Schilling Interview

[Taras Bulba]

Bill Simmons over at The Link has an interesting one on one with Schilling. On the Damon snafu, "Teams consistently misunderstand negotiations in my opinion.  They make them way too impersonal."  Further along, he calls out long time Boston blowhards Conlin and Shaughnessy.

[JimR]

what??!!? nothing about Bagwell's shoulder or insurance claims or civil rights violations???

you're obviously on the wrong board.

[chuck]

Quote:
what??!!? nothing about Bagwell's shoulder or insurance claims or civil rights violations???

you're obviously on the wrong board.

Would you rather people ignore completely the various issues that you may find inconvenient or possibly tiresome, or would you instead simply have us adopt your opinions wholesale? Let us know, and quickly! We're all impatiently waiting to accomodate you as thoroughly as possible.

[Andyzipp]

I'd like people not to come running like little girls whenever ESPN writes an article based soley on Richard Justice's musings.

Perhaps we'd have half the threads talking about Bagwell's rag arm.

[NeilT]

Quote:

Quote:
what??!!? nothing about Bagwell's shoulder or insurance claims or civil rights violations???

you're obviously on the wrong board.

Would you rather people ignore completely the various issues that you may find inconvenient or possibly tiresome, or would you instead simply have us adopt your opinions wholesale? Let us know, and quickly! We're all impatiently waiting to accomodate you as thoroughly as possible.

Turn on your ironiometer.

[Limey]

Quote:
I'd like people not to come running like little girls whenever ESPN writes an article based soley on Richard Justice's musings.

Perhaps we'd have half the threads talking about Bagwell's rag arm.

...and more room to discuss Berkman's knee-knack.

[utastro]

Quote:

Quote:
I'd like people not to come running like little girls whenever ESPN writes an article based soley on Richard Justice's musings.

Perhaps we'd have half the threads talking about Bagwell's rag arm.

...and more room to discuss Berkman's knee-knack.

And Clemens's need for more publicity.

[drew corleone]

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:
I'd like people not to come running like little girls whenever ESPN writes an article based soley on Richard Justice's musings.

Perhaps we'd have half the threads talking about Bagwell's rag arm.

...and more room to discuss Berkman's knee-knack.

And Clemens's need for more publicity.

Or whining that [insert sportswriter's name] picked St. Louis to win the division instead of Houston.

[NeilT]

For what it's worth, Will Carroll discusses both Bagwell's knee and Berkman's shoulder.  Or is it Bagwell discussing Will Carrol's knee and shoulder?  What's wrong here?

The Link

[MusicMan]

Quote:
For what it's worth, Will Carroll discusses both Bagwell's knee and Berkman's shoulder.  Or is it Bagwell discussing Will Carrol's knee and shoulder?  What's wrong here?

The Link

This link in Carroll's story shows what a chickenshit lameass Justice really is.

In a national publication, on Jan. 25, Justice rips McLane and Purpura.  This comes three days after Justice spends valuable column inches  kissing McLane's ass , with virtually no change in circumstances or quotes.

Just freaking unbelievable.

[austro]

Incredible.  Nowhere in that article does he even mention that the claim has to be filed by Jan. 31 or it's void.  What's the club supposed to do, just let it lapse and write it off like it's just another box of balls, in the Pollyanish hope that Bagwell will be ready in April?

I imagine that we'll be seeing a lot more opinion pieces from Justice: I doubt that he's going to get much access to club personnel from here on out in order to do actual reporting.  If he ever did...

[lc_db]

Quote:
For what it's worth, Will Carroll discusses both Bagwell's knee and Berkman's shoulder.  Or is it Bagwell discussing Will Carrol's knee and shoulder?  What's wrong here?

The Link

I liked his work in Old School

[Limey]

Quote:
I imagine that we'll be seeing a lot more opinion pieces from Justice: I doubt that he's going to get much access to club personnel from here on out in order to do actual reporting.  If he ever did...

No problem.  Justice never lets facts or consistency get in the way of today's story.

[Bench]

Quote:
Nowhere in that article does he even mention that the claim has to be filed by Jan. 31 or it's void.  

That's the part I really don't get. What kind of insurance contract has an annual deadline to file a claim? As far as I know (which admittadly is not so much) disability insurance is annually renewable. I've never seen an insurance contract which has cut-offs to file a claim. Frankly, I've only seen annually renewable insurance contracts that have a cut-off date to pay the annual premium. If this so called "cut-off" date to file is really the cut-off to pay this year's premium, that's some pretty shabby disembling on the part of the Astros.

The most obnoxious part of this whole "scandal" is that what should be rather straightforward is not being discolosed to the public. Yet, the public (and its media "representatives"/idiots") is clamoring over the unknown. So much of this, from a basic insurance and contract law basis, just doesn't add up; and it won't until we know what the damn contract actually says. So my question is, why don't the Astros just come out and disclose the actual agreement?

[EasTexAstro]

Quote:

Quote:
Nowhere in that article does he even mention that the claim has to be filed by Jan. 31 or it's void.  

That's the part I really don't get. What kind of insurance contract has an annual deadline to file a claim? As far as I know (which admittadly is not so much) disability insurance is annually renewable. I've never seen an insurance contract which has cut-offs to file a claim. Frankly, I've only seen annually renewable insurance contracts that have a cut-off date to pay the annual premium. If this so called "cut-off" date to file is really the cut-off to pay this year's premium, that's some pretty shabby disembling on the part of the Astros.

The most obnoxious part of this whole "scandal" is that what should be rather straightforward is not being discolosed to the public. Yet, the public (and its media "representatives"/idiots") is clamoring over the unknown. So much of this, from a basic insurance and contract law basis, just doesn't add up; and it won't until we know what the damn contract actually says. So my question is, why don't the Astros just come out and disclose the actual agreement?

Because they don't want to. If I understand correctly, the Astros wanted this to go semi-quietly. Bagwell and his agent wanted to let the public weigh in on this. Maybe I am wrong, but that is how I see this. Now don't get me wrong, I probably want Jeff to be able to play more than the average fan and more than what is considered healthy, but this could have been much less general knowledge.

My guess, in the end, we will see the insurance company so no and Bagwell in uniform trying to contribute in some way this season and very little said about the whole situation 2 months from now. Drayton has no problem paying the contract if he must. He won't be complaining. The insurance company will find a way to say "no" no matter what happens.

There should be no hard feelings anywhere. Everyone is just trying to find their best advantage in the situation. Jeff just wants to play for his money.