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.