Incentives and FA signings
What do you think of the notion of incentive-laden contracts . . . for pretty much everybody?
For instance, if I were a part of the uber-wealthy aristocratic class of owners, I would employ a particular approach for FA signings, and I don't really think I would like to budge from it. Consider a free agent whose average value is X. There are teams who are going to pay more than that and teams who would try to pay less. I would take that average as a baseline and include incentives over the likely amount of the top payers. Does this really seem like a bad idea?
Take Edwin Jackson. Let's say the average is 3/39. Add in 9 million in incentives over those three years and it could, based on performance mean a 3/48 contract (which, right now, I am assuming is at least 5 million over the top payer now, but that is adjustable). The incentives would be likely three-tiered, with the bottom one very attainable, the second one based on above-average performance for the players, and the third based on great or peak performance.
The general idea is to 1. minimize risk, 2. get players, and 3. reward great performance and be glad for it by paying more. Payroll issues are not reducible to amount spent, but rather how that amount matches performance. Incentives provide for this.
Just wanted a different kind of conversation and thought this was a good idea. I know "guaranteed money" is a big deal, but I think there may be something to this approach.