Clemens on the Dan Patrick Show???

[JaneDoe]

My husband called and said Clemens was gonna be on the radio and would be discussing his decision to stay or retire.  Can someone listen and give me (and any one else interested) the lowdown?

Thanks.

[Limey]

Quote:
Can someone listen...

To the Dan Patrick Show?  Are you going to pay me?

[JimR]

he will do one or the other.

[JaneDoe]

Exactly why I said "Can".  Not "Will".  I was wondering if anyone could actually sit and listen--without puking or passing out.  Or both.

[utastro]

Just listened to the Clemens interview on the DP show.  He was only on for a couple of minutes.  Clemens said that he knows which way he is leaning but that he also wants to step away from baseball for a couple of months and listen to what others have to say.  He didn't sound to happy that Drayton wants an answer soon.  He said he is tired and worn out and still grieving for his mom.  He also said the Astros need to concentrate on improving the offense.

I couldn't tell what Clemens was trying to say.  He says he hasn't lost the love for the game but doesn't want to be pushed to make a decision.

So what do you think this means?

[jasonact]

I only caught the end, but here's what I got out of it.
 

 
• Seemed a bit irritated at the Astros' urgency for him to make a decision
   
• Essentially told the Astros to go about their business and build a team. "If I decide to come back, then that's a bonus, but don't wait on me."
   
• Said that the decision to come back in 2005 was largely influenced by his wife and Andy wanting him to come back. He seemed to say that he wasn't going to come back until they encouraged him to do so.
   
• Sounded quite irritated at the lack of run support during the season (not as PC as I'm used to hearing from athletes)
   
• I got the impression that he wants Astros management to go get some more offense before he decides whether or not to come back.
   
• Doesn't sound like we'll get an answer any time soon, which with Roger means that he could make an announcement any time.

[Limey]

Quote:
Just listened to the Clemens interview on the DP show.  He was only on for a couple of minutes.  Clemens said that he knows which way he is leaning but that he also wants to step away from baseball for a couple of months and listen to what others have to say.  He didn't sound to happy that Drayton wants an answer soon.  He said he is tired and worn out and still grieving for his mom.  He also said the Astros need to concentrate on improving the offense.

I couldn't tell what Clemens was trying to say.  He says he hasn't lost the love for the game but doesn't want to be pushed to make a decision.

So what do you think this means?

Show me the money!

[MusicMan]

Quote:
I only caught the end, but here's what I got out of it.
 

• Seemed a bit irritated at the Astros' urgency for him to make a decision
   
• Essentially told the Astros to go about their business and build a team. "If I decide to come back, then that's a bonus, but don't wait on me."
  
  

It's called a budget, Roger.  Those of us in the real world have to deal with them.  Understand for a moment that your decisions impact others.

[JimR]

fuck Mr. I and Me. some things never change.

[S.P. Rodriguez]

Come on, that's not that unreasonable of a statement.  I understand it's McLane's money and he's set a very reasonable budget for salaries.  At the same time, all budgets have exceptions and when that exception either (A) pays for itself or (B) improves the product greater than it's individual value  then you make those adjustments.  

I thought it was a chickenshit statement by the Astros to say, after a WS trip, that they had a 80-85mil budget that was impacted by Roger's decision.  Last I heard, Roger wasn't making any monetary demands yet.  If Bagwell has earned the right to wait until ST to determine if he can play, why shouldn't Clemens have a couple months to determine if he wants to go again or retire?

[JimR]

because Clemens made them wait last year, and then he held them up after suggesting through his agent a price that was $9 million less than he demanded. all he lacked was a mask and a gun.

[pravata]

Quote:
Come on, that's not that unreasonable of a statement.  I understand it's McLane's money and he's set a very reasonable budget for salaries.  At the same time, all budgets have exceptions and when that exception either (A) pays for itself or (B) improves the product greater than it's individual value  then you make those adjustments.  

I thought it was a chickenshit statement by the Astros to say, after a WS trip, that they had a 80-85mil budget that was impacted by Roger's decision.  Last I heard, Roger wasn't making any monetary demands yet.  If Bagwell has earned the right to wait until ST to determine if he can play, why shouldn't Clemens have a couple months to determine if he wants to go again or retire?

