A Quick Note on the Liam Hendriks Contract
On Tuesday, Liam Hendriks signed a contract with the Chicago White Sox that will pay him $54 million. Craig Edwards covered the signing, and Tony Wolfe took a look at the South Siders’ new bullpen, which is now one of the best in baseball. But there was something confusing about Hendriks’ contract. It will pay him $54 million, but how many years he’ll play to earn that money isn’t yet set.
A quick overview: over the first three years of his deal, Hendriks will receive $39 million. After that third year, the White Sox have a team option to bring him back for a fourth year with a $15 million salary. If they don’t want to pay him for that year, they can pay him a buyout instead, a common structure in contracts with team options. Here’s the rub: that buyout is for $15 million, the same amount as the option salary. It’s deferred over multiple years, so it isn’t exactly the same, but Hendriks will get $54 million in cash, and he’ll do so whether he plays for the Sox for three or four years.
Why design such a strange tax structure? It’s in pursuit of one of the oldest American pastimes — tax avoidance. Let’s quickly walk through how Hendriks’ contract works in Chicago’s favor, and take a quick jaunt through other contract structures while we’re at it.
When the league came up with the CBT, they put some thought into working around loopholes. Consider, for example, a team who has plenty of room under the tax level in 2021 but projects to go near it in 2022. Now imagine that they sign Trevor Bauer to a two-year, $80 million deal. If they paid him $40 million in each year, it would look like this:
| Year | Payroll | Bauer | Total |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2021 | 130 | 40 | 170 |
| 2022 | 190 | 40 | 230 |
Assuming a tax threshold of $210 million, they’d be $30 million under the line in ‘21 and $20 million over in ‘22. Why not, then, pay Bauer $60 million in year one and $20 million the next year?
| Year | Payroll | Bauer | Total |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2021 | 130 | 60 | 190 |
| 2022 | 190 | 20 | 210 |
Why not? Because the league doesn’t fall for that nonsense. For the purposes of the CBT, salaries are spread out evenly across the term of the deal. Design wild roller-coasters all you want; a two-year deal for $80 million will count for $40 million each year, no matter when the actual checks go out.
Next, let’s consider a different way around the tax, and a different way the league closed that loophole. Consider a team going for it this year. They’re right up against the tax in this hypothetical world, and they’d prefer not to pay it. Instead, they offer a different deal, this time to a hypothetical closer. In year one, he’ll receive $10 million. Year two is a team option with a salary of $30 million. Should the team decline the option, they’ll pay a $10 million buyout.
One of two things will happen: either our closer will make $40 million for two years of service, or he’ll make $20 million for one year. That feels like a reasonable contract for both sides — and if the league didn’t look too hard at it, they might give the team a tax number of only $10 million in year one.
Let’s make it more absurd, though. What about a one-year deal for $5 million, with a team option for a second year at $60 million and a $15 million buyout. Now the team will certainly pay the buyout. Our pitcher still gets his $20 million over one year. Would anyone think that’s really only a $5 million salary in year one, though?
The league doesn’t. Buyouts of team options are treated as part of the total salary paid in guaranteed years. What does that mean? Let’s take a look at Ronald Acuña Jr.’s contract to explain it. His contract looks like this:
| Year | Salary ($mm) |
|---|---|
| 2019 | 1 |
| 2020 | 1 |
| 2021 | 5 |
| 2022 | 15 |
| 2023 | 17 |
| 2024 | 17 |
| 2025 | 17 |
| 2026 | 17 |
| Total | 90 |
That’s $90 million over eight years. After that, there are two team options, the second of which we’ll ignore (given that it only kicks in if the team exercises the first one, CBT math ignores it). The first team option is for $17 million, with a $10 million buyout. That brings the total guaranteed money in the deal to $100 million over eight years — $90 million in salary plus the buyout. What’s Acuña’s CBT number in each year? $12.5 million, or $100 million split evenly over eight years.
Should the Braves exercise Acuña’s option, they’ll pay him $17 million in 2027, but $10 million of that will already have counted against their tax numbers in previous years. How does that hit the salary cap? The league has left it purposely ambiguous, but one interpretation is that the tax number will be lower to account for that previous hit. In Acuña’s case, he has another $10 million buyout the next year, so it’s hardly a lock, but we’re just using him as an example. Again, we don’t know exactly how the league accounts for buyouts — but in my mind, there’s a decent chance that having the cost of the buyout on previous years’ CBT numbers decreases the number the league uses in the option year.
