jeff@dciem.UUCP (Jeff Richardson) (02/25/85)
> And speaking of Gooden, the Mets after much delay finally signed him to a > one-year contract worth up to 500K. Let's say that Gooden continues to rewrite > record books every year. Are the Mets going to repeat this courting rite > every spring, until -- gasp -- he is finally elligible for free agency and > demands 49% of the francise. Why don't the Mets do with him what the > Edmonton Oilers did with Gretzky at the start of his career: lock him > up with a 20-year contract? Is it that baseball as a business doesn't > lend itself to such contracts? Can Doubleday simply be more conservative > than Peter Puck? Are the Mets reserving Number 99 for Shawn Abner?? :-) Suppose they did lock him up with a long-term contract. If he flops, and the tendency to flop is greater once you have lifetime security, then the Mets are locked up too and they have to continue to fork out all that money to someone who isn't really earning it. If he does continue to rewrite the record books, then in about five years he'll presumably be making significantly less than the league's other top pitchers that are eligible for free-agency (because they wouldn't bother to lock him up unless they figured they could do it for less money than free-agency would cost them), and that fact could hurt his play so the Mets would have to renogotiate his contract anyway. It seemed pretty obvious that the Oilers weren't likely to get burned with Gretzky, but with baseball pitchers, especially rookies, you never really know. However, I must admit that I probably would have tried to sign Gooden for 3 years anyway. Maybe they want to see what he can do this year, and then they'll go for a longer term next time. -- Jeff Richardson, DCIEM, Toronto (416) 635-2073 {linus,ihnp4,uw-beaver,floyd}!utcsrgv!dciem!jeff {allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!dciem!jeff
radio@spuxll.UUCP (Rick Farina) (03/05/85)
> Suppose they did lock him up with a long-term contract. If he flops, and > the tendency to flop is greater once you have lifetime security, then the > Mets are locked up too and they have to continue to fork out all that money > to someone who isn't really earning it. ... Well sure, injuries, letdowns, etc., are always possible. I guess the point I was trying to make is that Gooden may be one of those once-in-a-lifetime athletes (ala Gretzky) who is worth the risk of a long-term commitment on the part of management. The 20-year contract Gretzky signed in '79 certainly has not caused him to let down. Arguably, that contract has acted as a stimulus to his performance. Gretzky has since put up numbers that were inconceivable the day he signed that contract, and my point is that Gooden may be in that league! I guess it comes down to the attiude of the player; he may find salary negotiations disruptive; or, his standards may be so far above his peers that he doesn't need the occasional "salary drive" season to stimulate his performance.
gregbo@houxm.UUCP (Greg Skinner) (03/11/85)
It would be bad business indeed to sign Gooden to more than a 1-year contract
at what they are paying him (I heard 300K/year) at this time. True he was
Rookie of the Year, has outstanding talent and a lot of promise, but he's
still new and still could fall into the sophomore jinx. Look at what hap-
pened with Vida Blue and Mark Fidryich. They were bonus babies, and flopped
in their second seasons. It just doesn't make sense for any team to shell out
lots of cash for any one player (esp. a 2nd year man) over a long period of
time without knowing what kind of rewards they are going to get on their invest-
ment. If Gooden consistently lives up to his initial debut, he will command the
salary of a top player.
--
... hey, we've gotta get out of this place,
there's got to be something better than this ...
Greg Skinner (gregbo)
{allegra,cbosgd,ihnp4}!houxm!gregbo
gregbo%houxm.uucp@harvard.arpa