Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site pedsgd.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!houxm!vax135!petsd!pedsgd!bob
From: bob@pedsgd.UUCP (Robert A. Weiler)
Newsgroups: net.sport.baseball
Subject: Re: Contract Rules
Message-ID: <266@pedsgd.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 10-Sep-85 09:43:23 EDT
Article-I.D.: pedsgd.266
Posted: Tue Sep 10 09:43:23 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 11-Sep-85 06:32:02 EDT
References: <491@lasspvax.UUCP> <160@tekchips.UUCP> <261@whuts.UUCP> <258@pedsgd.UUCP> <735@cybvax0.UUCP>
Reply-To: bob@pedsgd.UUCP (Robert A. Weiler)
Organization: Perkin-Elmer, Tinton Falls, NJ
Lines: 32

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