The silliness about the Stros-Jeff Bagwell situation continues over at Richard Justice’s blog:
And the Drayton McLane-Jeff Bagwell dispute is a story with legs. What if the insurance claim is rejected, and Bagwell ends up on the field in spring training?
That will make for some uncomfortable moments when Uncle Drayton does one of his handshake tours of the clubhouse.
He may be doing the right thing from a business standpoint even if his chances of collecting are slim. But players pay attention to how other players are treated.
Next winter’s Roy Oswalt discussions got a lot more interesting this week.
So, Roy O is less likely to re-up with the Stros because of the way Drayton McLane has treated Bags?
Let’s review the very simple landscape.
Everyone concedes that Bags is at least partially disabled from playing Major League Baseball — he can no longer throw a ball effectively. The only question is whether that partial disability allows the Stros to recover about $15.5 million under a disability insurance policy that the club purchased on Bags. The club still owes Bags $24 million for the final year of his contract.
Bags wants the Stros to waive the $15.5 million claim under the insurance policy and let him try to play this season, although Bags acknowledges that he doesn’t know whether he will be able to do so. Meanwhile, Bags has not offered (and probably cannot under the MLB-MLBPA Collective Bargaining Agreement) to restructure his contract to induce the Stros of taking the economic risk of not making a claim on the insurance policy.
In short, the greatest player in Stros history is suggesting that the Stros should walk away from a potential $15.5 million recovery without receiving anything more than a great ballplayer’s goodwill for giving him one last chance at playing ball, probably at the expense of his teammates, who would likely be better off having a non-disabled ballplayer playing instead of Bags.
Frankly, Bagwell is the one being unreasonable here, not Drayton McLane. What should really concern Roy O would be if McLane were to give in to Bagwell’s self-indulgent stance. That he is not reflects that McLane is willing to do the right thing for the rest of the Stros ballplayers, even when doing the right thing is not what the greatest player in club history wants.
As much as I love Bags, I can’t really work up a ton of sympathy for him here. Today, he’s the 2nd, and possibly 3rd, best 1st baseman on the team. Since he can basically play no other position, especially if he can’t throw, I can’t see him playing very much into their future plans. However, if he can hit and produce at his 2004 level, he may have a place in the AL as a DH. His 2004 numbers compare favorably to a better than average DH, based upon the 2005 production from that position.
I agree completely. Local sports talk is on Bagwell’s side which baffles me for a second or two, but then I realize it’s sports talk. Bagwell should do the honorable thing and retire. He’s broken and unfixable.
The Astros are paying money that Bagwell agreed to “backload” into his contract – money that all parties agreed that he deserved to be making in his prime. It matters not that he is the 3rd best 1B on the team or that he is not what he once was. The Bagwell at spring training 2006 is likely going to be better than the Bagwell of October 2005, which was a version good enough to be part of the September and October rosters. What the Astros are doing to the most outstanding player in their franchise’s history is wrong and insulting, and I hope that they lose on all counts.
Scott, my understanding is Jeff Bagwell is going to get all the money coming to him under his contract, whether or not he’s on roster opening day. The bigger issue is what’s good for the team. Jeff is a shadow of his former self. A decent hitter when he’s on, a good glove at first, but with the throwing ability of a good 11 year old ballplayer. You have to remember, too, that he rode the bench injured for the vast majority of last year and didn’t miss a paycheck, either. So I don’t understand you when you say what the Astro’s are “doing” to Bagwell is wrong. They’ve upheld their end of the deal the entire time but need to protect the team for the long haul in case Bagwell can’t deliver.
Mike, I believe that the Astros are “wrong” to attempt to prevent Bagwell from trying to play baseball in 2006. He threw like an 11 year old ballplayer from 2002-2005 as well, but the Astros filed no disability claims. Now he’s endured a major surgery and months of greuling rehab in hopes of getting back on the field to help the team that he loves so much (he’s getting paid regardless, so his motives are clear and genuine), and the Astros have decided that the chance to save $15M is worth (a) permanently ruining their relationship with their most popular player in franchise history, (b) publicly humiliating him and (c) potentially ticking off a large portion of their fanbase. Bagwell is not scheduled to make $17M because of his throwing ability – it’s his hitting, fielding, running and leadership that make him so valuable, and all of those are characteristics that no one seems to disagree that he may still bring to the table in 2006.
Scott, one correction. Bagwell’s injury took a decided turn for the worse last year when he opted to have surgery to relieve the arthritic pain. As a result, his throwing ability declined significantly from even his reduced ability from 2002-2004. That decline is what has prompted the Stros’ claim under the disability insurance policy. The Stros would not have asserted the claim if Bagwell’s shoulder had not taken a significant turn for the worse during the 2005 season.
I guess Tom is now drinking from Uncle Drayton’s Kool-Aid. The Astros have only themselves to blame for giving Bagwell a ridiculuous contract and now they want him to save them from it by publicly humiliating him. Yeah, I’m sure Oswalt won’t think about that at all.
How exactly are the Stros “publicly humiliating” Bagwell by asserting a claim on a disability insurance contract that was a key part of the club’s deal with him?
It seems to me that Bagwell has been publicly humiliating the Stros by suggesting that they indulge a disabled former star rather than attempting to collect security for a contract that the club could use to buy the services of a ballplayer who could actually help the other players on the team.
If you think Drayton McLane is going to roll that 15 mil into another player, you are seriously delusional. It’s obvious his plan is to live off of 2005 while slashing payroll by running off Clemens and Bagwell.
Do you honestly think this is sitting well with Oswalt and the rest of the Astros?
McLane has spent more money than any other Stros owner in bringing in free agents to give the team a chance to win. His attempt to mitigate the damages of Bagwell’s injury is consistent with that policy. Your suggestion otherwise is without factual basis.
So you can read his mind now? Your assertion is no more factual at all! If he doesn’t go after a big time player with this money that he’s gonna save, will you do a mea culpa here?