Start Spreading the Payroll Blues

Brian Cashman has worked his way through the frustration and sleepless nights that immediately followed the four-game loss to the Angels in the division series. There is less pain now as the general manager of the New York Yankees talks about being “steamrolled and outplayed” in the series that catapulted the Angels to their first American League pennant and World Series title.

The reeling Yankees might have recovered some from the mental scars and wounded pride -- “We didn’t bring our ‘A’ game and you’d better have it in October or you’re going to be sent home quickly, and that’s exactly what happened to us,” Cashman said -- but they now face a task as challenging as the Angels proved to be.

“We need to cut payroll,” Cashman said of a concept alien to the team owned by George Steinbrenner and brought about by the new bargaining agreement and not, the general manager insisted, by any reevaluation initiated by the loss to the Angels.

After all, Cashman said, those were four games and the Yankees had won 103 before that. Any evaluation, he said, would be made on the basis that the Yankees remain a team of Jason Giambi, Derek Jeter, Jorge Posada, Bernie Williams, Mariano Rivera, Alfonso Soriano and so many others.

“When the dust settles, no matter what we do between now and spring training,” Cashman said, “when you have players of that caliber, you’re going to be good. How good remains to be seen, but we’ve set a high ceiling [with four World Series titles in the last seven years] and I feel no less confident about the future just because of the loss to the Angels.”

Perhaps, but it’s a new game this winter.

The new bargaining agreement has created an uncertainty affecting even the free-spending Yankees with their industry-high local revenue of more than $250 million.

Of course, observed Cashman, “Wasn’t that the intent? Weren’t we the target?”

With its increased revenue sharing and so-called competitive-balance tax on the high-payroll clubs that have driven the market, the new agreement was aimed at slowing the Yankees and tempering the overall salary growth.

Cynics, of course, may question the sincerity of the Yankees’ payroll reduction -- they are believed to be so close to an agreement with Japanese slugger Hideki Matsui that Cashman is expected to travel to Japan on Thursday to consummate it -- but then hasn’t Steinbrenner already made some of his little people pay, lopping off elevator operators and other fringe personnel at Yankee Stadium, and reportedly eliminating a dental plan from the club’s medical package?

It comes down to this: Steinbrenner didn’t follow through on his threat to sue baseball over the new agreement, but when he sinks his teeth into it, he will have to digest the projected loss of more than $50 million next year through the payroll tax and increased revenue sharing.

The Times obtained a copy of the official and complete 2002 salary and benefit tabulations that were distributed to general managers here by baseball’s labor relations department.

Although the 17.5% tax on all payroll above $117 million will be based on figures in 2003, the first year of the new agreement, the 2002 numbers illustrate the extent of the disparity between the Yankees, at a total of $175.3 million, and the 29 other teams. In fact, only two others -- the Texas Rangers at $130.6 million and the Dodgers at $120 million -- would have been taxed if the $117-million threshold had kicked in this year, and there is no greater disparity between any two teams than that between the Yankees and No. 2 Rangers.

Based on the 2002 numbers and a 17.5% tax, the Yankees would have paid $10.2 million, the Rangers $2.3 million and the Dodgers, who are determined to get below the threshold next year, $525,000. The tax and the threshold increase each of the four years of the agreement, and repeat offenders are penalized.

As for the Yankees, Cashman would have to be a magician to get his team below $117 million by cutting $58.3 million of payroll this winter alone.

He would not say how much he needs to cut. Nor would he outline the specifics of how he intends to do it while also filling potential holes if he doesn’t re-sign his own free agents, including third baseman Robin Ventura, relief pitchers Mike Stanton and Ramiro Mendoza, and starter Roger Clemens. Clemens’ option was not picked up and he is owed $10.3 million by the Yankees, whether they sign him to a new contract or not.

“In general, I’d like them all back, but it may not be realistic,” Cashman said. “How our team manifests itself when we’re done remains to be seen, but I need to cut payroll.”

It has been a long time since the Yankees faced a similar personnel/payroll dilemma.

Will Steinbrenner agree to re-sign the expensive Clemens at 38 so Clemens can notch his 300th win on the YES network?

Will Cashman decide by Friday’s deadline to pay a $2-million buyout or pick up the $11.5-million option on Andy Pettitte and his tender elbow?

Can he make financial and outfield room for Matsui while still burdened with Rondell White and Raul Mondesi, who are owed $11.5 million next year and whom he yearns to trade, along with pitcher Sterling Hitchcock, who is owed $4.5 million?

