Good post. This made me think of the "free market" within the vacuum of baseball's CBA.

This Bagwell situation could possibly serve as an corrective market force, providing incentive for owners to pay less to the players, knowing that the contract is guaranteed.

Of course, every time there is a corrective economic development that favors owners, they risk the charge of collusion. . .

 John Powers -- 1/23/2006 12:05 PM  

If I'm not mistaken, Bagwell deferred dollars at least twice to help the Astros' add personnel, and he was vastly underpaid relative to the market for his entire career. The Astros should just pay the man the money they owe him and shut up.

By the way, this is exactly the reason why professional athletes should have guaranteed contracts and why the Players Association should NEVER allow contracts to be renegotiated.

 Chris D. -- 1/23/2006 12:32 PM  

Give me a break. Bagwell had a lawyer and agreed to his contracts. Injury is foreseeable, especially for steroid users, and I strongly suspect Bagwell fits that bill. He had no power in the minors, then he "grew" into Popeye. He made millions from his power-hitting, so now shouldn't complain. Steroids have a downside to which Bagwell is as entitled as he is to the upside.

 Anonymous -- 1/23/2006 2:50 PM  

It is not my intent to argue that Bagwell is beyond reproach. However, I have never read anything other than unsubstantiated rumors connecting Bagwell to steroids. Caminiti likely was using at the same time that Bagwell was his teammate on the Astros, but there was likely at least one user on every club, so that is not proof enough that Bagwell was using as well. To the contrary it has been oft-reported that Bagwell's shoulder condition is the same as his father's and grandfather's (link: http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/gammons/story?id=2061052) and that he was always (pre-injury) obsessed with lifting weights. Since his shoulder worsened, he has not worked out his upper body, so the smaller upper body size should not be a surprise.

All that being said, does it raise a separate question: If Bagwell admitted that he used steroids years ago before testing was implemented by MLB, and doctors were able easily link his steroid use to his current shoulder injury, what should happen to the $17 million remaining on his contract for 2006? Would such an admission have any bearing on the outcome of this dispute?

 Scott -- 1/23/2006 3:42 PM  

Bagwell had a lawyer and agreed to his contracts.

Exactly. He's entitled to his money under the guaranteed contract. A lot of money? Sure, it was a back-ended contract because he kept deferring money as a favor to his club's owner.

Nobody was arguing to get him more money in '94 when he batted .368 with 39 homers and 116 RBIs on pre-arbitration pay.

 Chris D. -- 1/23/2006 5:10 PM  

I just don't believe Bagwell did the owner a bunch of favors. If the owner asked for the contract to be back-loaded, I'm sure Bagwell's agent said, sure, but that ending number better be a high one. It was a negotiated contract, as they all are. If Bagwell did choose to take a "hometown discount," well, that's his choice: he chose to take his compensation in hometown living and fan appreciation instead of extra cash.

The fact that Bagwell had a lawyer shows that Bagwell considered the implicit risk that his last contractual year might be paid by insurance as part of his agreeing to quit. This is an obvious possibility. Don't cry for this guy: Bagwell's going to get 17 million dollars sitting at home. His contract is still guaranteed; he just has to retire to allow the Astros to get reimbursed from the insurance company, that's all.

 Anonymous -- 1/23/2006 7:57 PM  

Obviously the contract was negotiated, because there's no way anyone thought Bagwell would be worth 17 million dollars at this stage of his career. The huge payoff was to make up for the previous years: so Bagwell did no one any favors.

What I don't get is why isn't the team's request an instance of collusion to collect on the insurance? Why would the insurance company put up with this charade? There is a strong possibility that Bagwell is "fit" enough to play baseball, if only in a reserve role. If he can make the team, then the Astros can't honestly say he's unfit.

 Anonymous -- 1/23/2006 8:10 PM  

My first question, which might be a stupid one: Why is it that the deadline to file the insurance claim is this early?

Second: Since the Astros don't operate differently than other teams, shouldn't they almost be forced to explore trading Bagwell before submitting an insurance claim?

I mean, the insurance claim is basically a way of saying that they can't recoup any of their investment on Bagwell this year, but if Bagwell is in fact capable of at least batting, then it's certainly possible that they could trade Bagwell and get, say, 30-40 cents on the dollar, especially to a team in the AL. This makes me wonder how their claim could be successful.

This isn't Mike Hampton getting injured for the year and the Braves collecting the 13 million insurance or whatever it was for him. We have no evidence that Bagwell is done. This would be like submitting a claim for a car accident and not letting the insurance company examine your vehicle . . . or is my metaphor unfounded?

 Satchmo -- 1/24/2006 8:23 AM  

Satchmo, I don't know the answer to your first question.

As to your second question, I do not think that any team, even an AL team with DH possibilities, would be willing to pay much money for such a risk as Bagwell. The Astros would have to eat most of his salary in order to deal him, and if they are going to pay him out of their own pocket, I assume that they would prefer to keep him. I believe that your "car accident" analogy is very similar to Bagwell's argument that he plans to be ready by the opening of the season. An added quirk in this deal is that Bagwell's inability to throw is quite minor considering that he will be playing first base, if healthy. He was pretty much unable to throw during his previous couple of years in Houston, and the Astros did not claim him to be "disabled" at that time.

