bob@pedsgd.UUCP (Robert A. Weiler) (09/04/85)
Organization : Perkin-Elmer DSG, Tinton Falls NJ Keywords: Ive got a question for all you experts out there. I seem to recall that it is against ML rules for a player to have a performance clause in his contract; ie so many dollars for each hit, strikeout, or whatever. But it is perfectly ok to have clauses based on post season awards or appearances. So 1) Is this really a rule? 2) Is it a rule of the MLs or the Feds, of the players union? 3) What is the reasoning behind it? 4) Does it make any sense at all? If the answer to (1) is no, you can skip the others. Thanks is advance. Bob Weiler.
wbs@cybvax0.UUCP (William B. Solomon) (09/07/85)
> Organization : Perkin-Elmer DSG, Tinton Falls NJ > Keywords: > > Ive got a question for all you experts out there. I seem to recall that > it is against ML rules for a player to have a performance clause in his > contract; ie so many dollars for each hit, strikeout, or whatever. But > it is perfectly ok to have clauses based on post season awards or > appearances. So > > 1) Is this really a rule? > > 2) Is it a rule of the MLs or the Feds, of the players union? > > 3) What is the reasoning behind it? > > 4) Does it make any sense at all? > > If the answer to (1) is no, you can skip the others. Thanks is advance. > > Bob Weiler. In my opinion the answer to (1) is no. My reasoning is as follows: In the days leading up to the strike (Aug 6), the Boston Herald had a 2 page spread concerning what each Red Sox player stood to lose (financially) by not finishing the season. Almost every player had incentives in their contracts. Some that I can recall are Games played, games started, hits, plate Appearances, innings pitched, and more. William Solomon Brighton Ma.
bob@pedsgd.UUCP (Robert A. Weiler) (09/10/85)
Organization : Perkin-Elmer DSG, Tinton Falls NJ Keywords: In article <735@cybvax0.UUCP> wbs@cybvax0.UUCP (William B. Solomon) writes: >> { Me } >> I seem to recall that >> it is against ML rules for a player to have a performance clause in his >> contract; ie so many dollars for each hit, strikeout, or whatever. But >> it is perfectly ok to have clauses based on post season awards or >> appearances. So >> >> 1) Is this really a rule? { if yes, who, what and why } > { William } >In my opinion the answer to (1) is no. >My reasoning is as follows: > >In the days leading up to the strike (Aug 6), the Boston Herald had a >2 page spread concerning what each Red Sox player stood to lose (financially) >by not finishing the season. Almost every player had incentives in their >contracts. Some that I can recall are Games played, games started, hits, >plate Appearances, innings pitched, and more. >William Solomon Yes, that may be true. But if you exlude hits from the list above, you find that all this things are NOT performance related; they are things over which the player has little direct control but are rather decided by the manager. I acknowledge that these others are ligitament, but are you sure about hits? Anyway, thanks for the input. I guess its hard to get folks interested in non-inflamatory topics. Bob Weiler
franka@mmintl.UUCP (Frank Adams) (09/13/85)
In article <735@cybvax0.UUCP> wbs@cybvax0.UUCP (William B. Solomon) writes: >> Ive got a question for all you experts out there. I seem to recall that >> it is against ML rules for a player to have a performance clause in his >> contract; ie so many dollars for each hit, strikeout, or whatever. But >> it is perfectly ok to have clauses based on post season awards or >> appearances. So >> >> 1) Is this really a rule? > >In my opinion the answer to (1) is no. I believe there was such a rule 15 years ago or so, but there is no longer. I know there was a rule against bonuses being given which were not specified in the contract; the Cubs (and possibly other teams) got around this by giving players raises after extraordinary performances.