Agree or not? Pro athletes should have Incentive/performance-Based Contracts?

[The General]

Agree or not? Pro athletes should have Incentive/performance-Based Contracts?

What are your thoughts?

Thanks

[Justin7]

Agree or not? Pro athletes should have Incentive/performance-Based Contracts?

What are your thoughts?

Thanks

The biggest measure of a team is how well they do on the season. If there are incentives, it should be tied to how the team does, not the individual. You can put in some individual incentives, but I think a focus on the team should be first.

[The_Kid]

If you're asking if they should be paid based on performance, I totally agree. But I don't know how that would work. It's ridiculous how certain players sign a huge contract and then get injured or underperform. For example, Andruw Jones signed a 2 year/$36 million dollar contract last year with the Dodgers. He came into camp out of shape and soon was relegated to the bench because of his performance and because the Dodgers had a crowded outfield as it was. Now, the Dodgers released him but he is still getting paid by the Dodgers. It's ridiculous. He got paid $18 million last year to hit .158 and strike out 76 times in 209 ABs.

[Rich Boy]

This should be implemented in the NBA, way too many slackers.

[tyler36]

It would be a tough thing to do in the NHL, just so many guys that don't put up the huge numbers that are worth their money winning face-offs, shutting down the other teams top players and what not, its a really tough question,

[The General]

Good feedback guys

[The_Kid]

This should be implemented in the NBA, way too many slackers.

Agreed. I notice that players always perform better when in a contract year. Then, they seem to either slack off or under perform the next year and signing that big contract makes the GM and the team look like idiots. I don't know how it can be implemented though. I would definitely have this if it was possible but the egos of some of these players are through the roof. There is no way they would play a game or a week's full of games and then get paid after based on performance. For example, what if they got injured or what if the coach decides not to play him? There are too many variables that need to be looked at if something like this has a chance of happening.

[MonkeyF0cker]

That's hard to do with critical role players. Take a catcher in MLB, for instance. Many catchers are not signed for their bats, rather their ability to call a game, get their pitcher's focus, and various other defensive amenities that can't truly be benchmarked by any statistic. If you were to tie player incentives to team performance, that certainly isn't fair for certain star players who aren't surrounded by any other significant talent. The reality of these types of contracts is that teams are competing for players in the free agency market. If a player has a contract offer on the table that is heavily performance-based versus another offer with guaranteed salary, which would you be more likely to sign? A player is certainly going to insure their financial future when it only takes one play to end their ability to ever sign another contract again.

[tullamore]

You are only worth what someone is willing to pay.

[diogee]

There are quite a few that seem to slack off once they get that big contract so it could help that matter a bit but Monkey makes a great point. I think role players are just as important as the stars...without them there are quite a few instances where the team wouldn't be complete. They might not put up big numbers night in and night out but still make a big difference for the team as a whole.

[Rich Boy]

I think pro athletes make way more money than they should (especially in MLB, give me a break... nobody is worth 30 million a year)

There should be a base salary for all players, then additional money for performance.

[HoulihansTX]

The way to get the best out of athletes is to sign them to short-term contracts, and get as many contract years(last year of contract) out of them as you can. Worked for the Ravens and Cardinals last year.

[shoebox]

I think pro athletes make way more money than they should (especially in MLB, give me a break... nobody is worth 30 million a year)

There should be a base salary for all players, then additional money for performance.

there worth every penny, so you think the owners and MLB should just pocket all the cash.....skrew that best players in the world deserve high pay...period

[diogee]

Yeah but there is a lot of stuff that doesn't show up in the box score...most performance based incentives are based on yards, points, touchdowns, and other shit like that. Someone like Billups does way more than what the boxscore reads.

[HoulihansTX]

The amount NBA players make on avg is about to change exorbitantly in the next two years, due to an imminent Lockout. Many NBA athletes live paycheck to paycheck, and when they have the Lockout these guys wont be getting paid. The players will have no leverage due to bills not being paid, and will have to give into the NBA's demands.

[jsmithj88]

i definately think short term contracts will make players play harder.
3-5 year contracts should be good.