Bagwell's situation is this, he is owed $18 million for 2006. If the determination can be made to the insurance company's satisfaction that he can no longer play baseball, and he never sets foot on an ST field, the Astros will get compensation for his salary.  Otherwise they'll have to pay him and use him in any way they can.  Either way, the money is locked in.  Clemens' $20 million or whatever he's going to ask for is an unknown, and at this point, fungible cost.  If he says no, that's all the more flexibility the Astros have to get a pitcher, maybe two pitchers, and an outfielder.  Even up to the start of the season, should any be available.  I dont have any idea why you're suggesting that the Astros obvious statement about their budget is anything less than a realistic appraisal of the situation.

[S.P. Rodriguez]

No doubt, last offseason seemed like a cluster fuck after being Boras'd and then the huge payout to get Clemens back for one more season.  

I guess the only question I have about Clemens' 2005 salary is whether he was worth it?  In my opinion, yes.  I can only assume the Astros feel the same way if they are trying to court him for another season.  

Negotiating contracts in the press is perhaps the one thing about professional sports, as a whole, that I despise.  I tend to conclude that all parties involved are at least partially dishonest.  There are exceptions, like Boras, where I suspect they are bold-faced liars.  Regardless, it's one area I try to avoid for fear I'd lose all interest in any of the pro sports I follow.

As much as I think Andru Jones is overrated, or at least over-hyped, I have to respect a guy who has no agent, went into negotiations using his father as his sole advisor (IIRC), signs for a fair number, and never ever bitches about it in the press (at least to my knowledge!).

[David in Jackson]

Quote:

Quote:
Come on, that's not that unreasonable of a statement.  I understand it's McLane's money and he's set a very reasonable budget for salaries.  At the same time, all budgets have exceptions and when that exception either (A) pays for itself or (B) improves the product greater than it's individual value  then you make those adjustments.  

I thought it was a chickenshit statement by the Astros to say, after a WS trip, that they had a 80-85mil budget that was impacted by Roger's decision.  Last I heard, Roger wasn't making any monetary demands yet.  If Bagwell has earned the right to wait until ST to determine if he can play, why shouldn't Clemens have a couple months to determine if he wants to go again or retire?

Bagwell's situation is this, he is owed $18 million for 2006. If the determination can be made to the insurance company's satisfaction that he can no longer play baseball, and he never sets foot on an ST field, the Astros will get compensation for his salary.  Otherwise they'll have to pay him and use him in any way they can.  Either way, the money is locked in.  Clemens' $20 million or whatever he's going to ask for is an unknown, and at this point, fungible cost.  If he says no, that's all the more flexibility the Astros have to get a pitcher, maybe two pitchers, and an outfielder.  Even up to the start of the season, should any be available.  I dont have any idea why you're suggesting that the Astros obvious statement about their budget is anything less than a realistic appraisal of the situation.

It's hard to imagine anyone being in a worse situation that Purpura this off-season.  Bagwell and Clemens are completely up in the air.  They could both be out of baseball.  They could both play, at a cost of about $40 m. (assuming Clemens asks for what he got in 2005 - I think that's a pretty safe bet.)  And, of course, Bagwell could return but no longer be a productive everyday player.  With Bagwell, no one knows.  With Clemens, we wait.

That's a huge question mark with two players that could be about half of the total team payroll.

[Billy Zabka]

Quote:
As much as I think Andru Jones is overrated, or at least over-hyped, I have to respect a guy who has no agent, went into negotiations using his father as his sole advisor (IIRC), signs for a fair number, and never ever bitches about it in the press (at least to my knowledge!).

The Gold Club gives you a happier outlook on life.

[Tralfaz]

Good Point DiJ.  Fortunetly Timmy has supplied himself a good farm with quality potential.  Scott, Conrad, Huffman, Burns, Buckholz, Nieve...

