Nov 4, 2010, 11:19 AM EST
While speculation swirls about how much Cliff Lee enjoyed his time in Texas and how much his wife disliked her time in New York, an overlooked factor in his free agent decision-making could be state income taxes.
Darren Rovell of CNBC wrote a very interesting article examining the differences in taxes Lee would pay depending on his new home. Texas does not have a state income tax, but it does have something called a “Jock Tax” that would involve Lee paying approximately $2.25 million if he signed a five-year, $120 million contract with the Rangers.
However, if Lee signed the same five-year, $120 million contract with the Yankees and moved to New York he’d pay between $11 million and $15 million in state income taxes depending on exactly where he lived.
In other words, assuming Lee can get in excess of $100 million from either team any offer the Rangers make will be worth about 10 percent more to him than any offer the Yankees make. Whether or not an “extra” $10 million would be enough to sway Lee one way or another is obviously unclear, but it does suggest that the Yankees will have to clearly top the Rangers’ offer to get him. Of course, we probably knew that already.
- THE YEAR IN REVIEW: HBT’s most commented-upon stories of the year 64
- The Yankees are treating Alex Rodriguez differently than they treated Derek Jeter. So what? 32
- Braves sign setup man Jason Grilli to two-year contract 13
- My Imaginary Hall of Fame Ballot 119
- Phil Hughes signs a three-year extension with the Twins 27
- The Padres have talked to the Phillies about Cole Hamels 23
- Why is John Smoltz a shoo-in for the Hall of Fame? 63
- Phillies GM told Ryan Howard they’d be better off “not with him but without him” 85
- Bud Selig will get a $6 million a year pension. Which is obscene. (145)
- My Imaginary Hall of Fame Ballot (119)
- Today’s specious anti-Mike Piazza-for-the-Hall-Fame argument (93)
- St. Petersburg City Council votes down deal to allow Rays to look for new stadium site (90)
- Phillies GM told Ryan Howard they’d be better off “not with him but without him” (85)