[slacker00]

If I was running a team, I would try to structure a contract as heavily incentive based as possible. But you gotta remember there's another side to the negotiation. The players & agents are always trying to get as much guaranteed money as possible. In free agency, players have all of the leverage in the world, look at Albert Haynesworth, who IMO will NEVER live up to the 50 million guaranteed. The draft is similar because what good is a rookie holdout who comes into camp late? Look at Jamarcus Russell in that example.

In the NFL, teams like the Patriots, Colts & Packers seem to always get good value for their players. But I know here in Wisconsin, fans are getting a little bit uneasy that we never seem to land any free agents in the offseason. Everything is fine and good until a team starts losing, then the fans get grouchy regardless of what strategy one uses. On the flip side, teams like Oakland, Dallas & Washington fork over excess money to marginal players again and again with mixed results.

It's a matter of perspective, do you really want to go after those big name players or try to do it with blue collar guys? The big names will cost, but the blue collar guys are probably a little short on pure talent.

[twister]

It wouldn't work. In fact, it wouldn't work if it was 100% performance related. If it was a league-wide rule that 50% was a set wage, 25% personal performance related, and 25% team performance related (i.e achieving their realistic goals for the season) then that would probably work.

[pico]

put 20% of every player's salary on season total over

[Vincepcion]

This wouldnt work for the NBA. Players would become 10x more selfish than they already are, and would try to be stat hogs on the court. It would take away from the team aspect of basketball...the NBA has enough problems with that, and the team-oriented direction is one that is in the best interest of basketball long-term. With performance-based contracts the game would be bastardized if you ask me.

[Bradyd]

The biggest measure of a team is how well they do on the season. If there are incentives, it should be tied to how the team does, not the individual. You can put in some individual incentives, but I think a focus on the team should be first.

That's great in theory, but how can an individual determine how a team does? You can't because one player could be doing his part, while another one is stinking up the field. Why should the player's bonus depend on how others perform? If it is an performance based incentive, how the team does should be secondary because 1 player, believe it or not can't do it by himself. Just ask MJ, Kobe, Wade, and Lebron. However, I could see those kind of contracts creating a lot of selfish players.

[Casperwaits]

In today's entertainment/sports arena, widespread pay by performance is a pipe dream. With unions and agents, trying to make this happen would be akin to treason. Ricky Williams came into this league with Masta P as his agent and set up a performance based contract for his first season with the Saints, and that ended up HORRIBLY for him. If you think about it, as long as the seats are filled, concession items are being sold, TV contracts are through the roof and Jersey sales are where they are, the players ARE getting paid what they should be. Their job is to fill seats. Granted, the .220 hitter in baseball isn't bringing in the people like the .330 hitter, but common logis dictates that SOMEBODY has to make an out in the game for it to end. That is why the idea of TEAM is so important in this conversation. By individualizing your contract on performance, you will break up the TEAM play and completely INDIVIDUALIZE your product. The NBA has gotten closer to that product over the last 10 years, and not for nothing, has dropped from it's revenue garnering peak 10 years ago to an Association that is trying to keep certain teams in cities. Keep it the way it is. The game will thank us for it.

[PuckOff]

Agree or not? Pro athletes should have Incentive/performance-Based Contracts?

What are your thoughts?

Thanks

General,

I've been saying this for years that NHL players (all pro athletes in fact) should be compensated for their previous year's performance. 1 year contracts only. Too many players play hard in the year heading into UFA and cash in.

[BrentCrude]

In a perfect Ron Paul free market economy,here is how it should work in pro sports.We have a system with bare bone taxes to support a bare essential government.A pro sports owner instead of getting welfare stadium-arena subsidies would sell shares or get backing of investors to build his own arena or stadium.The taxes would be low so he would make a profit.He might book more tractor pulls,rodeos,concerts and all that stuff so the stadium would probably have a few blades of grass torn up more often.

The athletes then would not be the recipient of stadium-arena welfare subsidies from tax payer dollars.They would look at the owners books as to what he takes in from ticket sales,parking,concessions,memorabilia and tv-media rights and would get a percentage of the profit.

