User Comments, Suggestions, or Complaints | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertising
|
Demarini, Easton and TPX Baseball Bats
|
AllianceTickets.com has cheap MLB Tickets. Get all your Colorado Rockies Tickets, Seattle Mariners Tickets, San Francisco Giants Tickets and all your favorite baseball tickets here. We also carry cheap Denver Broncos Tickets, Seattle Seahawks Tickets and Denver Nuggets Tickets. |
For wholesale prices on baseball gifts and equipment, check these stores out! |
Page rendered in 0.3263 seconds
54 querie(s) executed
Reader Comments and Retorts
Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
1. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: January 05, 2009 at 09:20 PM (#3043725)He basically would have been cut, except they didn't want to insult Furcal.
"That was just bulls#*t, Rafael... I'm surprised you listened to me."
Nothing will ever be as bad as the farce of Albert Belle, who would be activated every season and then immediately placed on the 60-day DL for the entire season so they could collect insurance on his contract.
Considering that's 210 runs above a normal CF, paired with a career 111 OPS+, I'd vote for him with that. That'd be an absolute monster defensive peak - like Devon White 1992-3, except for 7 straight years. In terms of total value, I'd imagine that would make him into something with the total value of Duke Snider. EDIT: Or a more SLG heavy Richie Ashburn, with better defense.
What were they supposed to do? He didn't retire, and if they cut him, they would have had to eat the rest of the contract.
Have other teams done this with players who were finished? Seems like a good business decision, even if it is somewhat of a sham.
So all Andruw Jones has to do is show up for spring training 20-30 lbs. overweight, play like crap for 30 days, and then get cut - and he will get about $21 million over the next few years. Wow.
Why do you think he's struggling? It's hard to move with a person sized fork sticking out of your back.
Probably. Of course it's a good business decision. It could also be insurance fraud.
It's been done before, but typically only for the remainder of a season, and only for real injuries. What made the Belle incident notable was that the Orioles had to do it for multiple seasons (3?), and also actually had insurance coverage and a legitimate injury covered by that insurance. For most players, the insurance company would probably challenge a team doing it, arguing that "sucking" is not a medically recognized condition, whereas Belle had seen all sorts of specialists who agreed that he could no longer play.
It was also a matter of a lot of companies just straight out refusing to insure deals of longer than three years, no matter the premium, especially after taking a beating on a lot of the earlier deals, and adding tons of exemptions to the coverage.
What did the insurance cover? Injury? Was he injured?
Not trying to be too much of a prick, just thinking out loud.
It was one of the relatively standard injury clauses which kicks in after a player misses a certain amount of time - usually at 30 or 60 consecutive days due to a single injury. Basically, Belle rapidly developed massive hip problems - I think it was arthritis, but I'm not entirely sure - and became completely unable to play in any capacity.
I've never understood this. I'd insure most contracts for, say, a 75% premium. There HAS to be a point where it's merely too expensive, not impossible, to issue a policy.
This is more-or-less what happened with the Pirates and Pat Meares, IIRC. With the added twist that Meares was aggresively and strenuously complaining that he could still play, out of pride, at a time when he couldn't close his injured hand well enough to pick up or grip a bat. Thus, the Pirates had to let him get the bat knocked out of his hands every day for a few months before the insurance company was willing to cry uncle.
Even by Meares standards, it was pretty God-awful to watch.
edit: that didn't make much sense now, did it?
Imagine the cojones to "sue" for ~$7500 a year in meal money while your getting paid $10M p.a. to do absolutely nothing!
How was it a farce? Belle really was injured.
Well, unless he was willing to retire (which obviously he wasn't, and it isn't clear why he should have), then it was simply rational for the team to place him on the DL (which is where players unable to play due to injury are supposed to be placed) and collect the insurance against his salary. I fail to see what's farcical.
Well, obviously it was highly unlikely, but it was always possible that Belle might have recovered enough capacity to play again. And so given that (as well as given just the time value of money), it made sense for the insurer to pay only season by season (or more likely, contractual pay period by pay period) as it happened than pay their total eventual obligation up front.
I guess I would see it as a farce if there were some element of deception going on, but there wasn't. Everybody seems to have been doing their contractual duty.
i'm not trying to put words in srul's mouth, but is that not what he is suggesting was farcical about it? isn't there some element of farce to a situation where everybody knows whats going to happen but goes through the motions of validating it with paper and contracts and whatnot? i'd be the last to suggest they just do the whole payout on a handshake but the parties must have been wondering at some point if the entire dance was necessary.
It would be a farce for me to fill out the forms, do follow-up phone calls and perform any other meaningless mechanics that would fulfill the terms of my relationship with the insurance company.
They could've agreed to pay the Orioles as long as Belle didn't play, rather than as long as he was on the DL. IIRC, the O's were short one 40-man roster spot each year for the rule 5 draft (because they had to use a spot on Belle), so there was a tangible cost to them.
AJ should go do a little fishing in TX with Dunn, and get on the same diet.
Well, Belle was under contract to the Orioles. There were only two places they could put him during the regular season: on the 25-man roster or on the DL. I suppose they might have been able to option him to the minors; I don't know whether his contract might have prohibited that, and MLB would have had legitimate reason to disallow sending him to the minors if he was physically unable to play -- THAT would be a farce.
IIRC, the O's were short one 40-man roster spot each year for the rule 5 draft (because they had to use a spot on Belle), so there was a tangible cost to them.
And this is the insurance company's problem how, exactly?
I think the standard agreement prevents teams from sending players injured in the majors to the minors. There was a case of it allegedly occurring recently with an Oakland pitcher (he claimed he was hurt when he was sent down, they say he was hurt after he was sent down), but I'm not sure how it was resolved. The other problem with this would be that sending Belle to the minors would mean that the insurance company didn't have to pay out - part of the requirement for these payouts is based on time spent on the DL.
Right, but I was trying to come up with a scenario in which Harold's suggestion of "the insurance company just pays the O's if Belle doesn't play, and they don't have to put him on the DL" could play out. As you say, I don't think it's feasible.
Couldn't they just put his contract in front of him in the hope that he would eat it first?
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main