[BUWebguy]

Quote:
Bagwell's situation is this, he is owed $18 million for 2006. If the determination can be made to the insurance company's satisfaction that he can no longer play baseball, and he never sets foot on an ST field, the Astros will get compensation for his salary.  Otherwise they'll have to pay him and use him in any way they can.  Either way, the money is locked in.  Clemens' $20 million or whatever he's going to ask for is an unknown, and at this point, fungible cost.  If he says no, that's all the more flexibility the Astros have to get a pitcher, maybe two pitchers, and an outfielder.  Even up to the start of the season, should any be available.  I dont have any idea why you're suggesting that the Astros obvious statement about their budget is anything less than a realistic appraisal of the situation.

So the insurance option is gone if he even tries ST? I was under the impression that he had to play in the regular season to negate it.

[astro pete]

Quote:

So the insurance option is gone if he even tries ST? I was under the impression that he had to play in the regular season to negate it.

This insurance option is nonsense.  Bagwell started two games in the World Series; he will play next year.  The question is whether or not he can play in the field.  Drayton owes Bagwell $20 million in '06.

[jasonact]

I have to agree with Clemens on one point: The Astros should build their team without waiting on him. The fact is that the offense needs some serious help whether Bagwell returns or not (especially if not). Even if Clemens comes back, he won't be too much help in that department. If Drayton has a particular budget ceiling, then that will impact the negotiations with Clemens if he decides to come back, but this offense needs to be addressed first. Even Roger said as much.

While there is no pitcher on the horizon who would be able to replace what Clemens has done in 2004-2005, there are enough internal options to believe that the Astros won't be in trouble if he chooses not to return. They don't have any internal options to improve the offense, which will be in trouble if they don't make at least one major change.

[pravata]

Quote:

Quote:
Bagwell's situation is this, he is owed $18 million for 2006. If the determination can be made to the insurance company's satisfaction that he can no longer play baseball, and he never sets foot on an ST field, the Astros will get compensation for his salary.  Otherwise they'll have to pay him and use him in any way they can.  Either way, the money is locked in.  Clemens' $20 million or whatever he's going to ask for is an unknown, and at this point, fungible cost.  If he says no, that's all the more flexibility the Astros have to get a pitcher, maybe two pitchers, and an outfielder.  Even up to the start of the season, should any be available.  I dont have any idea why you're suggesting that the Astros obvious statement about their budget is anything less than a realistic appraisal of the situation.

So the insurance option is gone if he even tries ST? I was under the impression that he had to play in the regular season to negate it.

It's what I heard.  I'd like for someone who actually knows the situation to clarify.

[pravata]

Quote:

Quote:

So the insurance option is gone if he even tries ST? I was under the impression that he had to play in the regular season to negate it.

This insurance option is nonsense.  Bagwell started two games in the World Series; he will play next year.  The question is whether or not he can play in the field.  Drayton owes Bagwell $20 million in '06.

It's not "nonsense".  The Astros have insurance on Bagwell.  If he is physically unable to play baseball it pays off.

[jasonact]

Quote:

Quote:

So the insurance option is gone if he even tries ST? I was under the impression that he had to play in the regular season to negate it.

This insurance option is nonsense.  Bagwell started two games in the World Series; he will play next year.  The question is whether or not he can play in the field.  Drayton owes Bagwell $20 million in '06.

Why is it nonsense? I haven't heard anything indicating that Bagwell will play next season, only that he and the organization are hopeful that he can play. If he can't play, of course he'll still get paid. The way I understand it, the insurance company would pay his 2006 salary, and the Astros would pay the money he's still owed from past seasons. Monetarily, it doesn't affect Bagwell either way. Is any of that wrong?

[VirtualBob]

Quote:
Good Point DiJ.  Fortunetly Timmy has supplied himself a good farm with quality potential.  Scott, Conrad, Huffman, Burns, Buckholz, Nieve...

I've seen Huffman.  I'm a fan of Huffman's.  But Huffman is no Jeff Bagwell!

[jasonact]

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

So the insurance option is gone if he even tries ST? I was under the impression that he had to play in the regular season to negate it.

This insurance option is nonsense.  Bagwell started two games in the World Series; he will play next year.  The question is whether or not he can play in the field.  Drayton owes Bagwell $20 million in '06.

