More muddled thinking on the Bagwell situation

JeffBagwell10.jpgThe Chronicle’s Richard Justice — who ignited a remarkable amount of muddled thinking regarding the Stros’ claim under the club’s disability insurance policy on its star firstbaseman, Jeff Bagwell (related post here) — continues with the nonsense in his column today.
Justice proposes that the Stros waive making a claim for $15.6 million under the disability insurance policy and allow Bags to try and play this season in return for Bagwell’s promise that he would pay the club $7.8 million — i.e., half of the disability insurance claim — if it turns out that Bags really is disabled and can’t play effectively this coming season.
Uh, I don’t think Richard ran that proposed “solution” by Bags and his agent. Bags, the greatest player in Stros history, negotiated a five-year, $85 million contract from a position of strength six years ago under which the Stros agreed that he would receive a guaranteed amount (now down to $24 million) regardless of whether Bags is physically capable of playing major league baseball throughout the term of the contract. And now Justice proposes that Bags place $7.8 million of that $24 million at substantial risk for the opportunity to prove that he is physically capable of playing major league baseball?
Why on earth would Bags do that? Even if the Stros release Bags and collect the entire claim under the disability insurance contract, Bags could still attempt to play major league baseball with another club without risking a dime. Romantic considerations aside, does Justice really think for a moment that Bags would or should be willing to risk $7.8 million for the opportunity of trying to prove that he is capable of playing one final season with the Stros?
Richard Justice should stick to reporting on baseball, not contracts and risk evaluation.

3 thoughts on “More muddled thinking on the Bagwell situation

  1. Remind me not to interview Richard Justice the next time that I’m looking for a new agent. I disagree with Tom about the Bagwell/Drayton issue, but both sides can certainly agree that it is stunning that the featured sports columnist of the city’s only major newspaper would offer make such a dimwitted solution. What bothers me the most is that a player cannot upon his own volition agree to take a paycut in a situation like this one.

  2. Scott, yeah, the collective bargaining agreement’s restriction against renegotiation of contracts is a remnant of the days in which the owners were able to use their monopoly control over players to accomplish such contract modifications under duress. Although probably not needed in these days of free agency, I understand why it’s still in the CBA.

Leave a Reply