voting to disqualify players with contract clauses that pay bonuses for winning a BBWAA-voted award (MVP, CYA, and ROY, though I've never heard of such an incentive for ROY)?
The BBWAA appointed a committee to evaluate the concept, and voted decisively, 41-21, to enact this ban beginning with the 2013 championship season. Any player with a contract incentive would be ineligible as a candidate for these BBWAA-voted honors.
I think this will be A Good Thing. Awards should be their own, um, reward, and any financial gain can come in the player's next contract. Good to see the writers taking the initiative of obviating what has become an increasingly lucrative bonus plan (ARod got $1.5M for his 2007 MVP) that does impose some small but real potential conflicts of interest (as with Schilling's "any one CYA vote" 2008 bonus) on them.
A smart move.
What do you think? (<-- note: in the form of a QUESTION)
http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/news?slug=ap-bbwaaawards&prov=ap&type=lgns
2007-12-05 07:24:26 · 7 answers · asked by Chipmaker Authentic 7 in Sports ➔ Baseball
I completely agree with it. Players already make enough as it is, why pay them more for awards that they achieve.
Why can't we just let that come on their next contract like you said.
2007-12-05 08:07:48 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think this is a good idea. I like the thought that an award is award enough. Having said that, however, I think that incentive-based salary should be the norm, not the exception.
Why not have a standard salary for the league based on years in MLB and then incentives for hitting at a certain avg or so many HR's, X amount of games with no errors, etc. Perhaps it would help teams avoid the "pat burrell" overpayments where a potentially talented individual winds up getting a large salary for no results. It would also immediately reward a player who suddenly has a breakout year.
2007-12-05 15:58:11 · answer #2 · answered by auntielibrarian 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I am not against incentive based contracts. Smaller market teams attract veterans with these types of deals, so why take away whatever little edge they have?
As far as the award money is concerned, I think this is an awesome decision. Players get an appropiate salary for their services, and trust me, if they're good enough to win an award, they're going to make the money up somehow. Endorsements, whether local or national, are almost always on the table.
2007-12-05 15:45:19 · answer #3 · answered by baseball_is_my_life 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Smart to a certain extent. I think instead of eliminating the financial rewards for earning the statistical award. I think the money should be donated to a charity of the player's choice in honor of the player winning the award.
2007-12-05 16:46:38 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
It was Schilling's contract that broke the camel's back. If he gets a single 3rd place or higher vote for Cy Young next season, he gets a million dollar bonus. One vote.
2007-12-06 13:15:31 · answer #5 · answered by Kelly P 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Great move, as far as I see it.
Incentive-laced contracts are just ways to circumvent the luxury tax - they should be done away with all together.
The only downside I see about this, is the fact it won't be instituted today.
.
2007-12-05 15:39:32 · answer #6 · answered by Kris 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Many baseball writers suck! Too much bias!
2007-12-05 16:37:12 · answer #7 · answered by Jesse M 2 · 0⤊ 2⤋