MLB award bonuses are history

What kind of incentives will players and agents ask for now?


http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=3142555

just the start of the story...

 

same as they do now -- innings pitched and plate appearances. All-Star teams are OK, because that is recognition as a top player which is not voted by a small group of sportswriters.

 

I sorta figured that. But will be interesting to see what kind of movement there is in those plateaus (higher or lower) to reach the bonus level now that post-season award bonuses are coming off the table.

 

Interesting.

I thought it odd when A-Rod's contract didn't include bonuses for MVP, etc., but I just chalked it up to the huge bonuses that came with his "historic achievements."

Now I'm guessing the Yankees knew this was going to pass easily.

 

Lord, how are guys making $15 million going to survive without that $100,000 bonus?

 

It was funny that some players had a bonus in their contracts for being named division series MVP when no such award exists.

 

The Yankees, traditionally, have declined to include such bonuses in the the contracts they negotiate. I can't say they've been strict in enforcing the policy, because I don't know for sure, but it is their stated policy since Big Stein started handing out large contracts.
Rodriguez' new contract does not contain award based bonus.

 

The performance bonuses have never been allowed. It is only with permission of the Commissioner that A-Rod's performance bonuses will be allowed. Appearance bonuses are reasonable because a team is validating the value of the player.

Performance bonuses based on Home Runs, Wins, RBI, strikeouts shouldn't be allowed because moving a runner from second to third with no outs in the late innings is more important than trying to hit a home run or an extra-base hit.

 

Unless, that is, the player succeeds and drives in the tying or winning run. But I understand and agree with your premise.

 

And after the "look at me" publicity, they say naaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah:

http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20071207&content_id=2320887&vkey=news_mlb&fext=.jsp&c_id=mlb

 

The Baseball Writers Association really had no way of enforcing the rules because they don't have a right to see all 800 contracts. Their only option would be to stop voting for the awards.

The system of having the writers' vote for the major awards has generally worked well with some exceptions. There are some bad choices which people might point to, but the system is a good one and is much fairer than if the leagues or baseball personnel voted for it. Many writers now write in their columns how and why they vote, and I think the overwhelming majority take it seriously.

I remember in 1978 reading Moss Klein's column explaining why he voted for Jim Rice over Ron Guidry. He wrote that he decided in favor of Rice because of what he did in the last two weeks of the season. I disagreed with that - Guidry's 25-3 record with a 1.74 ERA has only been matched by Gooden's 1985 season where he was 24-4 and with luck could have won 30 game. But the fact that Moss Klein disclosed this gave a good idea about how and why these decisions were made.