And we thought he wouldnt fit in New York

[pravata]

Billy Wagner said Astros owner Drayton McLane is wrong to try to talk Jeff Bagwell into saying he can't play so McLane can collect the insurance money. "It's unfortunate with all the class and dignity Jeff Bagwell's brought to the organization," the ex-Astro said. "It's very disheartening. But that's how they are over there."
The Link

Newsday, meet Billy Wagner.

[No? in Austin]

Quote:
Billy Wagner said Astros owner Drayton McLane is wrong to try to talk Jeff Bagwell into saying he can't play so McLane can collect the insurance money. "It's unfortunate with all the class and dignity Jeff Bagwell's brought to the organization," the ex-Astro said. "It's very disheartening. But that's how they are over there."
The Link

How hard (really) would it be for a *reporter* to check for *facts* in a story?  McLane wants to *talk* Bagwell into *saying* he can't play?  Really?  Great, that is groundbreaking news!  All along I thought the *insurance* company had the say so with their *doctors* if Bagwell is deemed "unable to perform".  Seems all it would take in New York is to look at what happened to Mo Vaughn and the very same Mets Mr. Wagner signed with to find out a little something about the situation.

Too much to ask from the media though... way too much.

Newsday, meet Billy Wagner, the shoot from the mouth, think about it later one.

[austro]

Quote:
Newsday, meet Billy Wagner, the shoot from the mouth, think about it later one.

When did he ever think about it later?

[toddthebod]

Wagner is totally wrong.  But I don't think that Vaughn and Bagwell situations can be compared.  Jeff Bagwell (along with Biggio) have been the faces of the Houston Astros for the last two decades.  Mo Vaughn was a bad decision by the Mets who hardly played for that team.  Moreover, as I recall, Mo didn't appear to be trying real hard to come back (despite his assertions at the time).  Jeff's attitude is very different.  He seems like he is working very hard to come back from this injury.

[No? in Austin]

Quote:
But I don't think that Vaughn and Bagwell situations can be compared.

Yes they can.  Both players had insurance policies written against thier contracts.  Both players had the organization that they played for make a claim on those policies.  Both players will have or had the final decision made by the insurance companies doctors as to the validity of the claim that the player is physically "unable to perform".

There is no other motives, manuevers, player's status as good guys or bad, lazy or hard working, liked or disliked, loved or reviled that plays into the final decision.  Nada, zip, zilch, zero.  Wagner knows crap about it.  The people at Newsday apparently are too lazy or stupid (or both) to comprehend that this is the issue at hand and *NOTHING* else.

You should know better too.

[ybbodeus]

Quote:

Quote:
Newsday, meet Billy Wagner, the shoot from the mouth, think about it later one.

When did he ever think about it later?

A beautiful post...I may cry.

[Fredia]

if billy wagner was a fountain he would spout mud not water because he is not clear about anything
seems like he is still harboring some ill feelings against the astros orginazation.. not that wagner said or did anything to cause him to be traded (see definition for delusional in the wagner books of truisms

[toddthebod]

I don't disagree with you from a legal or insurance standpoint.  (If that is what you mean by I should know better).  But people in Houston care about Jeff Bagwell and there is at least a perception (probably false, but neither you nor I are in the Astros front offices) that the Astros are pushing Bagwell out and don't want him to come back.  Nobody in New York gave a rat's ass about Mo Vaughn. And most people would have bought him a ticket out of town. That's the only reason why the two cases are different.

[astro pete]

Quote:
I don't disagree with you from a legal or insurance standpoint.  (If that is what you mean by I should know better).  But people in Houston care about Jeff Bagwell and there is at least a perception (probably false, but neither you nor I are in the Astros front offices) that the Astros are pushing Bagwell out and don't want him to come back.  Nobody in New York gave a rat's ass about Mo Vaughn. And most people would have bought him a ticket out of town. That's the only reason why the two cases are different.

For what it's worth, I think it's pretty clear they don't want him back.

[Bill McLuggage]

I think there's a 9th inning 3 run Biggio homer that makes me not give a shit about anything Wags says anymore.

The Link

I watch it once a week.

[Taras Bulba]

Man, I had forgotten how beautiful that was.

Keep running your mouth, Billy.  It's always instructive to hear what comes out of it.

[No? in Austin]

Quote:
I don't disagree with you from a legal or insurance standpoint.  (If that is what you mean by I should know better).

Yes, eggs-zacgtly what I mean.  Billy Wagner is proposing a conspiracy of some sort, as if Drayton McLane can do anything of the sort to get his insurance claim approved.  It is not up to him nor Jeff Bagwell, it is up to the insurance company and their doctors.  Just like it was for Vaughn, for Belle and for Meares.

Wagner and Newsday's account of what is happening is sad based on that simple fact.

Quote:
But people in Houston care about Jeff Bagwell and there is at least a perception (probably false, but neither you nor I are in the Astros front offices) that the Astros are pushing Bagwell out and don't want him to come back.

Those who follow baseball closely know that the MLBPA is the most powerful sports union around.  No organization *pushes* a player out simply because they *think* they can by *asking* the player repeatedly to give them information about their status.

