Position/Role Incentives
A small number of contracts contain incentive structures that offer potential additional compensation or rights to players based on their usage in a specific position or role during the term of the contract.
This incentive structure is used for three categories of players: (a) catchers; (b) pitchers who may have a starting or relieving role; and (c) relief pitchers who may have a closing role.
1. Catchers
Catchers are the only position players in the collected data who have incentive structures based on playing their primary position, rather than appearing in a different role like DH. This presumably reflects the premium value associated with the catcher position, although there were no such incentives in contracts for other high-value positions like CF or SS. Two possible explanations for this are that: (a) unlike the other high-value positions, catchers often cannot play elsewhere in the field, meaning that a catcher will be filling the DH spot if they are not playing catcher; and (b) catching is a generally an onerous position from a physical standpoint and catchers will often require days off.
There are four catchers in the data with incentives tied to playing at catcher. Austin Hedges’ 2026 1-year contract with Cleveland is the simplest structure of these four, as Hedges will receive $125,000 for each of 70, 75, 80 and 85 games at catcher. The other three contract all contain more complex structures whereby an option year or future salaries (in the case of Basallo) are affected by games played at catcher. These contracts are discussed in more depth in the Options and Incentives and Top of the Market analyses, but, for this analysis, it is interesting to note the number of games required to trigger the incentive in each contract.
Raleigh has an option year that vests at 100 games at catcher in at least 4 of the 6 seasons during his contract. Basallo has escalators that increase his salary at 60, 90 and 120 games at catcher, while Stallings has a buyout escalator at 80, 90 and 100 games. Based on this, admittedly small, sample, it seems that teams recognize the premium value associated with having a catcher who catches roughly 100 games in season. This accords with the stats from the 2025 season, in which only 17 players caught 100 games or more (Raleigh being one of those).
2. Pitchers with Starting Upside
There are a small number of pitchers who may be used as starters or relievers, and have contracts that give them upside based on incentives tied to number of starts. This analysis does not include pitchers who are starting pitchers and have incentives that reward them for making a relatively high number of starts. Barring extreme scenarios, these pitchers would not be used in any role other than as a starter. This is different than the other contracts in this analysis, all of which have some potential variability or uncertainty in relation to the role that they would be used in during the contract.
Keegan Thompson’s 1-year 2026 contract with the Reds, Sean Newcomb’s 1-year 2026 contract with the White Sox, and Jacob Waguespack’s 1-year 2025 contract with the Rays, have incentives tied to pitching usage, regardless of whether the usage is in relief or starting, and incentives tied specifically to starting:
Thompson has $140,000 in incentives tied to innings pitched and appearances, and $50,000 in incentives tied to games started, with $10,000 for each of 6, 8, 10, 12 and 14 starts. Thompson has primarily been a reliver in his career, although he made 17 starts in the 2022 season.
Newcomb has $1million in incentives tied to innings pitched and another $1 million in incentives tied to starts, with $100,000 for each of 8, 10, 12, 14, 16, 18, 20, 22, 24 and 26 starts. Newcomb began his career as a starter, making 19 and 30 starts in the 2017 and 2018 seasons respectively, but has been mainly a relief arm since that time, making only 5 starts out of 48 appearances in 2025.
Waguespack’s contract had an interesting, blended incentive structure, whereby his $1.5 million club option would escalate to $2 million if he reached 20 points, with a relief appearance being worth one point and a start being worth two points. As such, 10 starts, without any other appearances, would have achieved this objective. Waguespack began his career as a starter, making 13 starts in the 2018 season, but has since been used primarily in relief roles.
Also in this category and former starters with injury concerns that may require a transition to relief roles. These contracts seem to contain higher incentive upsides than the contracts for Thompson, Newcomb, and Waguespack. For example, Jose Urquidy’s 1-year 2025 contract with the Tigers included option year performance bonuses based on number of starts with the potential to raise his compensation by a significant amount. Urquidy’s contract was for $1 million with a club option for $4 million. The performance bonuses could have raised his option year compensation by another $3 million, with $150,000 for each of 4 and 7 starts, $300,000 for each of 10, 13, 16, and 19 starts, and $500,000 each for 22, 25 and 28 starts. Urquidy had previously been a starting pitcher, making 28 starts in 2022, but had been used as a reliever for portions of 2023 and then suffered a right elbow injury requiring surgery.
Drew Rasmussen’s 2-year 2025 contract with the Rays is another example. Prior to 2025, Rasmussen had significant injuries and had been used both as a reliever and a starter, making 28 starts in 2022 but only making 4 in 2024 (with 12 relief appearances). His contract contains significant upside for his 2027 club option year, based on his 2026 season. The club option starts at $8 million but could increase to $20 million based on how many days he spends on the IL in 2026 (tiered, with a maximum of $6 million if he spends 15 or fewer arm-related IL days and 45 or fewer total IL days in 2026) and how many starts he makes in 2026 (tiered, starting at $500,000 for 8 starts, with a maximum of $1.5 million for 28 starts).
