Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site mmintl.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!pwa-b!mmintl!franka
From: franka@mmintl.UUCP (Frank Adams)
Newsgroups: net.sport.baseball
Subject: Re: Contract Rules
Message-ID: <651@mmintl.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 12-Sep-85 18:15:22 EDT
Article-I.D.: mmintl.651
Posted: Thu Sep 12 18:15:22 1985
Date-Received: Mon, 16-Sep-85 08:28:52 EDT
References: <491@lasspvax.UUCP> <160@tekchips.UUCP> <261@whuts.UUCP> <258@pedsgd.UUCP> <735@cybvax0.UUCP>
Reply-To: franka@mmintl.UUCP (Frank Adams)
Organization: Multimate International, E. Hartford, CT
Lines: 15
Summary: I think it was


In article <735@cybvax0.UUCP> wbs@cybvax0.UUCP (William B. Solomon) writes:
>> Ive got a question for all you experts out there. I seem to recall that
>> it is against ML rules for a player to have a performance clause in his
>> contract; ie so many dollars for each hit, strikeout, or whatever. But
>> it is perfectly ok to have clauses based on post season awards or
>> appearances. So 
>> 
>> 1) Is this really a rule?
>
>In my opinion the answer to (1) is no.

I believe there was such a rule 15 years ago or so, but there is no longer.
I know there was a rule against bonuses being given which were not specified
in the contract; the Cubs (and possibly other teams) got around this by
giving players raises after extraordinary performances.