Players are given much bigger salaries than they actually earn because of the tax payer subsidy welfare the team owner gets.The team owner has a hobbie of owning a pro sports team but forces people who aren't even interested in sports to pay him tax payer dollars to support him having that hobbie.To boot,they get eminent domain where they can pick any stadium or arena site they want and have people that own the properties on that site bought out even against their will.

So,for all you people that have hobbies like golfing and fishing,I declare the tax payer by way of a government act,contribute to you hobbie by buying you clubs,golf carts,membership fees,boat,motor and tackle.

[MonkeyF0cker]

The reason the stadiums are paid for by tax dollars is BECAUSE of the free market. An owner threatens to move the team because another city is willing to pay the costs for a new stadium. The investment pays for itself.

[bettman]

You are only worth what someone is willing to pay.

agreed...its not all the players fault too. They get paid by past performance so if they get hurt or slack off thats what comes with average players who get crazy contracts...i have at least 15 overrated average players with multi-million dollar contract.

[bettman]

In a perfect Ron Paul free market economy,here is how it should work in pro sports.We have a system with bare bone taxes to support a bare essential government.A pro sports owner instead of getting welfare stadium-arena subsidies would sell shares or get backing of investors to build his own arena or stadium.The taxes would be low so he would make a profit.He might book more tractor pulls,rodeos,concerts and all that stuff so the stadium would probably have a few blades of grass torn up more often.

The athletes then would not be the recipient of stadium-arena welfare subsidies from tax payer dollars.They would look at the owners books as to what he takes in from ticket sales,parking,concessions,memorabilia and tv-media rights and would get a percentage of the profit.

Players are given much bigger salaries than they actually earn because of the tax payer subsidy welfare the team owner gets.The team owner has a hobbie of owning a pro sports team but forces people who aren't even interested in sports to pay him tax payer dollars to support him having that hobbie.To boot,they get eminent domain where they can pick any stadium or arena site they want and have people that own the properties on that site bought out even against their will.

So,for all you people that have hobbies like golfing and fishing,I declare the tax payer by way of a government act,contribute to you hobbie by buying you clubs,golf carts,membership fees,boat,motor and tackle.

i wonder what the Dallas stadium is gonna pull in.

[bettman]

That's great in theory, but how can an individual determine how a team does? You can't because one player could be doing his part, while another one is stinking up the field. Why should the player's bonus depend on how others perform? If it is an performance based incentive, how the team does should be secondary because 1 player, believe it or not can't do it by himself. Just ask MJ, Kobe, Wade, and Lebron. However, I could see those kind of contracts creating a lot of selfish players.

i think those contracts work with a more individual type game such as MLB, FOOTBALL, etc...

[slacker00]

This is really decided at the level of the players union versus the owners union. It's the classic corporate partnership where a complicated deal has to be made to make both parties happy. Should the owners get all of the profits? Should the players? I'd have to look it up, but I think it goes about 50/50, depending on what kind of concessions one side or the other wants to make. If you think the owners should get more, then why?

[Rich Boy]

This is one of the most insightful threads I have seen at SBR for a while... Thank God there are some education people here...

[BobHarvey]

General,

Yes they should. In fact I hear that the Dodgers and their lawyers are ALREADY trying to void Manny's contract. Remember HE holds the $20 million dollar for next year. I don't a long line forming for his services after today.

[m0nkeydump]

That would create a lot of volume shooters and players that gamble on defense for steals (talkin' about NBA, obviously). Contracts are fine as they are now. They provide financial security for the years under contract and it's up to the team to determine how much they want to offer. If you don't perform up to par, you won't get an extension and other teams will not offer you a contract (ex: Smush "Epicfail" Parker).

If a team spent millions of dollars to pay an underachiever, the salary of that player on their books for the however many remaining years should be the consequence of bad scouting and terrible management. As it stands now, teams and management are rewarded by taking good picks and signing developing players for cheap. That's the reward. After the contract is up, they will either have to offer a larger sum of money to keep the player, or risk losing said player to another team.

[head_strong]