The important part of this:
First, why should the BBWAA have any influence over contracts what-so-ever? This whole idea of writers having any say in how contracts are done is ludicrous.
Beginning in 2013, any player who has a clause in his contract that contains financial incentives for postseason awards voted on by the BBWAA will be ineligible.
The impetus for the rule was thought to be a clause in Schilling’s contract calling for a $1 million bonus if he received a single Cy Young Award vote next season. The BBWAA viewed the clause as a potential conflict of interest for voters.
Secondly, who really has an issue with athletes being paid based on performance? Come on! In a world where Physicians, cancer researchers, and soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan and paid far, far less that guys who dribble or hit well, what is the crime in actually saying to one of them that if they play poor they get paid less than if they play very well?
Certain folks I know who have weighed in have mentioned the concept of a writer giving a guy like Schilling a vote as a "favor" the bonus will be given. Oh, yes. This sounds logical. Just as logical as writers who don't vote for players who weren't press friendly. (Case in point: Roger Maris not in the Hall of Fame. And if you think his numbers are too weak, keep in mind he held one of the most revered record in baseball for 37 years. Then look at the numbers of Bill Mazeroski!)
Baseball writer have consistently high opinions on one topic: Themselves. The idea that they should have any influence, individually or by committee, on player contracts is inappropriate and, to be blunt, moronic.