This is, again, about the insurance company and policy on Bagwell's contract.  If Jeff cannot play, then the Astros would be stupid to pass up a policy they've been paying good money on.  It is business, plain and simple and it is in the hands of the insurance companies doctors, not McLane nor Bagwell.

Quote:
Nobody in New York gave a rat's ass about Mo Vaughn. And most people would have bought him a ticket out of town. That's the only reason why the two cases are different.

But who was talking about popularity contest?  I wasn't and I focused on the part that was blantantly erroneous.  McLane isn't trying to *talk* Bagwell into anything.  Wagner and Newsday are just plain wrong.  Again, look at Vaughn's situation with the insurance as a frame of reference for what is a simple business decision that a team makes.  For goodness sake, is this *really* that hard to understand?

[No? in Austin]

Quote:
For what it's worth, I think it's pretty clear they don't want him back.

Really, it's *clear*?  How about it's "baseball is a business" (a two way street when the MLBPA negotiates a CBA, a player negotiates a contract, et. al.)?  How fans lose sight of the business side of things is truly amazing to me, even fans who should've been paying attention for a very long time now.

[astro pete]

Quote:

Quote:
For what it's worth, I think it's pretty clear they don't want him back.

Really, it's *clear*?  How about it's "baseball is a business" (a two way street when the MLBPA negotiates a CBA, a player negotiates a contract, et. al.)?  How fans lose sight of the business side of things is truly amazing to me, even fans who should've been paying attention for a very long time now.

I think most fans understand that this is purely a business decision.

[No? in Austin]

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:
For what it's worth, I think it's pretty clear they don't want him back.

Really, it's *clear*?  How about it's "baseball is a business" (a two way street when the MLBPA negotiates a CBA, a player negotiates a contract, et. al.)?  How fans lose sight of the business side of things is truly amazing to me, even fans who should've been paying attention for a very long time now.

I think most fans understand that this is purely a business decision.

Most, yes.  Apparently others are just plain ignorant.

[pravata]

Quote:

Quote:
I don't disagree with you from a legal or insurance standpoint.  (If that is what you mean by I should know better).  But people in Houston care about Jeff Bagwell and there is at least a perception (probably false, but neither you nor I are in the Astros front offices) that the Astros are pushing Bagwell out and don't want him to come back.  Nobody in New York gave a rat's ass about Mo Vaughn. And most people would have bought him a ticket out of town. That's the only reason why the two cases are different.

For what it's worth, I think it's pretty clear they don't want him back.

Wrong.  

"What would be the best-case scenario from the Houston manager's perspective? "Jeff Bagwell plays and hits about 25 home runs and drives in about 90 runs and, end of the conversation, we're back in the World Series?? (says Garner)"

[astro pete]

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:
I don't disagree with you from a legal or insurance standpoint.  (If that is what you mean by I should know better).  But people in Houston care about Jeff Bagwell and there is at least a perception (probably false, but neither you nor I are in the Astros front offices) that the Astros are pushing Bagwell out and don't want him to come back.  Nobody in New York gave a rat's ass about Mo Vaughn. And most people would have bought him a ticket out of town. That's the only reason why the two cases are different.

For what it's worth, I think it's pretty clear they don't want him back.

Wrong.  

"What would be the best-case scenario from the Houston manager's perspective? "Jeff Bagwell plays and hits about 25 home runs and drives in about 90 runs and, end of the conversation, we're back in the World Series?? (says Garner)"

Sure, they'd love that.  But they don't think they'd get it.

"To me more than anything else, it?s just amazing how bad they don?t want me to play," (Bagwell) said. "Anything else said it?s just not the truth. They just want to collect their money. It?s an awkward situation. It?s just amazing to me how much they don?t want me to play."

[pravata]

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:
I don't disagree with you from a legal or insurance standpoint.  (If that is what you mean by I should know better).  But people in Houston care about Jeff Bagwell and there is at least a perception (probably false, but neither you nor I are in the Astros front offices) that the Astros are pushing Bagwell out and don't want him to come back.  Nobody in New York gave a rat's ass about Mo Vaughn. And most people would have bought him a ticket out of town. That's the only reason why the two cases are different.

For what it's worth, I think it's pretty clear they don't want him back.

Wrong.  

"What would be the best-case scenario from the Houston manager's perspective? "Jeff Bagwell plays and hits about 25 home runs and drives in about 90 runs and, end of the conversation, we're back in the World Series?? (says Garner)"

Sure, they'd love that.  But they don't think they'd get it.

"To me more than anything else, it?s just amazing how bad they don?t want me to play," (Bagwell) said. "Anything else said it?s just not the truth. They just want to collect their money. It?s an awkward situation. It?s just amazing to me how much they don?t want me to play."

A.  You don't know what you think, how many sides are you going to take?

"For what it's worth, I think it's pretty clear they don't want him back"

"Sure, they'd love that.  But they don't think they'd get it"

B. Quoting Bagwell to understand what Garner thinks doesn't make logical sense.  

and C. Last time Bagwell was in a situation with the Astros, here's how it ended,

"Bagwell ... question(ed) whether Astros management cared less about winning than about the bottom line. He said he thought it was a 50-50 proposition he would re-sign with the team, "and at times I thought it might be less than that."

