Thread: Incentives and FA signings

I like the idea of incentive laden contracts in theory. But FroDaddy nailed it. Agents want guaranteed money to insure against the debilitating injury. Also, as the owner, you aren't really going to know what other teams are offering so you would never really know if you overpaid with incentives.

Originally Posted by ericchri

My first thought was, "doesn't A-rod have a ton of incentives in his contract?" But I think they're mostly milestone based incentives (600 HR, 700 HR, all time HR leader, etc...), not seasonal achievement incentives. So it's not unheard of to have incentives in the contract, just not the norm, and determining those incentives would be the tricky part, to make them appealing to the player over guaranteed money. It's not a bad idea in a sense, but I think people have already pointed out most any flaw I would be able to think of.

Yeah fair enough.

Originally Posted by old nurse

Originally Posted by SpiritofVodkaDave

Originally Posted by FrodaddyG

Two words: Players. Union.

****ing Obama!

The players Union was founded in 53. It gained strength in the early 70's. What does Obama have yo do with that? Nixon and Ford were president then.

Do you not watch fair and balanced news? The black liberation theology believing, muslim, athiest Obama thwarted an attempt to break the union by Nixon and Ford, in cahoots with Saul Alinsky, back in Obama's community organizer days. They used ACORN to rig the voting, and plan on instituting socialized healthcare on the owners to consolidate control of MLB at the federal level.

Sheesh, man. Try to keep up.

Originally Posted by old nurse

Originally Posted by SpiritofVodkaDave

Originally Posted by FrodaddyG

Two words: Players. Union.

****ing Obama!

The players Union was founded in 53. It gained strength in the early 70's. What does Obama have yo do with that? Nixon and Ford were president then.

Whoa! No way? Thanks for clearing that up for me!

I assumed that SVD was joking about Obama.

Yes, I understand what the union does. I was trying to make a case for this situation being advantageous for both sides. That said, agents are a third side and they are the ones to lose the most in this.

Then I would change the initial idea in order to please the union. What about offering the baseline but then including the harder and harder incentives for more money. As the team, who cares about paying the extra money given that the player must have done very well to earn it. Let me give an example. Let's say that Shaun Marcum is looking at 2 year/18 dollar deals right now. Why not offer him that with one level of incentives (say 160 innings and sub 4.00 ERA) making it 2/21 and another level (200 innings, sub 4.00 ERA) making it 2/24?