< Lay-Skilling, Week Four | Main | The criminalization of business mindset >
February 24, 2006
More on the Bagwell muddle
Chronicle sportswriter Richard Justice continues in this column with his illogical broadsides on Stros owner Drayton McLane over whether the best player in Stros history -- Jeff Bagwell -- is disabled from playing Major League Baseball (previous posts here, here and here).
Giving much credence to Bagwell's rather childish behavior toward McLane and McLane's quite reasonble assertion of a claim under a disability insurance contract that partially secures a portion of Bagwell's substantial contract, Justice reasons that McLane is a greedy capitalist who does not want to allow the best player in Stros history to play out his contract on his own terms. Such dubious reasoning with regard to McLane is quite common of Justice.
The reality of the situation is this. The Stros and Bagwell entered into a long-term contract that the Stros prudently secured partially with a disability insurance policy. Bagwell's arthritic shoulder may have disabled him from playing Major League Baseball and the Stros were under a January 31 deadline to make a claim under the disability policy, which they did. The Stros are giving Bagwell an opportunity to prove during Spring Training that he is not disabled and would gladly waive their disability insurance claim if Bags can throw a baseball effectively and generate numbers this season anywhere near the level that he has over his career. But it's far from clear that he can.
So, what exactly is the basis of Justice's animus toward McLane? Could it be this?
Posted by Tom at February 24, 2006 07:06 AM
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://mtcgi.kir.com/mt-trackbk.cgi/2896
Comments
It's nice that someone FINALLY explained the reality of the situation and didn't paint McLane as a backstabber. McLane probably screwed up by agreeing to a Jan 31 deadline instead of getting it made Apr 1. Still, you're dead-on here.
Posted by: Bouj at February 24, 2006 02:37 PM
Bouj, you're right about the Jan. 31 deadline, and I suspect that McLane probably agrees with you.
In the Stros defense, though, they probably did not anticipate at the time they took out the policy the rather odd situation that they now confront -- i.e., there still being a question as to whether Bags is disabled going into spring training. They probably figured that, if disability came into play, it would be clear that he was disabled and, thus, the deadline date for making the claim probably was not viewed as being all that important. Unfortunately, it became very important in the special situation involving Bags, and I think the Stros did the right thing by preserving their claim rights pending Bags' performance during Spring Training.
Posted by: Tom K at February 24, 2006 02:48 PM
The Astros are going to be on ESPN next Thursday, so hopefully we get to see Bags in action!
Posted by: richard at February 24, 2006 05:12 PM
Nice mention in Deadspin regarding the above post:
http://www.deadspin.com/sports/leftovers/leftovers-see-ya-lil-penny-156895.php
Posted by: John at February 24, 2006 06:38 PM
Hedging isn't a bad idea when you're extending long-term deals to guys over 30. Next time maybe they'll be smarter and max out at a 4 year contract?
Posted by: Rip Slagcheek at February 24, 2006 08:06 PM
Post a comment
Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)
(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)