"Maybe those (comments) were unfair, and I apologize for making those statements," Bagwell said. "What happens after you win three years in a row is that you get the feeling that the Astros have turned the corner. With the year we had, it made that very tough. Sometimes you forget all the good times you had when things become so bad." The Link

[Reuben]

To me, what Garner thinks (or says) is not all that relevant to this argument. McLane, and to a lesser extent Purpura, would be the ones who "don't want (Bagwell) back." And I tend to agree with Pete- it seems clear that they are hoping he is too injured to play, valuing the $15.6 mil more than the production they would get from a healthy Bagwell at this age. Anything they would say publicly to the contrary needs to be taken with a grain of salt.

[No? in Austin]

Quote:
To me, what Garner thinks (or says) is not all that relevant to this argument. McLane, and to a lesser extent Purpura, would be the ones who "don't want (Bagwell) back." And I tend to agree with Pete- it seems clear that they are hoping he is too injured to play, valuing the $15.6 mil more than the production they would get from a healthy Bagwell at this age. Anything they would say publicly to the contrary needs to be taken with a grain of salt.

Gawd this is so idiotic!  You people *really* believe that McLane would pay Jeff Bagwell a grand total of 86 million dollars because he was a superstar performer, take out a Lloyds of London policy against the contract and then all of sudden develop some sort of evil fellings towards Bagwell to save 15 million bones?  And take a hit in the PR if that was his real reasons, thus cost himself much more in terms of money from the gate?  Is McLane *THAT* stupid in the eyes of you people?

He's not.

He made a business decision to make his claim on the policy due to two doctor reports that have *ALL-FREAKING-READY* said Bagwell is done.  No ill will towards Baggy, no evil intent, nada.  Sound business decision based on facts given to them.  Why pay the premiums on a insurance policy if you do not intend to use it when the opportunity presents itself?  Bagwell's erasible attitude during the offseason and his often caustic remarks are nothing new, so having him say things like he did is not uncommon.  In fact, his agent, Barry Axelrod has tried to temper what Baggy said by saying he and his client realize it is a *business* decision and that they respect that.

Now it's out of McLane's hands... he has *NOTHING* to say or do with the payout of the claim, it is up to the insurance company and the doctors assigned by them to come to or not come to the same conclusion as Dr. Linder and Dr. Andrews.  What is being said by Wagner (and some of you here) is amazing given all that.  May as well question the integrity of Dr. Andrews and Dr. Linder and go ahead and villianize Lloyds of London and their doctors too if they reach the same conclusion.  Afterall, they *ALL* don't want Bagwell to play baseball any more, that's why they're *ALL* in on this horrible scheme by Dr. Evil... errr... McLane.

[pravata]

Quote:
To me, what Garner thinks (or says) is not all that relevant to this argument. McLane, and to a lesser extent Purpura, would be the ones who "don't want (Bagwell) back." And I tend to agree with Pete- it seems clear that they are hoping he is too injured to play, valuing the $15.6 mil more than the production they would get from a healthy Bagwell at this age. Anything they would say publicly to the contrary needs to be taken with a grain of salt.

Not sure how many grains of salt you're going to have to take when Bagwell turns up in the batting cage on Thursday.
How does it "seem clear" that the Astros have any motivation other than to observe the letter of their Lloyd's insurance claim (arranged by mutual agreement at Bagwell's last contract negotiation) that required a filing by 1/31/06.  All of their other public statements (I'm not privy to their private statements, nor can I access their interior motives) are that they expect Bagwell to be at ST and that they, Purpura and Mclane, are counting on the doctors and Bagwell's performance to determine whether he can play.  The Manager hopes he leads the team to another World Series.

[astro pete]

Quote:

Quote:
To me, what Garner thinks (or says) is not all that relevant to this argument. McLane, and to a lesser extent Purpura, would be the ones who "don't want (Bagwell) back." And I tend to agree with Pete- it seems clear that they are hoping he is too injured to play, valuing the $15.6 mil more than the production they would get from a healthy Bagwell at this age. Anything they would say publicly to the contrary needs to be taken with a grain of salt.

Gawd this is so idiotic!  You people *really* believe that McLane would pay Jeff Bagwell a grand total of 86 million dollars because he was a superstar performer, take out a Lloyds of London policy against the contract and then all of sudden develop some sort of evil fellings towards Bagwell to save 15 million bones?  And take a hit in the PR if that was his real reasons, thus cost himself much more in terms of money from the gate?  Is McLane *THAT* stupid in the eyes of you people?

He's not.

He made a business decision to make his claim on the policy due to two doctor reports that have *ALL-FREAKING-READY* said Bagwell is done.  No ill will towards Baggy, no evil intent, nada.  Sound business decision based on facts given to them.  Why pay the premiums on a insurance policy if you do not intend to use it when the opportunity presents itself?  Bagwell's erasible attitude during the offseason and his often caustic remarks are nothing new, so having him say things like he did is not uncommon.  In fact, his agent, Barry Axelrod has tried to temper what Baggy said by saying he and his client realize it is a *business* decision and that they respect that.