 Scott Townsend -- 1/24/2006 10:09 AM  

As for the second question, I think it is irrelevant because the Astros signed him with the intent of him being an everyday firstbasemen. They are under no obligatioon to trade or try and trade him and eat any part of the salary, he is unable to perform the contract he signs, which in the NL, does not include being a DH.
What is more interesting is what Bagwell said today, how Bagwell said he will be able to play in April, the start of the season and is planning on reporting to spring training. It looks like someone has a bad doctor, predicting he either will play this soon or never again, now that is a big difference in diagnosis.

 tommie -- 1/24/2006 11:55 PM  

tommie - yes, the Astros signed him with the intention of him playing every day at first base.

But like all long term baseball contracts, just because the player isn't playing up to the team's expectations in the final years of his contract doesn't give the team the right to cut the player.

If Jorge Posada accumulates 450 PAs this season, the Yankees still have to pay him 12 million next year, even if Posada next year is relegated to catching every 5th day and DHing because he stinks so much. (That's just one example btw)

The fact is that we're not talking about exercising an option or any incentive clauses - the Astros one way or another owe Bagwell 17 million this season, and they're trying to recoup that money by saying that Bagwell can't perform at any professional level (everyday, reserve, pinch hitting, etc.), thereby allowing the Astros to claim insurance on the contract.

But for them to have a legitimate claim, Bagwell would have to be seriously unable to bat, field or run. Not just be bad at it - completely incapable. He's not on the DL, he's not recovering from surgery, and according to him, he's capable of playing baseball. For how long is anyone's guess, but that's not really a factor in the insurance claim.

A new question - would it be possible for Bagwell to sue the team for discrimination? After all, if the insurance claim goes through, and the Astros force him into retirement, that prevents him from entering into a contract with another team this year, correct? And thereby preventing Bagwell from performing a job which he claims he is perfectly capable of performing?

Most companies have extended disability insurance which pays the worker after the employee has missed a long period of work due to disability or injury. This also allows the company to hire new people to replace the disabled worker while the employee is incapable of working.

But if the employee is capable of returning to work and operating at their normal capacity, but is instead dismissed from the company with severance and a disability package, couldn't some kind of discrimination suit be filed against the employer? Doesn't this actually happen pretty often?

 Satchmo -- 1/25/2006 10:21 AM  

Don't forget that Bagwell was so "disabled" that the Astros placed him on their World Series roster last October vs. the White Sox. While he never played in the field, it is going to be awfully difficult to argue that he is disabled to the point that he cannot play baseball, when months ago he was valuable enough to play a significant role in their World Series appearance. On top of that, he's now had several months of rest and rehab, which would lead one to believe that he is quite likely to be healthier for the start of the 2006 season than he was in October 2005.

 Scott Townsend -- 1/25/2006 10:36 AM  

let me clarify my comments.
I did not mean he had to play everyday, I am sorry for that confusion, I meant that he said a contract to play in the NL and has no obligation to move to the AL. If he can pinch hit that is fine. He gets the money if he batted like an MVP as in his MVP year of 1994 or like a pinch hitter. However the Astros only get out of this if he is medically unable to play. When you are a baseball club and you sign a player you have to know you cannot get the same results every year. You sometimes have to add an extra year or two to the deal to sign the player. Pedro will not perform the same in year 1 as he will in year 4 for the Mets. You take the good with the bad when you sign a player. This is expected. Look at Piazza. You have to sacrifice a few years on a deal sometimes to get that player for a few productive years.

 tommie -- 1/25/2006 1:31 PM  

Bagwell deserves the opportunity to come back.

1. This degenerative shoulder problem did not suddenly plague him last year. He has been dealing with it for the past four seasons. While it has progressively caused more and more discomfort (read: excruciating pain) for Bagwell, he has played through it, and -- while not hitting like his former MVP self -- has still had a top of the league OPS the last few years before the 2005 season. He finally opted for surgery because he could not play first base, unable to throw a baseball. But, because of the different motion involved in hitting, he was still a very capable hitter. Notwithstanding his inability to play the field, the fact that he finally had surgery should make him, at the very least, a serviceable top 1/3 of the league first baseman, hitting wise. He would be no worse than he was the last few years (before 2005), when he was still a darn good (though not great) hitter. Possibly, this surgery will allow him to become really good again, if not a true top stud. There is zero reason to think he would not be a legit big-league first baseman, hitting wise.

2. He had the surgery because he physically could not play first base any longer. If he is capable (not a terribly difficult threshold for a first baseman) of playing his position (read: able to throw from first to third without looking like my little sister), he WILL be good enough to be a legit big league first baseman.

3. This isn't a pity case or a hand out based on fan sentiment, team loyalty, or marketing (though, in my opinion, Drayton hasn't made the shrewdest marketing move here). There is every reason to believe the guy can still hit. If the surgery did what it was supposed to - allow him to play the field - he will be worthy of suiting up and playing for the 'stros.

He deserves a shot not ONLY because of what he has done for the franchise and the kind of team player/icon he has been (good reasons, but not enough by themselves), BUT because if the surgery was successful, he will be a good, perhaps very good, major league first baseman, and therefore an asset for the Astros. Not just as a marketing gimmick, but as a legit productive asset to the team.

It all comes down to this: will the surgery allow Bagwell to throw from first to third? Pretty clear standard, I think. Also, pretty low threshold, which I think Bagwell can clear (not to mention good marketing). Because it is both a clear and a low standard, the Astros would be wise to give Bagwell the chance -- it is worth the (gulp) $15.6 million gamble. (I realize that is not chump change - if he can play the field [there is that clear, low threshold again] - he is worth it).

 Marshall S -- 2/01/2006 8:02 AM  

Post a Comment