It's not "nonsense".  The Astros have insurance on Bagwell.  If he is physically unable to play baseball it pays off.

Also, Bagwell has said that he will not be a full-time pinch-hitter next year. If he can't play the field in 2006, he won't play at all. I can't find the quote right now, but I know I read that somewhere.

[Tralfaz]

At what position is Roger telling the organization to build at?  It's pretty much laid out that the same team is coming back next year.  It's his spot that is in question until he get gets a chance to spend some time with his family to "discuss" things.  And WTF is up with that.  Doesn't he have special provisions during the season to get his family time, and now that the seasons over he can't get with them until the holidays?!

[JimR]

once the season starts he is a great player and a great teammate, but make no mistake about it, it is all about Roger all the time.

[NeilT]

You guys are too negative.  I think we need an internet petition begging Roger to return.

On Roger's side, if he doesn't want to decide today, why should he, other than to make Drayton's life easier?  He doesn't owe the Astros anything, does he?  The Astros may want to wait on Clemens, but frankly, assuming the team does what it needs to do, his answer's not a bad one for the fan:  Build a team without me. either they're going to build the best team they can build and Clemens is gravy, or they're going to screw around waiting for Clemens because they're worried about their budget.  The only thing I see Clemens doing is not helping the Astros out with the latter.  Why should he?

[JimR]

that you can ask that with a straight face amazes me.

[jasonact]

Quote:
At what position is Roger telling the organization to build at?  It's pretty much laid out that the same team is coming back next year.  It's his spot that is in question until he get gets a chance to spend some time with his family to "discuss" things.  And WTF is up with that.  Doesn't he have special provisions during the season to get his family time, and now that the seasons over he can't get with them until the holidays?!

I don't know specifically what position he would choose to improve, but my best bet for improvement is in the outfield. Unfortunately (because he's my all-time favorite player), I think it would be better for the Astros if Bagwell cannot play next season. They put Berkman at 1st and a real OF in left. Short of that, keep Berkman in LF, and get a power-hitting 1B. Even not knowing whether or not he can play, I think they should go get a true OF with some power. If Bagwell plays, then Lane (assuming he isn't in a trade for the new guy), Taveras, and the new guy compete for the other two positions (Lane and Taveras playing RF and CF respectively if they come out). Use the odd-man-out in a trade to fill other holes.

It's not an ideal situation, but I think something must be done to improve this offense, preferably with a proven RBI hitter, and this seems like the most solution. Bottom line: I'm glad I'm not a major league GM.

[jasonact]

Quote:

Quote:
Good Point DiJ.  Fortunetly Timmy has supplied himself a good farm with quality potential.  Scott, Conrad, Huffman, Burns, Buckholz, Nieve...

I've seen Huffman.  I'm a fan of Huffman's.  But Huffman is no Jeff Bagwell!

If the Astros are looking for the next Jeff Bagwell, they're screwed at the beginning.

Edit:
That was my 1000th post. I now officially should have quit 500 posts ago... ain't it the truth.

[NeilT]

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

So the insurance option is gone if he even tries ST? I was under the impression that he had to play in the regular season to negate it.

This insurance option is nonsense.  Bagwell started two games in the World Series; he will play next year.  The question is whether or not he can play in the field.  Drayton owes Bagwell $20 million in '06.

Why is it nonsense? I haven't heard anything indicating that Bagwell will play next season, only that he and the organization are hopeful that he can play. If he can't play, of course he'll still get paid. The way I understand it, the insurance company would pay his 2006 salary, and the Astros would pay the money he's still owed from past seasons. Monetarily, it doesn't affect Bagwell either way. Is any of that wrong?

I think the suggestion is that Bagwell has already shown he  can  play by playing in the World Series.  Whether he wants to play or not probably isn't relevant.  To an outsider, the only questions seem to be whether he can ultimately throw, or whether only being able to pinch hit is enough to negate the insurance (unless of course by next year he can't pinch hit).  One's a question of fact, one's a fact that's already proved and becomes a question for the contract.

[jasonact]

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

So the insurance option is gone if he even tries ST? I was under the impression that he had to play in the regular season to negate it.