With that explanation out of the way, let’s get back to Hendriks. He’s due $39 million over three years, an average of $13 million per year. After that, there’s his buyout, which also counts against the tax. It’s for $15 million deferred over time. The league discounts deferrals slightly, and without getting into the exact math there, let’s assume that they treat Hendriks’ buyout as worth $13 million in present-day terms. That means he’s due $52 million over three years for the purposes of the tax.
Should he remain with the team for a fourth year, the deal has only $2 million in “new money” — the difference in value between a deferred and present-day $15 million. That makes for big tax numbers in the first three years — roughly $17 million per year — and a minuscule $2 million hit in the fourth year. Again, I’m not certain that this is how options are treated — but it’s a reasonable guess, at the very least, and one of the best reasons I can see for structuring a contract in such a strange way.
Why would a team want to do this? The Sox are no dummies. They’re nowhere near the CBT threshold in 2021 — they check in around $160 million even after Hendriks’ contract. Will they be so far below the threshold in three years? It’s far less clear! Lucas Giolito will need a new contract by then. Nick Madrigal, Dylan Cease, Michael Kopech, and Codi Heuer, just to name a few, will be in their arbitration years. If they’re planning on keeping Lance Lynn, he’ll surely earn more than this year’s $9.3 million salary.
By taking a bigger tax hit now, the White Sox are setting themselves up to avoid paying taxes in the future. Are they actually considering declining the option? Almost certainly not. Why would they? Short of Hendriks being out for the season with an injury, they’ll keep him, because the difference between $15 million now and $15 million over 10 years simply isn’t much in the grand scope of things.
One thing worth monitoring: I’m not actually sure if the league is going to allow this nonsense. I feel reasonably confident that they wouldn’t have allowed a $15 million team option with a $15 million buyout if there were no deferrals involved. Even including that fig leaf, I don’t think there’s much confusion about what’s going on here. The league can treat vesting options that are very likely to be triggered as guaranteed, and it wouldn’t shock me if they did that here. For now, though, it sounds like Hendriks’ contract counts as $54 million over three years in the eyes of the tax man.
In other words, Hendriks signed a four-year, $54 million dollar contract this week. It won’t be reported the same way everywhere — it’s a complex contract, after all. At the end of the day, however, the White Sox wanted to pay Hendriks $54 million to secure his services for the next four years. They did just that — with a little financial chicanery thrown in for good measure.
Ben is a writer at FanGraphs. He can be found on Bluesky @benclemens.
Interesting article. Does this mean that for luxury tax purposes, the long-term deals they signed Robert, Moncada, Jimenez, and Anderson to are counted equally at AAV? For reference, those deals are structured as bought-out arb deals, so they ramp up; for instance Moncada is making $6M in 2021 but $24M in 2024. Is the luxury tax hit spread out here too?
It’s worth noting that the White Sox have more of a background in tax avoidance than most clubs. Their owner, Jerry Reinsdorf, got his start as a tax attorney for the IRS. He then took that knowledge and made his fortune with a loophole where buying a property and then leasing it back allows you to claim a tax reduction, or something like that. So it’s very possible that at the beginning of their rebuild, CHW laid out a strategy to avoid big luxury tax hits almost a decade in the future, and we’re seeing that play out now.
Yeah, all those arb conversion contracts spread money across years. That’s why the Sox have a 160 million cap number this year despite only $131 million in estimated payroll (per Roster Resource).
This is one of the main benefits of making such a deal. Most of the teams that have CBT hell are doing so in large part because some 4-5 year players are year-to-year.
This is why I don’t like tax limits in sports. Things start to get complicated and the league has to start putting in more regulations to suppress workarounds. But when you create an issue, teams will spend all their time trying to get around it. It makes things weirdly competitive but not for the right things for players or the fans.
Well put. And in the larger context of the national economy, a major reason for the economy crashing in 2008-09 was that we (used advisedly) made issuing insurance on debt about the most profitable thing you could do.
When gaming the system become THE most important game being played, then economies and, more importantly, baseball suffers.
It is impossible to create a system that can not be gamed in some way.
Wait a second. I’m still trying to wrap my brain around this.
Because Hendriks is due $10M no matter what, his “taxable number” per year is (at least, according to the White Sox bookkeepers) something like $52M over 3 years, so about $17.3M.
That means, then if they exercise the option in year 4, then they’ll pay Hendriks $15M, but because they’ve already paid out $52M and the total value of the contract is $54M, then the bookkeepers would argue that the should only have $2M of that count toward the luxury tax?
So then the question becomes, can you make it so that it is the other way? For example, can you structure it so that there is a tax hit later in the contract but not earlier?
Not really, no.
The ChiSox are essentially trying to front-load a contract to avoid taxes on the back end in a option year. It may or may not work. But there isn’t any such thing as an option year at the start of a contract, and any amount of back-loading just gets averaged out over the entire term of the deal for CBT purposes.
