I'm just sitting in my hotel room, watching MLB Network. Which is actually a more productive method than sitting in the media workroom, or milling about in the lobby. It might not be as much fun, but it's more productive. But the following does come with a caveat: I haven't asked anybody if this is true. It's just something I think. Maybe later C.J. will weigh in.
Anyway, here's what I'm talking about:
I'm not convinced this matters. After all, there's no lifestyle difference between $150 million and $141 million. None. So why would taxes even become a part of the conversation? Because contracts aren't just ego-driven; they're also agent- and leverage-driven.
If the agent thinks he can cite taxes as a reason for a larger salary, of course he's going to cite taxes. And I'm sure it works sometimes. But does the player really care? He gets the ego satisfaction of a $150-million contract regardless of how much the damn government's stealing from him.
Which is why I think taxes are largely a red herring. Which isn't to say a California team wouldn't tack on an extra $10 million if that's what it takes. As we've already seen, the money's become largely irrelevant to them, too.