This insurance option is nonsense.  Bagwell started two games in the World Series; he will play next year.  The question is whether or not he can play in the field.  Drayton owes Bagwell $20 million in '06.

Why is it nonsense? I haven't heard anything indicating that Bagwell will play next season, only that he and the organization are hopeful that he can play. If he can't play, of course he'll still get paid. The way I understand it, the insurance company would pay his 2006 salary, and the Astros would pay the money he's still owed from past seasons. Monetarily, it doesn't affect Bagwell either way. Is any of that wrong?

I think the suggestion is that Bagwell has already shown he  can  play by playing in the World Series.  Whether he wants to play or not probably isn't relevant.  To an outsider, the only questions seem to be whether he can ultimately throw, or whether only being able to pinch hit is enough to negate the insurance (unless of course by next year he can't pinch hit).  One's a question of fact, one's a fact that's already proved and becomes a question for the contract.

My understanding is that when it comes to Bagwell in 2006,
can't play the field = won't play at all

He has stated that he won't be a full-time PH, and because there's no DH in Houston, he can't play if he can't throw. I'll take him at his word.

[NeilT]

Quote:
that you can ask that with a straight face amazes me.

Why?  I'm a big believer in capitalism and labor and management.  Both sides last year got what they bargained for, and this year he's being pretty straight-forward, seems to me.  He's telling the 'Stros he'll talk when he's ready, and it's their business, not his, whether they talk or not.  He's not, for instance, saying I'm also talking to the Mets and the Yankees and the Red Sox.  If he deals at all, he's presumably going to deal with the Astros, or at least I think he'd tell the Astros that he's going to shop around.  

And of course the question of whether Clemens is going to return is all about Clemens. Who else would it be about? From his side, why shouldn't he take his time and decide what he wants to do? If the Astros don't want it to be all about Clemens, they can go ask other questions.  I just don't see how he owes it to them or to the fans to make it any easier on them than he has.

I'd like to see Clemens return.  I like to see Clemens pitch.  I don't think Clemens is somehow treating Drayton poorly, or that Drayton needs my sympathy.  He, Drayton, is a pretty sharp guy, and is better able to deal with it than most of us.  And Clemens doesn't owe anything more to me as a fan than what he gave at the park and in Houston the last two years.

[NeilT]

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

So the insurance option is gone if he even tries ST? I was under the impression that he had to play in the regular season to negate it.

This insurance option is nonsense.  Bagwell started two games in the World Series; he will play next year.  The question is whether or not he can play in the field.  Drayton owes Bagwell $20 million in '06.

Why is it nonsense? I haven't heard anything indicating that Bagwell will play next season, only that he and the organization are hopeful that he can play. If he can't play, of course he'll still get paid. The way I understand it, the insurance company would pay his 2006 salary, and the Astros would pay the money he's still owed from past seasons. Monetarily, it doesn't affect Bagwell either way. Is any of that wrong?

I think the suggestion is that Bagwell has already shown he  can  play by playing in the World Series.  Whether he wants to play or not probably isn't relevant.  To an outsider, the only questions seem to be whether he can ultimately throw, or whether only being able to pinch hit is enough to negate the insurance (unless of course by next year he can't pinch hit).  One's a question of fact, one's a fact that's already proved and becomes a question for the contract.

My understanding is that when it comes to Bagwell in 2006,
can't play the field = won't play at all

He has stated that he won't be a full-time PH, and because there's no DH in Houston, he can't play if he can't throw. I'll take him at his word.

But that's not the question.  He may not play, but I don't think that would release the Astros from their payment.  And his decision not to play is probably irrelevant to the insurance.

[pravata]

Quote:
My understanding is that when it comes to Bagwell in 2006, can't play the field = won't play at all

He has stated that he won't be a full-time PH, and because there's no DH in Houston, he can't play if he can't throw. I'll take him at his word.

"I know I can hit again," he said. "I know that for sure. Everyday, I'm getting stronger and stronger when I hit. I need to be able to throw. There's no DH over here [in the National League]. Now it's just a matter of if I can throw and hit. I'm going to find out."
The Link

Unless the insurance company is infested with roto-geeks, the ability to throw the baseball is a non-negotiable factor in judging whether a person can play the game.