Now it's out of McLane's hands... he has *NOTHING* to say or do with the payout of the claim, it is up to the insurance company and the doctors assigned by them to come to or not come to the same conclusion as Dr. Linder and Dr. Andrews.  What is being said by Wagner (and some of you here) is amazing given all that.  May as well question the integrity of Dr. Andrews and Dr. Linder and go ahead and villianize Lloyds of London and their doctors too if they reach the same conclusion.  Afterall, they *ALL* don't want Bagwell to play baseball any more, that's why they're *ALL* in on this horrible scheme by Dr. Evil... errr... McLane.

The only person villainizing McLane is Billy Wagner.  I'm not, I don't think Reuben is either.  We all know what you've stated (then re-stated, then re-re-stated) is true: it's a business decision.  It's "good business" for McLane not to have Bagwell in uniform next year.  That's all we're saying.

[No? in Austin]

Quote:
The only person villainizing McLane is Billy Wagner.

 

Well, I don't really believe Billy Wagner is the *only* one.

Quote:
I'm not, I don't think Reuben is either.

Are you quite *clear* about that?

Quote:
We all know what you've stated (then re-stated, then re-re-stated) is true: it's a business decision.

Actually, if you've read what I've said correctly, I've stated over and over again that it is a business decision *with no motive ascribed to it other than it is what should be done by any rationale team... like the Mets themselves*.  Somehow it's not accepted for what it is, instead *personal* items get introduced, such as Mo Vaughn is a prick that fans didn't like (okay, so what?), or things that are *clear* as to intent.

Quote:
It's "good business" for McLane not to have Bagwell in uniform next year.  That's all we're saying.

Not if he cannot play according to doctors.  Bagwell won't even allow himself to take the field if *he cannot physically perform*.  Would you like to quote him on that too, just to be *clear*?

[astro pete]

Quote:

Quote:
It's "good business" for McLane not to have Bagwell in uniform next year.  That's all we're saying.

Not if he cannot play according to doctors.  Bagwell won't even allow himself to take the field if *he cannot physically perform*.  Would you like to quote him on that too, just to be *clear*?

I agree with everything up to here, but only because I think you misread my post. If Bagwell cannot play, filing the claim was a good business decision.  This is self-evident.

[No? in Austin]

Quote:
I agree with everything up to here, but only because I think you misread my post. If Bagwell cannot play, filing the claim was a good business decision.  This is self-evident.

I doubt it is self-evident judging by the reaction fans, media and players like Billy Wagner have expressed up to now.  Why should the Houston Astros and Drayton McLane have ascribed to them a motive of not wanting to have Bagwell play for them in 2006 simply to cash in on an insurance policy?  That is an insane rationale given the facts that have unvieled themselves up until this point and that is from both camps: The Astros were under a deadline to file a claim and needed medical *facts* to make a decision to file or not.  Jeff Bagwell wants up until Opening Day to declare if he is able *or not* to play.  The Astros are not the ones who can grant him that luxury *IF* the insurance claim is strict in it's outline that certain criteria must be met, including not allowing Bagwell onto the field of play.  However, as of today, the Astros and Bagwell *plan* to have Jeff come into camp and be on a rehab program for the majority of spring.  This program is outlined by the doctors to continue to strengthen the shoulder.  At a point and time in the future, Lloyds of London will have their medical personal review the findings of Dr. Linder and Dr. Andrews and then examine Bagwell themselves.  If, *at that time*, it is deemed he is "physically unable to perform", then Bagwell will be put on the DL for the season.

And at that point Jeff Bagwell will no longer be a Houston Astro.  In all that, there is nothing that I can find that says the Houston Astros do not want Bagwell to play for them in 2006, not clearly, not in any other shape or form.  Being prudent about making a business related decision, similar to not granting arbitration to Roger Clemens, which oddly no one seems to claim that Clemens is being *clearly* told by that move that the Astros *clearly do not want him to pitch for them in 2006*, is simply what it is: being prudent.

[Limey]

Quote:
B. Quoting Bagwell to understand what Garner thinks doesn't make logical sense.

Paying heed to Jeff "Eeyore" Bagwell during the offseason has proven to be a fruitless exercise time and again.

[astro pete]

Quote:

Quote:
B. Quoting Bagwell to understand what Garner thinks doesn't make logical sense.

Paying heed to Jeff "Eeyore" Bagwell during the offseason has proven to be a fruitless exercise time and again.

This is just too convenient.

[Limey]

Quote:
It's "good business" for McLane not to have Bagwell in uniform next year.  That's all we're saying.

No it's not.  It would be better for business to have Baggy mashing at #3, thus giving the Astros a line up that will pummel the opposition all the way to a WS win.  Being able to collect on the insurance policy is making the best of a bad situation.

