing team payroll below the artificial cap beyond whcih the luxury tax kicks in. They also would be (hopefully) forced to face reality with one less aging so-called superstar.

I'm pretty sure even if insurance covers his salary, it will still count against the luxury tax cap number.
The only way they can get rid of that is if he's traded and another team foots the bill.

Comment #3 has been removed
January 4, 2013  09:19 AM ET
QUOTE(#3):

I'm pretty sure that ARod doesn't get paid if he retires...seem to remember that Albert Belle didn't officially retire until his long contract was up after his hip went bad, he was on some kind of medically ineligible list after getting some MDs to certify that he just couldn't play anymore and collected the big bucks from insurance for several years.

He's not just going to retire and lose $114M. The Yankees will have to pay him that money no matter what. The only question is will the Yankees be compensated by the insurance companies.

January 4, 2013  09:24 AM ET

My gut tells me that this is not going to end well for A Rod, nor the Yankees.

January 4, 2013  09:27 AM ET
QUOTE(#2):

I'm pretty sure even if insurance covers his salary, it will still count against the luxury tax cap number.The only way they can get rid of that is if he's traded and another team foots the bill.

If he becomes seperated from the team (whether by retirement or by release) the money the Yankees pay him is not allocated against the luxury tax threshhold simply because he is no longer on the 40 man roster.
That is the way I interpret the CBA.
If he is only disabled, and consequently on the DL, then he is still on the 40 man roster.
Again, simply put, he needs to off the 40 man roster either by retirement, release, or, as you state, trade.

January 4, 2013  09:35 AM ET

If Arod should decide to retire then how the money is ultimately settled regardng his contract will be for the lawyers, union, MLB mangement and sundry backroom deals to determine.
And, I am sure we will only know all the dirty details much further on into the future, if at all.

January 4, 2013  09:37 AM ET
QUOTE(#6):

If he becomes seperated from the team (whether by retirement or by release) the money the Yankees pay him is not allocated against the luxury tax threshhold simply because he is no longer on the 40 man roster. That is the way I interpret the CBA. If he is only disabled, and consequently on the DL, then he is still on the 40 man roster. Again, simply put, he needs to off the 40 man roster either by retirement, release, or, as you state, trade.

I don't think so. If the Yankees are paying his salary, whether he's on the team or not, that money still counts against the luxury cap.

January 4, 2013  09:38 AM ET
QUOTE(#4):

He's not just going to retire and lose $114M. The Yankees will have to pay him that money no matter what. The only question is will the Yankees be compensated by the insurance companies.

Exactly. Thing is, if he can play baseball in any way, the insurance won't cover it. He'd have to lose a limb or worse for insurance to cover his whole contract.

Comment #10 has been removed
January 4, 2013  09:46 AM ET
QUOTE(#8):

I don't think so. If the Yankees are paying his salary, whether he's on the team or not, that money still counts against the luxury cap.

The Yankees official 40 man payroll last year was $ 197,962,289. Their luxury tax payroll was $223.4 million. That is due to players and partial salaries they are still paying even though those players are no longer on the team, like AJ Burnett.

January 4, 2013  09:56 AM ET
QUOTE(#8):

I don't think so. If the Yankees are paying his salary, whether he's on the team or not, that money still counts against the luxury cap.

He has to be on the 40 man roster. If he is not on the 40 man roster it does not count against the cap except for the time he was on the 40 man roster during the year. That is how the CBA reads.
What is interesting is that all expenses associated with the contract, prorated for his time that is applicable, would also be included in the tax threshold determination including social security payemnts, medical insurance payments, workmans comp payments, etc...

January 4, 2013  09:58 AM ET
QUOTE(#11):

The Yankees official 40 man payroll last year was $ 197,962,289. Their luxury tax payroll was $223.4 million. That is due to players and partial salaries they are still paying even though those players are no longer on the team, like AJ Burnett.

for only the time that he was on the team and that they agreed to absorb. Yes. But other than that the the rest of the salary does not count.

January 4, 2013  10:00 AM ET
QUOTE(#6):

If he becomes seperated from the team (whether by retirement or by release) the money the Yankees pay him is not allocated against the luxury tax threshhold simply because he is no longer on the 40 man roster. That is the way I interpret the CBA. If he is only disabled, and consequently on the DL, then he is still on the 40 man roster. Again, simply put, he needs to off the 40 man roster either by retirement, release, or, as you state, trade.

I haven't read the agreement, but it seems to me if they release him with money remaining on his contract that they have to pay, that would be counted for tax purposes, 40 man roster or not. He would still be on the payroll after all.

Comment #15 has been removed
January 4, 2013  10:03 AM ET
QUOTE(#14):

I haven't read the agreement, but it seems to me if they release him with money remaining on his contract that they have to pay, that would be counted for tax purposes, 40 man roster or not. He would still be on the payroll after all.

nope. They have to pay him but it does not count against the cap. And, yes, it is a cap whether they state it or not. Not a hard cap but a cap none the less.

Comment #17 has been removed
Comment #18 has been removed
Comment #19 has been removed
 
January 4, 2013  10:08 AM ET
QUOTE(#14):

I haven't read the agreement, but it seems to me if they release him with money remaining on his contract that they have to pay, that would be counted for tax purposes, 40 man roster or not. He would still be on the payroll after all.

yes it's pretty simple. Whatever part of a salary a team is paying to any player , past or present that for that season, that money counts towards the MLB Luxury tax payroll.

Boston has dumped many salaries, but that money still counted until the contract had expired.

Comment

Remember to keep your posts clean. Profanity will get filtered, and offensive comments will be removed.


Truth & Rumors

MOST POPULAR

  1. 1
    D'Antoni's newest 'blunder'
    Views
    1462
    Comments
    764
  2. 2
    Irving: Fans don't deserve the Cavs
    Views
    24246
    Comments
    684
  3. 3
    Baseball's top 2015 free agent
    Views
    1448
    Comments
    526
  4. 4
    Red Sox dodged two injury scares
    Views
    3477
    Comments
    504
  5. 5
    The NHL's model franchise?
    Views
    1531
    Comments
    130

SI.com

SI Photos