[astro pete]

The only quotes that matter are ones that come directly from the insurance contract, which of course, none of us have seen (not that I could understand it if I had seen it).  I imagine it states that the insurance company will pay the remainder of the contract if injury should prevent Bagwell from playing a single game next year.  If Bagwell retires, it will be because he didn't want to be a $17 million pinch-hitter, not because he was physically unable to play (he can play, he did it during the World Series).  Or, at least that's how I imagine the insurance company will interpret it.

[Limey]

Quote:
"I know I can hit again," he said. "I know that for sure. Everyday, I'm getting stronger and stronger when I hit. I need to be able to throw. There's no DH over here [in the National League]. Now it's just a matter of if I can throw and hit. I'm going to find out."
The Link

Unless the insurance company is infested with roto-geeks, the ability to throw the baseball is a non-negotiable factor in judging whether a person can play the game.

This resurrects the spectre of Bagwell wanting a trade to the AL so he can DH.  Not sure that he'd be as interested as he was a few years ago, but it is a possibility.

[pravata]

Quote:

Quote:
"I know I can hit again," he said. "I know that for sure. Everyday, I'm getting stronger and stronger when I hit. I need to be able to throw. There's no DH over here [in the National League]. Now it's just a matter of if I can throw and hit. I'm going to find out."
The Link

Unless the insurance company is infested with roto-geeks, the ability to throw the baseball is a non-negotiable factor in judging whether a person can play the game.

This resurrects the spectre of Bagwell wanting a trade to the AL so he can DH.  Not sure that he'd be as interested as he was a few years ago, but it is a possibility.

A few years ago he was not interested in it at all.  I think his level of interest is exactly the same now.  Also, it's the Astros, an NL team, who have the insurance on him.  Could the insurance company force the Astros to trade him to an AL team?

''As much as I would have liked to have gone back there, (Boston) by that time (when he was an FA) I was in my 16th season of pro ball. To go back just to say I went back didn't make sense. It meant more to me to retire in this uniform."

''Trust me, it would have been the only place I would have wanted to go. But him and I'' - Bagwell nodded toward Biggio - ''have built a pretty good career here and a little bit of a legacy as far as two teammates playing this long for one organization, and that's something I'm real proud of.''

The Link

[pravata]

Quote:
The only quotes that matter are ones that come directly from the insurance contract, which of course, none of us have seen (not that I could understand it if I had seen it).  I imagine it states that the insurance company will pay the remainder of the contract if injury should prevent Bagwell from playing a single game next year.  If Bagwell retires, it will be because he didn't want to be a $17 million pinch-hitter, not because he was physically unable to play (he can play, he did it during the World Series).  Or, at least that's how I imagine the insurance company will interpret it.

So, we have at least one who believes the ability to throw is not a requirement for an NL player.

[astro pete]

Quote:

So, we have at least one who believes the ability to throw is not a requirement for an NL player.

Well, it's not.

[NeilT]

Quote:
The only quotes that matter are ones that come directly from the insurance contract, which of course, none of us have seen (not that I could understand it if I had seen it).  I imagine it states that the insurance company will pay the remainder of the contract if injury should prevent Bagwell from playing a single game next year.  If Bagwell retires, it will be because he didn't want to be a $17 million pinch-hitter, not because he was physically unable to play (he can play, he did it during the World Series).  Or, at least that's how I imagine the insurance company will interpret it.

I'd guess the contract is pretty clear, but it's just a guess.  The Astros get paid if Bagwell can do X, and whether he can do X is determined by, for instance, submission to a battery of tests by a team of independent physicians.  What X is, whether it includes throwing or hitting or both (or I guess for that matter none of them), should be defined in the contract.  There's probably not much interpretation one way or the other. Bagwell's decision to play, or what is or isn't an ability to play baseball in an abstract baseball-y sort of way, is probably irrelevant.  The only thing that probably matters is what the contract says Bagwell needs to be able to do (or really not be able to do), and how you prove it.