You have insurance, right?  Ever made a claim?  Ever felt that what the insurance company paid you was better than not having to make the claim in the first place?  Didn't think so.

[Limey]

Quote:

Quote:
Paying heed to Jeff "Eeyore" Bagwell during the offseason has proven to be a fruitless exercise time and again.

This is just too convenient.

Doesn't make it wrong.

[astro pete]

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:
Paying heed to Jeff "Eeyore" Bagwell during the offseason has proven to be a fruitless exercise time and again.

This is just too convenient.

Doesn't make it wrong.

Doesn't make it right.  I don't think Bagwell has the final say here, or the most objective opinion.  I think you place the quote in the context presented in this thread.  That is, Bagwell has a history of speaking off the cuff during the winter, and that management is taking a different posture.   But, the fact that he said it isn't valueless, especially considering he is one of three or four people in the universe privy to the on-going discussions regarding Drayton's insurance claim.

[astro pete]

Quote:

No it's not.  It would be better for business to have Baggy mashing at #3, thus giving the Astros a line up that will pummel the opposition all the way to a WS win.  Being able to collect on the insurance policy is making the best of a bad situation.

I agree with this, but I don't think it's realistic.

[Reuben]

Quote:

Quote:
It's "good business" for McLane not to have Bagwell in uniform next year.  That's all we're saying.

No it's not.  It would be better for business to have Baggy mashing at #3, thus giving the Astros a line up that will pummel the opposition all the way to a WS win.  Being able to collect on the insurance policy is making the best of a bad situation.

You have insurance, right?  Ever made a claim?  Ever felt that what the insurance company paid you was better than not having to make the claim in the first place?  Didn't think so.

I'm sure a lot of folks have had an old car that would've been worth much more in an insurance payout than what they could actually sell it for. (my 1995 Toyota, with 205,000 miles, and various blemishes, might qualify).

I think it's very possible that Drayton would rather have his $15.6 mil than, say, a 2004-ish performance from Bagwell. No, I have no problem with the simple act of filing the claim- as noted, it is completely normal and sensible to do so given the circumstances. My cynicism stems from my perception that the front office is decidedly less-than-enthusiastic about the possibility of Bags being able to play. Obviously, I don't have a way to know this for sure- but I'm going more by what I've read from Purp and McLane than Bagwell's "Eeyore-ish" comments.

Basically, I think they realize that there is no way he's going to play 162 games and have a year like '99 or '94. And they don't believe a year like 2004 is worth $17 mil.

[No? in Austin]

Quote:
But, the fact that he said it isn't valueless,

It has it's appropriate value, but it is not without context of a history of speaking caustically in the offseason.

Quote:
especially considering he is one of three or four people in the universe privy to the on-going discussions regarding Drayton's insurance claim.

Actually, no he doesn't.  The insurance claim is not against Bagwell.  It is a policy that insures the *contract* that Bagwell signed.  Jeff Bagwell gets his money regardless.  McLane made a business decision to pay premiums on a policy to insure that contract.  He has been doing so for the life of the contract.  Bagwell has not been involved in those payments nor does he have any sort of indemnity involved.  He is in no way in any default of the policy because it's not about him, it's about his contract.

Having said that, in order for the Astros to get a payout on the claim that they filed, Jeff Bagwell must be deemed "physically unable to perform" on the field.  This is based on medical data, not emotion, not approval ratings, not what popularity the player has.  Jeff Bagwell even agrees with this.  What Bagwell does not agree with is the timing of the insurance claim.  He feels that the arm/shoulder cannot possibly be judged in a doctor examination *only* and must be judged in a baseball environment.  He wants that opportunity.  But he has no say so in the matter because he is not... repeat *NOT* the policy holder, the Astros are.  Bagwell is not aware of the language, the timetables, nor the idemnity involved... he is just aware that the real chance was there this off-season that he would not be able to step onto a baseball field this spring and that rankled him.

And thus he spoke out.  Against the only foe he knew to speak out against since they (the Astros) were the ones asking him to get medical examinations done so that a decision to file could be made.  He must of felt it was a precursor to a final decision being made by the insurance company soon afterwards.  Judging by Bagwell's comments (and Barry Axelrods) it sure seemed as if he felt the decision to DL his 2006 season was going to happen *before* he stepped onto the field of play to test his arm.  He wasn't speaking out of a knowledge of the insurance policy but rather out of a sense of justice as he precieved it.

And some fans followed along with the emotion of it all.

[No? in Austin]

Quote:
My cynicism stems from my perception that the front office is decidedly less-than-enthusiastic about the possibility of Bags being able to play.

It is a totally wrong perception.

Quote:
Basically, I think they realize that there is no way he's going to play 162 games and have a year like '99 or '94. And they don't believe a year like 2004 is worth $17 mil.

They paid him 86 million dollars over the span of 5 years!  Why would they all of sudden quibble at the last payout?  Why is it hard to understand that *IF* you have insurance that you've paid premiums on for a contract that large and the real possibility is there that you might have to make a claim based on medical evidence, that this is what you must do in a prudent and effective manner.

What has 1994 have to do with any of this?  This is unreal!

