I wonder if in the policy it states he is unable to play baseball period? All they have to point out is he CAN hit and can be a productive DH in the AL. He is NOT disabled then. Also does he HAVE to be a starter? He can pinch hit and run also! The Astros won't collect a penny. Bags can pinch hit....he can be a pinch runner....he can play years in the AL as a DH. He is NOT a disabled player. he just can't be a starter at first for the Astros. The Astros big problem was letting him play in the WS. His condition is the same and he was the DH in Chicago. They goofed up.
They danced around that - this was very typical insurance behavior. It's as surprising to me as it is that half the Katrina victims found out that their insurance companies were playing twister to get out of claims. It's sad when you have a friend or two working for these places that let you know the crap they pull. Evan
But the issue is that the Astros are paying him $17,000,000 to be a complete player. In other words, to have the ability to play a defensive position. IF they were an AL team, then it may have merit that he could DH, but being in the NL should negate that. I find it hard to believe that the Astros would pay millions for an insurance policy and not be able to file a claim if all Bagwell could do was DH or PR. Throwing is necessary for Bagwell to play for the Houston Astros. The policy was paid for by the Houston Astros. Being able to DH should be irrelevant.
Well that all depends on the wording of the policy. It depends if the words states that if he is UNABLE to play defensively. There are a lot of facits of playing baseball. If a pitcher can't pitch for whatever reason, but can be convereted into another position, then he is still a aseball player, though he cannot pitch. Bags CAN still be a player on the team...just not at defense. It sucks for the Astros...especially Bags since his quality of life with be less with a bummed shoulder this early in his life.
Bagwell's insurance policy specifically listed him as a "non-pitcher". I would assume if (for example) Brad Lidge's contract was insured, he would be listed as a "pitcher" and thus if he were unable to pitch (even if he could swing a bat) due to a debilitating injury, the policy would kick in. These policies are rare and I suspect are not cookie-cutter templates so definitions of a players "job" should be spelled out.
I expected the insurance claim to be denied. The guy played in the world series and even got a base hit that jump started a rally. His condition has not gotten worse since then. If he was well enough to play in the WS, how can you call him disabled now?
His shoulder condition hasn't changed (gotten worse), since the world series. If the Astros didn't want to pay him this year, they shouldn't have activated him last year. Activating him was the was the right thing to do however. Now the Astros just have to suck it up and pay the man what they owe him.
His ability to swing a bat in the WS has no bearing on his ability to not be able to throw the ball. He has not been able to effectively throw since the surgery, so while nothing may have changed since the WS, things have changed since his surgery. I assume the sticking point and what the Astros will pursue is that Bagwell cannot play the field and that is part of his "job". Being able to swing a bat is only part of his job and the Astros should be able to recover at least some of his salary because he cannot play the field. As for the Astros sucking him up and paying him, there was NEVER any doubt that they would do that. The only doubt is whether or not they can recover some of that payment.
I guess the word degenerative in "Bagwell's degenerative shoulder problem" threw me off. But I agree, playing him last fall was definitely the right move.
Yes, what good is a policy like this if the insurance company can welch out claiming that Bags can still swing a bat? I mean, if basically he is only a pinch hitter, his actual value is only a fraction of what the Astros are paying him. And last time I checked they were still playing in the NL, so being able to DH doesn't mean a whole lot except for a few interleague games and (we can only hope) the World Series. Of course a lot depends on the definition of "disabled" as stated in the policy. If it stipulates that "disabled" means not able to play PERIOD, than whoever negotiated the policy for the Astros didn't do a very good job.
I tend to agree with the insurance co here. The claim was for last year. He contributed as a pinch hitter last year after recovering form his injury and the last time I checked, pinch hitting is part of the game. Unless the policy explicitly states that he HAS to be able to handle every part of the game, then I think Drayton is hosed here.
Actually the claim is that he is a disabled player this year and the Astros are attempting to recoup 15+ million on his 2006 contract. The insurance company's claim is that he is as disabled today as he was last October, therefore "nothing has changed". I suspect that the Astros' claim is that he has a "degenerative" should condition with degenerative being the operative word.
One of the biggest problems is that he was disgnosed by two doctors, one being independant in January of this year of being a disabled player. If they can prove that something changed between October and January, then you migh have a case. but he played in the WS, then was diagnosed, then came to ST and fielded and batted. The fact that ST is considered rehabilitaion is interesting because the fact that he was in ST does not void the policy if a doctor approved him participating in ST. The fact that Bags had to be placed on the DL is also interesting. Why is he on the DL? Because he cannot throw? is that enought for the insurance agency since he can still bat? This is going to get interesting.
Look, if all he can do is pinch hit, than he is only worth maybe 5-10% of his contract value. I can't imagine that the team would pay millions for a policy that would leave them hanging. If the insurance company wins, I'm guessing someone at the Astros front office will be looking for a new job.
I don't think that argument holds any weightAll he could do last year was pinch-hit, and I don't think anyone would argue he can't do that for the team today. He can pinch hit, and he did that throughout the spring (perhaps not well, but that's a different issue). His ability to pinch-hit hasn't degenerated. The only way they could have an easy claim is to say "he didn't even show up - his doctors say he can't play at all". The wording in the article says: The company carefully reviewed the claim as submitted by the Astros and determined that the claim did not support a finding of total disability. To be fair, if the insurance policy was for total disability, they are right. He's not totally disabled - he can still play as a pinch hitter for the team, as he demonstrated last fall. Realistically, as others said, its likely to go to litigation, but its not surprising that they denied the initial claim. That's why the Astros didn't want him to even show for spring training.