[homer]

Quote:

Quote:

So, we have at least one who believes the ability to throw is not a requirement for an NL player.

Well, it's not.

See Piazza, Mike.

[jasonact]

Quote:

Quote:

So, we have at least one who believes the ability to throw is not a requirement for an NL player.

Well, it's not.

By that logic, any player who could concievably get into a major league game would not fit the criteria for "unable to play". That means that a player who has his arms amputated could still play because he could theoretically pinch run.

I don't buy that logic. This is the NL. A player needs to be able to play in the field. Although I haven't seen any insurance contracts, it's probably safe to assume the Astros' lawyers would take something like this into consideration when taking out insurance on a player.

[JimR]

two words: Pete Gray

[NeilT]

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

So, we have at least one who believes the ability to throw is not a requirement for an NL player.

Well, it's not.

By that logic, any player who could concievably get into a major league game would not fit the criteria for "unable to play". That means that a player who has his arms amputated could still play because he could theoretically pinch run.

I don't buy that logic. This is the NL. A player needs to be able to play in the field. Although I haven't seen any insurance contracts, it's probably safe to assume the Astros' lawyers would take something like this into consideration when taking out insurance on a player.

But it's kind of the point: you're not talking about baseball, you're talking about what two parties contracted for.  For a $20,000,000 premium, the insurer might insure against a whim by Bagwell that he doesn't feel like playing.  For a $1 premium they might insure Bagwell not being able to play because he's struck by lightning in a Kansas cornfield, provided that the contract is void if Bagwell is ever in a Kansas cornfield.   From the insurer's point of view, it would be perfectly reasonable to provide that if Bagwell can bat, the recovery is reduced by the salary of a comparable AL designated hitter, on the assumption that the Astros could trade off part of the salary.  From the Astros point of view, it would be perfectly reasonable to have reduced the premium by assuming that it would be unlikely that Bagwell could bat, but not throw.

[L.I. Bill]

FWIW, Roger was on the radio here in NYC yesterday for some 15 minutes or so.  Essentially he was on to plug some celeb golf tourney he played in (one that's already occured but won't be be aired on TV until sometime around the holidays) but was of course asked about other stuff.
Sounded similar to the reports from those who heard him with Dan Patrick:
- a bit more whiney about the offense and about the team wanting a quick-ish decision than you'd like out of a "seasoned veteren" -- and, although he wouldn't tip his hand about next year, the impression came through that he's ready to hang it up.  Nothing definite, just a feeling from his tone and his litany of the usual factors: health, mother's death, kids, etc.

[JimR]

says the same every year to build drama. he's pitching in the March tournament. if he feels good, why wouldn't he pitch? he just wants to be asked and begged. ego.

[Bench]

Quote:
says the same every year to build drama. he's pitching in the March tournament. if he feels good, why wouldn't he pitch? he just wants to be asked and begged. ego.

I liked the part where he encouraged fans to write to him and ask him to come back.

[ASTROCREEP]

 


Show me the money!




Sounds to me like "Show me the run support"

I hope he gets what he wants.

[cc]

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

So, we have at least one who believes the ability to throw is not a requirement for an NL player.

Well, it's not.

See Piazza, Mike.

Beautiful

[cc]

Quote:
says the same every year to build drama. he's pitching in the March tournament. if he feels good, why wouldn't he pitch? he just wants to be asked and begged. ego.

So let's say, for argument's sake only, because I don't think this will ever play out, that Drayton tells the Count to go out and get some more pitching and offense, Clemens be damned.  If there's still budget left to field the team that Roger supposedly wants, then they can offer that to him.  What does the Rocket think will be left to spend on him anyway?

They'll have the bat, or bats, he's calling for, but he won't get to be a part of it, since they would no longer be able to afford him.  So by asking them not to wait on him, if he's truly sincere, he's telling them in effect that, in order to get all these assets including him for '06, they need to raise their payroll to over $100 million.  There is no way he could sanely recommend to the Astros not to wait on him and at the same time maintain a fiscally responsible organization.

