Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site spuxll.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!cbdkc1!desoto!packard!hoxna!houxm!whuxl!whuxlm!spuxll!radio From: radio@spuxll.UUCP (Rick Farina) Newsgroups: net.sport.baseball Subject: Re: Gooden signs (comments on long-term contracts) Message-ID: <632@spuxll.UUCP> Date: Mon, 4-Mar-85 16:12:36 EST Article-I.D.: spuxll.632 Posted: Mon Mar 4 16:12:36 1985 Date-Received: Wed, 6-Mar-85 02:20:21 EST References: <624@spuxll.UUCP>, <1421@dciem.UUCP> Organization: AT&T Information Systems, South Plainfield NJ Lines: 16 > Suppose they did lock him up with a long-term contract. If he flops, and > the tendency to flop is greater once you have lifetime security, then the > Mets are locked up too and they have to continue to fork out all that money > to someone who isn't really earning it. ... Well sure, injuries, letdowns, etc., are always possible. I guess the point I was trying to make is that Gooden may be one of those once-in-a-lifetime athletes (ala Gretzky) who is worth the risk of a long-term commitment on the part of management. The 20-year contract Gretzky signed in '79 certainly has not caused him to let down. Arguably, that contract has acted as a stimulus to his performance. Gretzky has since put up numbers that were inconceivable the day he signed that contract, and my point is that Gooden may be in that league! I guess it comes down to the attiude of the player; he may find salary negotiations disruptive; or, his standards may be so far above his peers that he doesn't need the occasional "salary drive" season to stimulate his performance.