The only thing I could even imagine would be to put a bunch of playing time incentives in the deal. Something like signing a middle reliever for several years while having no intention of letting him save games, and putting a games-closed bonus in the contract. Then at the end of the deal installing him as the closer. But that would be terribly risky for the player, of course, because you have no way of ensuring it would ever happen. And anything written in to guarantee the payout would likely just cause the incentive to get calculated into the CBT.
I’m not a contract structuring expert, but I can’t really find a way to make that work. Player options don’t work the same way as team options (they count the same as fully guaranteed years, as best as I can tell), and incentives that are likely to be reached count fully as well.
The constraint that makes it hard to make the tax hit later in the deal is that the only way to get weird one-offs is with team options, and since the team has control over those, it’s hard to make it to where the player gets a bunch of money at the end of the contract (to put the tax hit at the end) but the team also decides to exercise the option. If you did a one-year $10 million contract with a $40 million team option for a second year, well, your hit is only $10 million in the first year, but hte team would probably just decline the option. I don’t think a player would agree to that expecting to make $50 million — because they probably wouldn’t make $50 million.
For an older player who is certainly signing his last contract, could you add additional years to the end at $1 million per season with the understanding that when the player is no longer useful he will retire (or be released)?
For instance, let’s say the Nats extend Scherzer. He’ll be turning 38 in the middle of the 2022 season. Let’s say the contract is for 10 years/$106 million, but it is $25 million per season for 4 years and $1 million per season after. You could even be more elegant to account for the possibility that a 41-year-old Scherzer is still a decent pitcher. Would this work? Would you have a $10.6 million hit for 10 years?
Wasn’t this common in the NHL not that long ago? I know next to nothing about hockey, but Marian Hossa signed a 13-year deal with the Blackhawks or some insanity, and from what I recall it was very clearly a wink-nudge deferred payment structure over the last few years.
Well, I know next to next to nothing (nothing) about hockey, but this DJ LeMahieu deal looks like a subtler version of this. More years and lower AAV. Does anyone reasonably believe he will be a major league caliber player in six years?
TKDC, yours is not an unreasonable point. It works for both parties if the player accepts projected decline. The only objection comes from soft cap salary beneficiaries-low spending franchises. They arguably lose revenue and ability to compete. I don’t know that this occurs less in the hard cap sports? Those with significant revenue sharing, either big TV contracts (NBA, NFL) or not (NHL).
The main draw of those NHL contracts was the buyout possibilities. I may be wrong on some of the details, but I believe that under the CBA in force when Hossa signed his deal, the cap hit was the AAV, but a player could be bought out at any time and then the cap hit fell to 75% of the actual salary. So Hossa could have had his last few years bought out and instead of the Blackhawks incurring a $5M cap hit in those years, it would have been $750K.
The league was reluctantly OK with Hossa’s contract, but other teams pushed too far. IIRC, Ilya Kovalchuk’s deal with the Devils. In 2010, they signed the 27 year old to a 17 year, $102M deal, so an AAV of $6M. But the last 6 years of the deal only paid him $3.5M total, so they could have bought that out and incurred cap hits of under $500K/year. The NHL disallowed the deal and then closed the loophole so buyouts now have a big cap hit and frontloading contracts is no longer nearly as beneficial.
It is important to note that this still hasn’t stopped teams from gaming the system. Hossa now has some weird skin condition that prevents him from doing nothing except play hockey somehow, so he goes on long term IR each year and the Blackhawks get salary cap relief. The league grumbled about that too, but the team got a doctor to sign off on it, so they didn’t push it. The Blackhawks also reportedly threatened to fight if the league did push because the contract was approved by the league when it was signed, and then they changed the rules mid way through.
Great article as always.
One thing I don’t understand is why teams aren’t willing to game CBT
by say instead of $330M/13 years for Harper until he is 38, ($25M AAV)
they give something like $360M/16 years until he is 41. ($22.5M AAV)
Generally speaking, sign players to longer deals with larger total amount including years in which he is unlikely to be useful but at a lower AAV and a comparable Net Present Value.
Of course, there is a point where it would get ridiculous, but I don’t see teams pushing the limits on this at all.
I thought the 13 years for Harper was kinda doing exactly that. Instead of 10/$300M ($30M AAV) they did 13/$330M ($25M-ish AAV) — with the added benefit of giving him the record $330M total contract.
In a way, all long term contracts are kind of like that.
But I would argue that teams would be willing to pay real money for 36-38 y.o. Harper if they could lock him up to a contract right now.
Assuming the White Sox would only take a $2M CBT hit in 2024 if they exercised the option, my question is what happens if they trade him? Would the acquiring team also only take a $2M CBT hit in 2024?
