Post by captobvious on Aug 14, 2006 12:12:41 GMT -5
Regarding behavioral clauses...
Leroy received two contract offers with behavioral clauses, but both took very different approaches. The Surge contract was punitive, threatening to take away all his money for unspecified reasons. My offer went the other route, offering an incentive for good behavior.
The interesting thing is that Leroy can't actually spend any of his contract money from the Surge, because it might be taken away. This is part of why I'm very surprised he would agree to that kind of contract. It seems to me that the Surge could simply pull the money away at a whim, and get his services for an entire year for free. It also seems to me that this would be a violation of the minimum salary rule. Then there's the dubious legality of a player funding another player's salary. If Ty Summers re-worked his contract to reduce his salary commensurate with Leroy's, then that would be a clearly legal way to achieve the same effect.
So yeah, overall, I don't think that contract sets a good precedent for the league.
On the other hand, the contract I offered basically said his monetary value is a bit tarnished based on previous behavior, but he can recoup the difference based on future behavior. I'd have been happy to write him a contract for 4M guaranteed if he had been a less controversial player in the past. Giving players the opportunity to earn their true value back despite tarnished reputations seems to me to be a way to improve the league as a whole.
looks like Sharks are going all the way this year...easily
Post by captobvious on Aug 14, 2006 12:31:24 GMT -5
Ty: A class answer from a class organization.
I don't know what led you to believe I'm upset. I believe the word I used was "surprised." Leroy was a free agent and therefore free to enter into whatever contractual obligations he wants. My only concern here is that you don't get his services for less than the league minimum, which is 500k.