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.