Clayton Kershaw’s 1-year 2025 contract with the Dodgers is another in this category. Kershaw’s contract had significant incentives days on the active roster and games started. Kershaw had the potential to earn $8.5 million in total from incentives, standing at over half of his guaranteed $16 million. $4 million was from the games started bonuses, which gave $1 million for each of 13, 14, 15 and 16 games started. Kershaw achieved these objectives. Kershaw had of course been a starter for most of his career but, going into the 2026 season, recent injury issues led to concerns that he might only be able to be used in a relief role.
Michael Soroka’s 1-year 2026 contract has a similar blended structure to the contract of Waguespack, detailed above, although with a more lucrative upside. Soroka’s incentives are awarded based on a point scale where a start earns him 2 points and a relief appearance earns 1 point. Soroka can earn $250,000 each for 10 and 20 points, $425,000 each for 30 and 40 points, and $650,000 for 50 points. As such, if Soroka achieves 50 points, he can raise his total earnings on the contract by $2 million, from $7.5 million to $9.6 million. Soroka began his career as a starter and has had consistent usage in this role, although injuries have sidelined him and forced him into relief on occasion, as he made 17 starts and 5 relief appearances in 2025 and 9 starts with 16 relief appearances in 2024.
The high upside of the Kershaw, Urquidy, Rasmussen, and Soroka contracts indicates the tension between potentially impactful starters with injury risks that may either force them out of action or may require that they take on a relief role.
Eric Lauer’s 2025 contract with the Jays also contained incentives tied to starts, but the specifics of the incentives weren’t publicly disclosed.
3. Relievers with Closing Upside
Finally, there are contracts with relief pitchers that contain incentives tied to games finished, which is a stat accrued when a pitcher is the last pitcher to pitch for their team in a game. Typically, the league leaders of games finished will be closers, with a correlation between games finished and saves (although games finished are often higher). For example, the top 5 pitchers in games finished in 2025 were also all in the top 6 in saves, with only the Mariners’ Andres Munoz making the top 5 in saves without being in the top 5 in games finished. The Jays’ Jeff Hoffman was the leader in games finished with 59, and fourth in saves with 33. The Royals’ Carlos Estevez was the leader in saves with 42, and tied for second in games finished with 57.
Unsurprisingly, these incentives are found in contracts for pitchers who are signed to be the team’s closer, or who will be competing for a closer role. As such, this incentive structure poses an interesting issue, as it appears that the games finished incentive is being used as a proxy for incentives based on saves, which would not be permitted. Put another way, the reason these incentives are included in certain reliever contracts are to give the players upsides tied to saves, but since saves are not a permitted incentive metric, games finished is used as the metric.
There are 7 contracts in this category, all of which illustrate how this structure is being used as a proxy to reward closers for saves:
Edwin Diaz’ 3-year 2026 contract with the Dodgers has performance incentives for appearances and games finished incentives for the 2029 season, with Diaz receiving $750,00 each for 45 and 50 games finished. Diaz will presumably be the Dodgers’ closer moving forward.
Mark Leiter Jr.’s 1-year 2026 contract with the Athletics gives Leiter $50,000 for each of 35, 40 and 45 games finished. Leiter only has a career-high of 12 games finished and 4 saves in a season (2023), but has a high probability of being used in in a closer role for the Athletics in 2026 given the lack of an established closer in the Athletics’ bullpen.
Hunter Harvey’s 1-year 2026 contract with the Cubs has incentives tied to appearances and games finished, with $125,000 for each of 20, 25, 30 and 35 games finished. These relatively low numbers to trigger the games finished incentives reflect that the Cubs have other closing options in Daniel Palencia and Phil Maton.
Tanner Scott’s 4-year 2025 contract with the Dodgers has performance incentives for the 2029 season tied to appearances and games finished, with $750,000 each for 30, 35 and 40 games finished. While Scott was set to be a strong candidate for the Dodgers’ closer going into 2025, he will now likely take a backseat to Diaz, also under contract through 2029.
Jorge Lopez’ 1-year 2025 contract with the Nationals had incentives tied to pitching appearances and games finished, with $50,000 for each of 20, 30, 40, 50, and 60 games finished. Lopez started the season with a potential to compete with Kyle Finnegan for a closing role in the Nationals’ bullpen and was initially used in a setup role but given closing opportunities in the early season. He was not successful in these chances and was waived by the Nationals in May 2025.
John Brebbia’s 1-year 2025 contract with the Tigers had incentives tied to pitching appearances and games finished, with $250,000 for each of 40, 45, 50, and 55 games finished. The Tigers did not have a clear closer coming into the season, but Brebbia was ultimately DFA’d and Will Vest took over the closer role.
Alexis Diaz’ 1-year 2026 contract with the Rangers has incentives tied innings pitched and games finished, with $50,000 each for 25 and 30 games finished, and $100,000 each for 35, 40 and 45 games finished. Diaz was frequently used in a closing role for the first three years of his career (2022-2024) and the Rangers used a closer-by-committee system in 2025, indicating that Diaz may be given closing opportunities in the 2026 season.