[pravata]

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:
It's "good business" for McLane not to have Bagwell in uniform next year.  That's all we're saying.

No it's not.  It would be better for business to have Baggy mashing at #3, thus giving the Astros a line up that will pummel the opposition all the way to a WS win.  Being able to collect on the insurance policy is making the best of a bad situation.

You have insurance, right?  Ever made a claim?  Ever felt that what the insurance company paid you was better than not having to make the claim in the first place?  Didn't think so.

I'm sure a lot of folks have had an old car that would've been worth much more in an insurance payout than what they could actually sell it for. (my 1995 Toyota, with 205,000 miles, and various blemishes, might qualify).

I think it's very possible that Drayton would rather have his $15.6 mil than, say, a 2004-ish performance from Bagwell. No, I have no problem with the simple act of filing the claim- as noted, it is completely normal and sensible to do so given the circumstances. My cynicism stems from my perception that the front office is decidedly less-than-enthusiastic about the possibility of Bags being able to play. Obviously, I don't have a way to know this for sure- but I'm going more by what I've read from Purp and McLane than Bagwell's "Eeyore-ish" comments.

Basically, I think they realize that there is no way he's going to play 162 games and have a year like '99 or '94. And they don't believe a year like 2004 is worth $17 mil.

Where are you getting the idea that the front office is "less than enthusiastic" about Bagwell playing?  Other than the quote in the Justice article, Bagwell has said nothing.  Not a peep from Jeff Bagwell since 1/21.  Consider that in light of Bagwell's previous offseasons.   Consider that in light of what Ausmus just told Justice Tuesday at ST.

[No? in Austin]

Quote:
Where are you getting the idea that the front office is "less than enthusiastic" about Bagwell playing?

The anology of Jeff Bagwell and this insurance policy being close to a car and value depreciation showed how woeful some people are in grasping the very simple facts actually involved in Bagwell's situation.

Jeff Bagwell = property?
Houston Astros = property owners?
Insurance policy = property insurance?

OMG!  No wonder this is so out of whack in what I read from people, they just do not understand the situation *AT ALL*!

[Andyzipp]

OOOOOHHHHH!

If Jeff Bagwell were a car, what kind of car would he be?  I think he'd be a Range Rover.

Hopefully the insurance will pay for his quarterpanel to be replaced.  Or else it's gonna be hard to trade him in.

[lc_db]

Quote:
OOOOOHHHHH!

If Jeff Bagwell were a car, what kind of car would he be?  I think he'd be a Range Rover.

Hopefully the insurance will pay for his quarterpanel to be replaced.  Or else it's gonna be hard to trade him in.

...and Lance Berkman is that car in the circus that all the clowns pile out of.

[Reuben]

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:
It's "good business" for McLane not to have Bagwell in uniform next year.  That's all we're saying.

No it's not.  It would be better for business to have Baggy mashing at #3, thus giving the Astros a line up that will pummel the opposition all the way to a WS win.  Being able to collect on the insurance policy is making the best of a bad situation.

You have insurance, right?  Ever made a claim?  Ever felt that what the insurance company paid you was better than not having to make the claim in the first place?  Didn't think so.

I'm sure a lot of folks have had an old car that would've been worth much more in an insurance payout than what they could actually sell it for. (my 1995 Toyota, with 205,000 miles, and various blemishes, might qualify).

I think it's very possible that Drayton would rather have his $15.6 mil than, say, a 2004-ish performance from Bagwell. No, I have no problem with the simple act of filing the claim- as noted, it is completely normal and sensible to do so given the circumstances. My cynicism stems from my perception that the front office is decidedly less-than-enthusiastic about the possibility of Bags being able to play. Obviously, I don't have a way to know this for sure- but I'm going more by what I've read from Purp and McLane than Bagwell's "Eeyore-ish" comments.

Basically, I think they realize that there is no way he's going to play 162 games and have a year like '99 or '94. And they don't believe a year like 2004 is worth $17 mil.

Where are you getting the idea that the front office is "less than enthusiastic" about Bagwell playing?  Other than the quote in the Justice article, Bagwell has said nothing.  Not a peep from Jeff Bagwell since 1/21.  Consider that in light of Bagwell's previous offseasons.   Consider that in light of what Ausmus just told Justice Tuesday at ST.

As I said, I'm basing this not so much on what Bagwell has said, but on what Purp and McLane have (or haven't) said. This is, of course, just speculation on my part- based on the very limited facts available. I could be totally wrong, but I have a hunch that if someone calls up McLane in a couple weeks and says "guess what?! The insurance doctors say Bags is good to go!" his response will be something like "oh...boy..."

In regards to Ausmus, not sure I understand, are you just saying that you think he's pissed at Justice for stirring up a feud between Bagwell and the front office?

[Astroholic]

If I am not mistaking, Justice was all over Ausmus in the first half last year, he was kissing his butt the second half of the year, or maybe it was the next day..It is pinwheel after all.

[Reuben]

Quote:

Quote:
My cynicism stems from my perception that the front office is decidedly less-than-enthusiastic about the possibility of Bags being able to play.

