12-05-2012, 10:36 AM #21
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."Baseball is like church. Many attend, few understand."
12-05-2012, 10:43 AM #22
12-05-2012, 10:54 AM #23
Sheesh, man. Try to keep up.
Last edited by USAFChief; 12-05-2012 at 10:57 AM.
12-05-2012, 11:14 AM #24
- Liked 19 Times in 14 Posts
12-05-2012, 11:19 AM #25
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.
12-13-2012, 02:25 AM #26
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?