Master Index of Archived Threads


Jeff Bagwell

Elster88 Feb 25 2006 01:10 PM

This has been touched upon elsewhere, but I was hoping we could get into it more. I've meant to post this for a while, so my info might be horribly out-of-date. If it is, let me know. What I understand of the situation is, if Bagwell retires, then the Astros collect insurance for the guaranteed money in his contract for this year. But if they cut him and tries out for another team and doesn't retire, insurance doesn't cover the money. (Obviously if they stick him on the bench then insurance doesn't cover it.) There appears to be a large camp saying that Bagwell should retire, because the Astros have treated him well and paid him a boatload of money. So he should help them out and retire and not try to play somewhere else. __________________________________________ I think that is a huge load of shit. The Astros have to grow the fuck up and live with the contract they signed. If the situation was reversed, and some guy was playing like a stud and wasn't being paid much, would they turn around and give him more? Unlikely, unless there was something in it for them. Besides that, there's an extremely short window for a professional athlete to be employed. If the Astros don't want him, and he can find a job somewhere else, more power to him. Why the hell should anyone be forced to retire? Because he signed a lucrative contract, and the rich folks have decided they don't want to finance it with their own bank accounts???

KC Feb 25 2006 01:19 PM

I'd like to see evidence of the large camp. I'm rooting for Bags. Not because of the money or anything, it's just I don't feel people should be crumpled up and thrown in the dumpster after giving your (lifetime) heart and soul to the said crumplers.

Elster88 Feb 25 2006 01:40 PM

My evidence of a large camp is various media "experts". I don't really have evidence.

KC Feb 25 2006 02:08 PM

I wasn't putting the literal onus on you, I meant one would think that most people aren't taking that stance and would root against the owners - par- ticularly in the case of stand up guy Bagwell.

Edgy DC Feb 25 2006 02:22 PM

Jose Cruz was a career Astro who I admired. I hated seeing him end up a Yankee spare part.

Nymr83 Feb 25 2006 02:26 PM

There is no way Bagwell should walk away from any money he is due.

Gwreck Feb 25 2006 03:07 PM

Nymr83 wrote: There is no way Bagwell should walk away from any money he is due. He doesn't need to walk away from any money. The options are: He reports/is declared fit to play, and gets his money from the Astrons, according to the contract He is "unable" to play, insurance pays off, and he gets the same amount of money. He gets released from the contract and plays for another team. He gets his money from a combination of the Astros and the new team.

Nymr83 Feb 25 2006 03:10 PM

the insurance wouldnt kick in if he played elsewhere and the other team would only have to pay him the minimum while the astros pay the rest i believe so at that price the astros may as well keep him.

Frayed Knot Feb 25 2006 04:43 PM

I haven't followed this uber-closely but it seems to me that Bagwell has been pretty stand-up here. He claims that he believes he can still play and wants to use ST to prove it, but that if he is UNable to go he'd "sign the papers himself" declaring that he's physically not up to par and allowing the 'Stros to recoup their money via the insurance co. What he's objecting to is that the Astros seem to be pre-emptively deciding that's he's too hurt to go because they realize that he's not going to be worth the $17mil he's owed this year even if he can play and are looking for a way to weasel out of it just as the Yanx searched for any out in Giambi's deal a year ago. What's gonna hurt the Astros here is that they willingly put him on their active roster at the tail end of last season and would have a tough time explaining how he was good enough for their stretch drive then but damaged-beyond-repair now. The only real scenarios which could play out in their favor are the one where Bags agrees that he's shot, or the one where they get several doctors to swear that he can't play at all. So far they've had no luck in the latter strategy.

Gwreck Feb 25 2006 06:06 PM

Nymr83 wrote: the insurance wouldnt kick in if he played elsewhere and the other team would only have to pay him the minimum while the astros pay the rest i believe so at that price the astros may as well keep him. Right, that's exactly what I had posted. The big problem is whether he's actually unable to play, which determines where the majority of Bagwell's money comes from -- insurance or the Astros. Bagwell gets his money no matter what. Regarding Frayed Knot's comment -- The part about Bagwell being on the roster at the end of the year is a good pont. I think it's pretty clear though that Bagwell was on that roster -- all the way to a start in game 1 of the World Series -- as a courtesy/reward for loyalty. He wasn't necessarily the best option for them. Bagwell's frustration is certainly valid, but I'd be surprised if he really is able to help the Astros much, if at all, this year. If the Astros had a better solution -- ie. offering him a consultant position, keeping him with the major league team in some fashion, making it clear that the money saved would be used to keep the Astros in contention (such as paying a certain SOB come May, etc.) -- I think the solution would've been a lot less problematic.

Edgy DC Feb 25 2006 06:16 PM

We can put quotes around "unable," but insurers know their business, and I wouldn't expect them to pay out if Bagwell and the Astros make a winking agreement.

SwitchHitter Feb 25 2006 08:02 PM

Hi, I know a little bit about this. Bagwell does not get his money if he retires. That's what retirement is. There are a lot of people (I've read their posts on various fora) who want Bagwell to retire to free up that $17 million ($24 million actually, as there's a buyout for 2007) to spend on other players. They want him to take one for the team. About the insurance. There was a January 31 deadline to file a claim. Richard Justice tried to turn that into an Astros vs. Bagwell scenario. He's mostly succeeded. The Astros did file a claim. The claim is for $15.5 million or somesuch. If he can't play, Bagwell said he'd send a letter to the insurance company himself. In the opinion of some people, Bagwell's playing in September/October would void any claim, but the Astros doen't seem to think that and they know what the policy actually says. There are fans who want Bagwell to be declared disabled so that the insurance money can be spent on other players (are you detecting a trend?). And I've read their messages, too. These folks didn't want Bagwell to report to spring training camp in Kissimmee. They don't care if he can play because even if he can, it won't be at a good enough level. So he shouldn't even try. Some of them were talking about LEOs escorting him off the Osceola County Stadium grounds. I mean, they really didn't want him there. And there are others who say that Drayton McLane Jr. would just pocket the insurance money. I know what I think. But Bagwell's in Kissimmee. He even tossed the ball a dozen times as part of the drills they were doing Friday. The man couldn't throw in 2004 and no one said peep about it then. The other contingent just wanted him to get a chance at ST and see what happened. We're getting what we want. And it's what Bagwell says he wants. I don't know how well he's going to have to be able to throw to keep his job at 1B. And it's not my job to know. That's up to Phil Garner. All we can do is wait and see. And not read anything that Richard Justice writes. The man is a pot-stirrer.

Bret Sabermetric Feb 26 2006 12:02 AM

SwitchHitter wrote: The man is a pot-stirrer. You say that like it's a bad thing, Annie.