It is a totally wrong perception.

Wow, I didn't realize that you were omniscient! Even Pravata made a point of saying (in regards to McLane/Purp)"I'm not privy to their private statements, nor can I access their interior motives." I certainly cannot claim that mine is a "totally right perception."

Quote:
 

Quote:
Basically, I think they realize that there is no way he's going to play 162 games and have a year like '99 or '94. And they don't believe a year like 2004 is worth $17 mil.

They paid him 86 million dollars over the span of 5 years!  Why would they all of sudden quibble at the last payout?  Why is it hard to understand that *IF* you have insurance that you've paid premiums on for a contract that large and the real possibility is there that you might have to make a claim based on medical evidence, that this is what you must do in a prudent and effective manner.

What has 1994 have to do with any of this?  This is unreal!

I believe I plainly said that it is justifiable and understandable for them to file this claim. And you know what, this whole situation here, it's not like it's something I'm irate and foaming at the mouth about; there are a lot better things in the world to be angry about. I'm merely expressing my view, my  opinion, my guess on the nature of the situation. I don't think McLane is evil, nor would my opinion of his character cause me to like the ballclub less.

[pravata]

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:
It's "good business" for McLane not to have Bagwell in uniform next year.  That's all we're saying.

No it's not.  It would be better for business to have Baggy mashing at #3, thus giving the Astros a line up that will pummel the opposition all the way to a WS win.  Being able to collect on the insurance policy is making the best of a bad situation.

You have insurance, right?  Ever made a claim?  Ever felt that what the insurance company paid you was better than not having to make the claim in the first place?  Didn't think so.

I'm sure a lot of folks have had an old car that would've been worth much more in an insurance payout than what they could actually sell it for. (my 1995 Toyota, with 205,000 miles, and various blemishes, might qualify).

I think it's very possible that Drayton would rather have his $15.6 mil than, say, a 2004-ish performance from Bagwell. No, I have no problem with the simple act of filing the claim- as noted, it is completely normal and sensible to do so given the circumstances. My cynicism stems from my perception that the front office is decidedly less-than-enthusiastic about the possibility of Bags being able to play. Obviously, I don't have a way to know this for sure- but I'm going more by what I've read from Purp and McLane than Bagwell's "Eeyore-ish" comments.

Basically, I think they realize that there is no way he's going to play 162 games and have a year like '99 or '94. And they don't believe a year like 2004 is worth $17 mil.

Where are you getting the idea that the front office is "less than enthusiastic" about Bagwell playing?  Other than the quote in the Justice article, Bagwell has said nothing.  Not a peep from Jeff Bagwell since 1/21.  Consider that in light of Bagwell's previous offseasons.   Consider that in light of what Ausmus just told Justice Tuesday at ST.

As I said, I'm basing this not so much on what Bagwell has said, but on what Purp and McLane have (or haven't) said. This is, of course, just speculation on my part- based on the very limited facts available. I could be totally wrong, but I have a hunch that if someone calls up McLane in a couple weeks and says "guess what?! The insurance doctors say Bags is good to go!" his response will be something like "oh...boy..."

In regards to Ausmus, not sure I understand, are you just saying that you think he's pissed at Justice for stirring up a feud between Bagwell and the front office?

Here's what I've seen

"In the original policy, (the insurance company) claims that he could not come to Spring Training," McLane said. "We're going to take all of the information we have and meet with them and see if there is any opportunity (for Bagwell to play in Spring Training). Jeff just wants the opportunity."
The Link

Jeff Bagwell has a complete set of gear waiting in his locker in Kissimmee.  He's going to be at Spring Training.

"If he's incapable of doing this, he's going to say so," said Barry Axelrod, Bagwell's agent. "He's said many times, he's not going to embarrass himself. He's a man of integrity. He cares about the team and cares about baseball."

The Link

Ausmus is Bagwell's best friend on the Astros, Justice published the only story with quotes by Bagwell concerning the insurance situation, Ausmus dismisses Justice's questions in ST, telling him to just go make up a quote.  What's your conclusion?

[pravata]

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:
My cynicism stems from my perception that the front office is decidedly less-than-enthusiastic about the possibility of Bags being able to play.

It is a totally wrong perception.

Quote:
Wow, I didn't realize that you were omniscient! Even Pravata made a point of saying (in regards to McLane/Purp)"I'm not privy to their private statements, nor can I access their interior motives." I certainly cannot claim that mine is a "totally right perception."

Yes I did, because I have no access to the Astros front office.  Doesn't mean no one does.  Also, if you're not claiming omniscients, you're at least claiming some sort of clairvoyance; otherwise, despite the disclaimer, how would this "...I have a hunch that if someone calls up McLane in a couple weeks and says "guess what?! The insurance doctors say Bags is good to go!" his response will be something like "oh...boy...""  find a spot in the middle of your speculations?

[Reuben]

 

Quote:

Here's what I've seen

"In the original policy, (the insurance company) claims that he could not come to Spring Training," McLane said. "We're going to take all of the information we have and meet with them and see if there is any opportunity (for Bagwell to play in Spring Training). Jeff just wants the opportunity."
The Link

Jeff Bagwell has a complete set of gear waiting in his locker in Kissimmee. He's going to be at Spring Training.