Does he re-sign Ventura, who made $8.5 million last year and had a poor second half, to a one-year contract, or try to find a way to sign Edgardo Alfonzo or David Bell, both free agents, to multiyear contracts? Can he re-sign Clemens and/or Pettitte and still turn his conversations with free agent Tom Glavine’s agent into more than shop talk?

Call them taxing questions that compound the confounding memory of the Angel steamroller.

“We respected the Angels, but we certainly didn’t expect it to play out the way it did,” Cashman said of the division series. “Now, I guess, you’d have to say we respect them even more because of the way they continued to play through the postseason.”

If that sounded a bit begrudging, the Yankee GM has his mind on the payroll, not paying respects.

*

(BEGIN TEXT OF INFOBOX)

Stretching a Dollar

With Major League Baseball’s 17.5% tax on payroll above $117 million to take effect next year, several teams may take a hard look at their spending. The following figures are from the 2002 salary, bonus and benefits tabulations, a copy of which was obtained by The Times:

THE TOP FIVE

The Dodgers are one of only three teams that exceeded the 2003 tax threshold in 2002.

*--* 1. Yankees $175,327,055 2. Rangers $130,622,297 3. Dodgers $120,009,194 4. Diamondbacks $114,324,396 5. Red Sox $113,795,076

*--*

THE MEDIAN

Three of the four teams in the middle of the pack were well out of the playoff hunt. The fourth proved you could win a World Series title without breaking the bank.

*--* 14. Rockies $80,035,177 15. Angels $77,183,754 16. Tigers $75,324,003 17. Phillies $72,240,007

*--*

THE BOTTOM FIVE

No team got more bang for the buck than the nearly contracted Twins, who won a division title with the fourth-lowest payroll.

*--* 26. Brewers $58,190,047 27. Twins $53,666,264 28. Marlins $53,103,414 29. Devil Rays $43,983,815 30. Expos $43,549,061 Complete list, D4

*--*

*

Big Money

Major League Baseball’s competitive balance tax payroll information for 2002, in dollars (including wages for 40-man roster, all earned bonuses through the World Series, and regular and extended benefits):

*--* Team Wages Bonuses Benefits Total 1. New York 163,442,745 4,150,000 7,734,310 175,327,055 (AL) 2. Texas 120,794,791 2,093,196 7,734,310 130,622,297 3. Dodgers 111,449,515 825,369 7,734,310 120,009,194 4. Arizona 102,018,979 4,571,107 7,734,310 114,324,396 5. Boston 105,060,766 1,000,000 7,734,310 113,795,076 6. Atlanta 102,270,498 765,000 7,734,310 110,769,808 7. New York 100,529,123 1,653,070 7,734,310 109,916,503 (NL) 8. Seattle 90,351,680 1,958,607 7,734,310 100,044,597 9. San 85,272,566 3,215,492 7,734,310 96,222,368 Francisco 10. St. Louis 88,118,986 259,563 7,734,310 96,112,859 11. Cleveland 82,468,915 225,000 7,734,310 90,428,225 12. Chicago 80,734,359 369,672 7,734,310 88,838,341 (NL) 13. Houston 73,838,295 545,765 7,734,310 82,118,370 14. Colorado 71,581,195 719,672 7,734,310 80,035,177 15. Angels 69,274,444 175,000 7,734,310 77,183,754 16. Detroit 64,174,693 3,415,000 7,734,310 75,324,003 17. 63,229,659 1,276,038 7,734,310 72,240,007 Philadelphia 18. Baltimore 64,276,025 75,000 7,734,310 72,085,335 19. Toronto 58,224,476 738,898 7,734,310 66,697,684 20. Oakland 57,142,257 1,001,519 7,734,310 65,878,086 21. San Diego 57,568,130 375,000 7,734,310 65,677,440 22. Chicago 57,501,275 299,508 7,734,310 65,535,093 (AL) 23. Pittsburgh 54,825,687 1,141,393 7,734,310 63,701,390 24. Cincinnati 53,952,491 710,929 7,734,310 62,397,730 25. Kansas City 48,264,807 2,709,000 7,734,310 58,708,117 26. Milwaukee 49,803,606 652,131 7,734,310 58,190,047 27. Minnesota 45,731,954 200,000 7,734,310 53,666,264 28. Florida 44,285,675 1,083,429 7,734,310 53,103,414 29. Tampa Bay 35,339,505 910,000 7,734,310 43,983,815 30. Montreal 35,346,609 468,142 7,734,310 43,549,061 Totals 2,236,873,706 37,582,500 232,029,300 2,506,485,506

*--*