If that’s the case, then this contract structure seems even more inspired. Pay him $13M/year for the first 3 years, while taking a $17M CBT hit when they can afford it. When 2024 approaches, if he is a lock down closer and the Sox are solid contenders, they can happily keep him and pay the $15M for the fourth year, while only taking the $2M CBT hit.
If his arm is broken and he is not rosterable, they can decline the option, and just pay him $1.5M/year for ten years, which shouldn’t have any measurable impact on their ability to sign players because of limitations on their actual cash payroll budget. I.e., the contract won’t be an albatross.
If he is still a decent pitcher, but the Sox are out of contention or otherwise need to improve other spots on their roster, if he will only come with a $2M CBT hit, his trade value will be greatly enhanced, especially for traditionally high-spending teams who are always around the luxury tax threshold.
I’m waiting for trades like this for dead money. Let’s say the Braves are going to cut Inciarte. They owe him like $9 or $10 million, but for luxury tax it’s much lower. If another team has a dead money player, but also tax concerns, the Braves make the trade, taking on less money, thus saving both teams money.
As if this needed another wrinkle, the club option reportedly becomes guaranteed if he’s traded. Then what?
This would be great insight in normal circumstances but it assumes that the White Sox would ever even approach the luxury tax ceiling, which is impossible.
Maybe not impossible – if they end up extending their young stars to more years or if, for example, all of the players named above have killer seasons while in their arbitration years and end up either being given or end up winning – the raise they want. If that makes sense. I agree … extremely unlikely but potentially possible.
Why would the buyout be $15M deferred which could count as $13M for CBT purposes, rather than just straight up $13M?
At least twice the author says he’s only guessing at how the rules actually work.
And yet he’s still writing it.
C’mon, man.
I’m confused. If the twins were just looking to absorb the hit on his contract over the first 3 years, why not pay him $52M / 3yr with a 2M team option for year 4 and a 1M buyout?
Is that something the league would consider akin to a super-likely vesting option?
That’s my best guess. Given that the league still doesn’t give us the exact rules, it’s hard to know for sure. That said, I think we’d see a lot more of those style of contracts if they were allowed.
Aren’t teams also worried about setting precedents for how much players at certain positions get paid each year, because that can affect future arbitration awards, as well as the qualifying offer? While 3/$52M contract plus a $2M option buyout might have the same AAV for CBT purposes as a 3/$39M contract plus a $15M option buyout, the yearly salary will be much higher on the 3/$52M.
Or am I not understanding how arbitration/QO works?
Great piece Ben. I’ve been keeping spreadsheets for my Mets for 15+ years and this year’s challenge is wrestling w/the Betances math. He had a $6m player option that still gave him a $3m buyout if he declined. But the bigger issue is why aren’t the rules for calculating options known? Isn’t it in the CBA? If the league does a post-season accounting of how much each player counted we could go back and look at prior year options to know for sure.
“Why design such a strange tax structure? It’s in pursuit of one of the oldest American pastimes — tax avoidance.” This line is gold. Made me smile and crack up so thank you for that. Keep up the good work!
Ironically, just like the federal government, MLB makes the rules which allow the “loopholes”.
A flat tax structure is feared most by politicians who complain most about tax avoidance. It would take away their ability to buy votes, their megaphone, their power and ability to stay in office indefinitely.
My guess is MLB does it as a way to deal with high revenue (RSN/Gate Receipt) teams and low revenue owner interests.
A flat tax structure is feared (or, more accurately, viewed as an absurd and immoral non-starter) by anyone who cares about the wellbeing of those not at the obscene end of the income distribution.
I was wondering why the White Sox’ twitter account announced it as a 4 yr contract, but this was informative
Why should this be considered as anything other than a 4/54M deal? and likewise for lux tax purposes..? And when yr 4 comes around and (the unlikely scenario that) the ChiSox ask Hendriks *not* to pitch for them for his final $13.5 due, they will opt to pay that amount out over several years and 2024 CBT will be affected accordingly.
What am I missing?
Great article! I know and understand what the CBT is but this clarified quite a bit for me at least. I didn’t realize that all contracts were taxed evenly over each year. I like how this works for the White Sox. As you note they will likely extend or re-sign Giolito and with a handful of other guys getting likely raises through arbitration in a few years it leaves room for them to accommodate that and have Hendriks – whether he is pitching well or not or even if he’s injured. Obviously, they are hoping for the former option to be the case but it doesn’t hurt them either way. Do I have this right? I hope so! LOL! Thanks for the explanation. I learned quite a bit more than expected about MLB salaries/CBT. 🙂