The Bagwell Situation
Mike Bauman’s Baseball Perspective of Feb 7, 2006, described the Bagwell situation thusly:
Bagwell is due to make $17 million in 2006. The Astros, contending that Bagwell will be unable to play, have filed an insurance claim that could pay them as much as $15.6 million if Bagwell is, in fact, unable to play….If Bagwell can play, at least a little, the Astros don't seem likely to prevail on the claim to the tune of $15.6 million. If he says that he can play -- and he does say that -- there is reason to believe him. But for the Astros' purposes, with that damaged right shoulder, he probably isn't going to be able to play at the $17-million level….The happiest way this could work out would be for the 37-year-old Jeff Bagwell to hit Spring Training as something very much like perhaps, the 31-year-old Jeff Bagwell; hitting the cover off the ball, often and for great distance. In this pleasant scenario, he would play the way a man receiving a $17-million salary could fairly be expected to play, and the Astros would acknowledge this and drop the claim….But this is not the most likely outcome. Jeff Bagwell once meant everything to the Houston franchise. Today, he means an insurance claim. Sport isn't always fair, but then again, neither is business.
I don’t think fairness is an issue here. I think ego is. Can’t the situation be resolved by Bagwell agreeing to take only $5 million in return for the Astros dropping the insurance claim and giving him his final year, with the well-deserved farewell tour and another shot at making the World Series?
Bagwell should be a rich man by now. Five million dollars in one year is not chump change. And it’s not as if he will never make another dime once he retires. If the Astros were to be silly enough not to offer Bagwell a job within the organization when he hangs up his spikes, there are probably other teams, or other businesses outside baseball, that would be happy to employ him in some well-compensated capacity. The issue here is a seriously injured star’s unwillingness to take a pay cut at the end of his career, even though, with that pay cut, he would still be making way more than most Americans.
Kéllia Ramares
Oakland, CA
Kellia,
I do see your point. But in "fairness" to Bagwell, I am sure he worked with the Astros for several years deferring payments to ease up on payroll. It seems to me now that it comes time to pay up the Astros want a way out. If Bags can honestly not play then I do believe they have every right to collect. But if he can play as he says he can, he has a right to collect all that is contractually owed to him. I would be shocked if the big money owed to him is not because of deferred payments.
Report any abuse or spam
Christel,
As I understand it, Bags gets the $17 million either way, the question is whether the insurance company pays it or it comes out of the Astros' payroll.
If it is true deferred income from previous years, i.e. the salary for a previous year or years was agreed to, and it was also agreed that he would be paid part of that salary this year, then they owe it to him because he earned it years ago. His ability to perform this year should have no bearing on his collecting now what he already earned from previous performance, if the contract agreed to then called for him to be paid now.
I can't understand an insurance company being willing to insure the Astros against Bags' inability to perform this year so that the insurance company would have to pay the money he already earned by his performance in previous years.
What does make sense is that he has a contract for guaranteed money for this year for services to be supplied this year, and the Astros insured themselves against his not being able to play this year so that they don't have to spend limited payroll dollars on a player who cannot perform. That is the underlying assumption of my assertion that Bags should be willing to take a pay cut this season, in return for the final year he really should have.
I also don't understand why the insurance company supposedly wanted the claim filed by Jan 31st, which didn't give Bags the full opportunity to test himself in spring training. It would make sense that the ins. co. would want the claim filed at the end of spring training because typically such companies don't want to pay out. With a claim date set for the end of spring training, the insurance company would not have to pay out if indeed Bags can prove himself able to play by then. So the early claim date doesn't make sense either.
Report any abuse or spam