Regardless, Purpura needs to do just that: leave Roger out of the equation, and if he wants to come back, he'll have to beg his way on.  Drayton and Purpura can never win this through the media, they'll look bad whatever they do on this.  So they simply have to do what's right for the team.

The question is, will they?

[astro pete]

Beltran's not signing with us last year drove Clemens' asking price through the roof.  If the Astros take on payroll and Clemens decides to play, I'd expect his asking price to be significantly lower.

[JimR]

silly boy. his asking price had nothing to do with Beltran. the Astros knew his planned tactic at the winter meetings.

[jasonact]

Quote:
silly boy. his asking price had nothing to do with Beltran. the Astros knew his planned tactic at the winter meetings.

I agree with most of what you've written about Clemens and the motivations behind his negotiation tactics, but why do you think he took so little to play in 2004? Frankly, I was shocked at the time to see him take so little. I guess 2005's salary made up for it, though.

[JimR]

i do not pretend to know that. perhaps because he was caught up in the enthusiasm of the moment with Andy and his triumphant return. then, he did so well that his ego kicked in. dunno.

[astro pete]

Quote:
silly boy. his asking price had nothing to do with Beltran. the Astros knew his planned tactic at the winter meetings.

Okay, you think Clemens is a greedy asshole.  We get it.

[Gulf Coast Playboy]

Quote:
I'd guess the contract is pretty clear, but it's just a guess.  The Astros get paid if Bagwell can do X, and whether he can do X is determined by, for instance, submission to a battery of tests by a team of independent physicians.  What X is, whether it includes throwing or hitting or both (or I guess for that matter none of them), should be defined in the contract.  There's probably not much interpretation one way or the other. Bagwell's decision to play, or what is or isn't an ability to play baseball in an abstract baseball-y sort of way, is probably irrelevant.  The only thing that probably matters is what the contract says Bagwell needs to be able to do (or really not be able to do), and how you prove it.

It really would be so interesting if we could just see the darn policy.  Frankly, it seems just as likely to me that the policy leaves at least enough room for interpretation to litigate the "Can Hit, Can't Throw" scenario we're talking about.  And if that's the case, and if that precise scenario arises, the Astros buy out Bagwell's contract for SLIGHTLY less than he's owed (a relatively small "graceful retirement" discount, maybe $1 M).  Then, the Astros and the Insurance Carrier litigate the coverage issue for a while and then settle the case for an amount between 0 and $17 M.

[tophfar]

Quote:

Quote:
silly boy. his asking price had nothing to do with Beltran. the Astros knew his planned tactic at the winter meetings.

Okay, you think Clemens is a greedy asshole.  We get it.

There's no think about it, he always has been.  Review the first time Clemens almost came to Houston.

[astro pete]

Quote:

There's no think about it, he always has been.  Review the first time Clemens almost came to Houston.

He's one of the greatest pitchers ever to play the game; he's going to command the greatest contracts.  Go figure.

[tophfar]

Quote:

Quote:

There's no think about it, he always has been.  Review the first time Clemens almost came to Houston.

He's one of the greatest pitchers ever to play the game; he's going to command the greatest contracts.  Go figure.

Not as in two years ago, go back and review what happened when he tried to leave Toronto, first to Houston, and then ultimately to NY.

[astro pete]

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

There's no think about it, he always has been.  Review the first time Clemens almost came to Houston.

He's one of the greatest pitchers ever to play the game; he's going to command the greatest contracts.  Go figure.

Not as in two years ago, go back and review what happened when he tried to leave Toronto, first to Houston, and then ultimately to NY.

Hunsicker expected a home town discount and didn't get one.  Why should Clemens be expected to take less than what someone will pay him?  I've never met Clemens before; maybe he is a greedy asshole.  But if he is, it isn't because he demands rich contracts.

[Andyzipp]

It wasn't the hometown discount.  It was that the Racket and his agents told the Astros that Clemens would be happy to accept the trade (in 1998) to Houston, as long as they redid his contract to the tune of an extra ~30 million dollars.

Hunsicker told them the idea of trading 2-3 players and having no cost control over the player they were receiving was bullshit, and he told them so.

BY the way, I think Jim HAS met Clemens before, so he's not just speaking off the cuff.