"If he's incapable of doing this, he's going to say so," said Barry Axelrod, Bagwell's agent. "He's said many times, he's not going to embarrass himself. He's a man of integrity. He cares about the team and cares about baseball."

The Link

Ausmus is Bagwell's best friend on the Astros, Justice published the only story with quotes by Bagwell concerning the insurance situation, Ausmus dismisses Justice's questions in ST, telling him to just go make up a quote. What's your conclusion?

 

Those weren't the only quotes by Bagwell. This was a telling (if a tad melodramatic) one:
"It probably will never be fixed between me and the Astros," Bagwell said Tuesday.  The Link
There was also the MLB radio interview,  The Link (though that was not incredibly revealing).

And quotes like this from Purpura:
"It's Jeff's position that he's going to report," Purpura said, "and there's little if anything a team can do to keep a player from reporting. It's a tough situation all around. It's tough and complex."  The Link That's what I mean by "less-than-enthusiastic."

[No? in Austin]

Quote:
Wow, I didn't realize that you were omniscient!

No, I just know the Astros are not of the opinion you hold them to be.  And I do mean *know*, not think or speculate.

[No? in Austin]

Quote:
"...I have a hunch that if someone calls up McLane in a couple weeks and says "guess what?! The insurance doctors say Bags is good to go!" his response will be something like "oh...boy..."

This part is the most laughable given that McLane has been paying Jeff Bagwell a ton of money for many years now.  Why, oh why would one year's salary be of any concern for him *IF* the player is capable of playing?  It wouldn't.  The gate receipt, the ability to parlay a story of *comeback player of the year* for the man he's erected a statue for is incredible in terms of great PR for said gate reciepts.

McLane, the doofus businessman, would say "oh... boy..." to that?  In-freaking-credible what this is churning out to be in terms of an opinion.  It's worse than fantacrap... IMHO of course.

[pravata]

Quote:

Quote:

Here's what I've seen

"In the original policy, (the insurance company) claims that he could not come to Spring Training," McLane said. "We're going to take all of the information we have and meet with them and see if there is any opportunity (for Bagwell to play in Spring Training). Jeff just wants the opportunity."
The Link

Jeff Bagwell has a complete set of gear waiting in his locker in Kissimmee. He's going to be at Spring Training.

"If he's incapable of doing this, he's going to say so," said Barry Axelrod, Bagwell's agent. "He's said many times, he's not going to embarrass himself. He's a man of integrity. He cares about the team and cares about baseball."

The Link

Ausmus is Bagwell's best friend on the Astros, Justice published the only story with quotes by Bagwell concerning the insurance situation, Ausmus dismisses Justice's questions in ST, telling him to just go make up a quote. What's your conclusion?

 

Those weren't the only quotes by Bagwell. This was a telling (if a tad melodramatic) one:
"It probably will never be fixed between me and the Astros," Bagwell said Tuesday.  The Link
There was also the MLB radio interview,  The Link (though that was not incredibly revealing).

And quotes like this from Purpura:
"It's Jeff's position that he's going to report," Purpura said, "and there's little if anything a team can do to keep a player from reporting. It's a tough situation all around. It's tough and complex."  The Link That's what I mean by "less-than-enthusiastic."

Bagwell, in the offseason, is melodramatic.  And he's certainly defiant at this stage.   In one of those article we have this "McLane said. "The issues are gigantic and remain to work through at this point. ... My best hope would be that Jeff Bagwell could come back and play first base."  And since the issue here is whether the Astros want Bagwell to play, I think that is more relevant than what January Jeff is saying.

[ybbodeus]

Quote:
I think there's a 9th inning 3 run Biggio homer that makes me not give a shit about anything Wags says anymore.

The Link

I watch it once a week.

You....are....a....GOD!!!

[ybbodeus]

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:
For what it's worth, I think it's pretty clear they don't want him back.

Really, it's *clear*?  How about it's "baseball is a business" (a two way street when the MLBPA negotiates a CBA, a player negotiates a contract, et. al.)?  How fans lose sight of the business side of things is truly amazing to me, even fans who should've been paying attention for a very long time now.

I think most fans understand that this is purely a business decision.

Most, yes.  Apparently others are just plain ignorant.

Would the "others" be those poor folks who rely on Richard Justice columns/broadcasts for their inside Astro "skinny"?

[Limey]

Quote:
The anology of Jeff Bagwell and this insurance policy being close to a car and value depreciation showed how woeful some people are in grasping the very simple facts actually involved in Bagwell's situation.

Jeff Bagwell = property?
Houston Astros = property owners?
Insurance policy = property insurance?

OMG!  No wonder this is so out of whack in what I read from people, they just do not understand the situation *AT ALL*!

FTR, I wasn't trying to suggest that Bagwell is property.  Simply that insurance can throw some cash at an issue, but it never ever makes up for the actual loss.  In this case, the loss of the services of an elite player.