PDA

View Full Version : why arent there more.....



jmac
11-11-2006, 12:22 AM
incentive based contracts ?
maybe a stupid question but i'm in the dark on this ?
okay let's say you have 4 levels:
level A ......pujols,ortiz,santana types ( stars)
level B ......harang , arroyo types ( almost to level A )
level C ...... EE, cano, fielder ( emerging )
level D ......castro,clayton etc (bench)

i am not talking about your level A and B type players but C and D.
instead of signing a "jason larue " type to say a 4-5 million , why not a 2.75 with reasonable incentives to get to your main figure?
many times you hear it discussed regarding injury projects like gagne or wood but looks like it would be good in other contracts as well.

i understand now it would probably be hard to change but why couldnt this have been done years ago...
of course maybe there is more now than what i think there is .

Unassisted
11-11-2006, 12:41 AM
The MLBPA gets to approve every contract and it doesn't want them to be commonplace. About the only time you'll see those is for players coming back from an injury and an incentive-laden deal might be the last resort for the player to get back onto a ML roster.

jmac
11-11-2006, 12:51 AM
thanks for info :thumbup:

TOBTTReds
11-11-2006, 01:06 AM
level C ...... EE, cano, fielder ( emerging )
level D ......castro,clayton etc (bench)



For level C guys, most of them make only 350k - 1 mil depending on how many years they've had of arbitration, so the team would be foolish to off them incentives.

As for D's, there is no point in offering incentives to guys who are on the bench (players know reaching their bonuses are out of their control) and also, bench types can be signed for cheap because no one else wants them, so why would a team give a Todd Hollandworth incentives when they know they will get the same out of him for 500k.

It's a good question though, and I would like to see more of it with injured players though. It makes sense then.

buckeyenut
11-11-2006, 07:48 AM
Probably mostly because there are enough previous deals where that didn't happen that to offer it in anything but the outlier case would be perceived as insulting.

jmac
11-11-2006, 12:07 PM
actually instead of bench players , i was speaking of more like the larues,phillips etc of the baseball world.more along the "average mlb " type.
sort of like factories.some pay you x amount period,while others pay you x amount with ability to earn more there for taking.
as the one poster said...too late to do it now though.

Team Clark
11-11-2006, 03:00 PM
The MLBPA gets to approve every contract and it doesn't want them to be commonplace. About the only time you'll see those is for players coming back from an injury and an incentive-laden deal might be the last resort for the player to get back onto a ML roster.

The Union only likes to approve incentives that you are nearly guaranteed to make. Gold Gloves, All Star Appearances, Top 5 in MVP voting. Every so often you will see an AB or IP escalator. The Union is pretty darn powerful and can put the Kabash on a lot of terms.

bradmu
11-11-2006, 09:02 PM
The MLBPA gets to approve every contract and it doesn't want them to be commonplace. About the only time you'll see those is for players coming back from an injury and an incentive-laden deal might be the last resort for the player to get back onto a ML roster.

Stupid Unions :)

Seriously though, the baseball Players Union has too much power in my opinion. I think it would be a good thing for some level of incentive based contracts to be common place. That way, the guys having the big years are the ones getting paid. It would also cut down on "contract year" players to an extent. My employer (and most others) have some sort of performance based bonus or incentive, why not baseball players?

Chip R
11-12-2006, 03:22 PM
I used to think incentive contracts were good but I've done a 180 on it - especially for pitchers. You think if a pitcher's salary depends on innings pitched or appearances, that that pitcher is going to tell the team he's injured? So he just keeps going out there and pitching poorly and if someone asks him why, he just says he's going through a spell of bad luck.

Joseph
11-12-2006, 04:20 PM
I used to think incentive contracts were good but I've done a 180 on it - especially for pitchers. You think if a pitcher's salary depends on innings pitched or appearances, that that pitcher is going to tell the team he's injured? So he just keeps going out there and pitching poorly and if someone asks him why, he just says he's going through a spell of bad luck.

Like Paul Wilson last year, and even to an extent Brandon Claussen this year.

jmac
11-12-2006, 08:07 PM
i guess in the same sense, they could have a negative effect on offense.
larue (as example again) has 8 hrs and needs 15 to reach an incentive....may not make for very good clubhouse when splitting time with 2 other catchers.
i guess these contracts have negatives as well as positives.