Iguana Posted June 20, 2003 Share Posted June 20, 2003 Hasnt Frank Thomas been the Franchise the last 13 or so years and Paulie has been average the last 3?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aboz56 Posted June 20, 2003 Share Posted June 20, 2003 Hasnt Frank Thomas been the Franchise the last 13 or so years and Paulie has been average the last 3?? No and No. Frank hasn't been "the Franchise" and Konerko has been above average the past few seasons. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steff Posted June 20, 2003 Share Posted June 20, 2003 Hasnt Frank Thomas been the Franchise the last 13 or so years and Paulie has been average the last 3?? Frank most certianly has been a "franchise player" I have no clue what the other poster is talking about. Paul has been here 3 years but has sucked donkey balls since July of last year. His poor hip... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aboz56 Posted June 20, 2003 Share Posted June 20, 2003 Frank most certianly has been a "franchise player" I have no clue what the other poster is talking about. Paul has been here 3 years but has sucked donkey balls since July of last year. His poor hip... Besides 2000, when in the past 5 or 6 season has Frank been a franchise player? I'll give you the mid 90's when he won two MVP's, but the past 4 seasons, Mags has been the franchise player, not Frank. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steff Posted June 20, 2003 Share Posted June 20, 2003 Frank most certianly has been a "franchise player" I have no clue what the other poster is talking about. Paul has been here 3 years but has sucked donkey balls since July of last year. His poor hip... Besides 2000, when in the past 5 or 6 season has Frank been a franchise player? I'll give you the mid 90's when he won two MVP's, but the past 4 seasons, Mags has been the franchise player, not Frank. Ummm... "franchise player" means that they have played for the same franchise all their career. So, what the hell are you talking about? And yes, Maggs qualifies as a franchise player. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aboz56 Posted June 20, 2003 Share Posted June 20, 2003 Frank most certianly has been a "franchise player" I have no clue what the other poster is talking about. Paul has been here 3 years but has sucked donkey balls since July of last year. His poor hip... Besides 2000, when in the past 5 or 6 season has Frank been a franchise player? I'll give you the mid 90's when he won two MVP's, but the past 4 seasons, Mags has been the franchise player, not Frank. Ummm... "franchise player" means that they have played for the same franchise all their career. So, what the hell are you talking about? The way I define it is the person you build your team around and it hasn't been Frank for about five years now. By your definition, A-Rod couldn't be a franchise player since he hasn't played for the same franchise his whole career. Nonetheless, A-Rod is a franchise player and your definition is clearly wrong. Sorry to burst your bubble. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steff Posted June 20, 2003 Share Posted June 20, 2003 Frank most certianly has been a "franchise player" I have no clue what the other poster is talking about. Paul has been here 3 years but has sucked donkey balls since July of last year. His poor hip... Besides 2000, when in the past 5 or 6 season has Frank been a franchise player? I'll give you the mid 90's when he won two MVP's, but the past 4 seasons, Mags has been the franchise player, not Frank. Ummm... "franchise player" means that they have played for the same franchise all their career. So, what the hell are you talking about? The way I define it is the person you build your team around and it hasn't been Frank for about five years now. By your definition, A-Rod couldn't be a franchise player since he hasn't played for the same franchise his whole career. Nonetheless, A-Rod is a franchise player and your definition is clearly wrong. Yeah, ummm, OK. Anyone else want to offer their opinion of the definition of "franchise player"..?? To me, what you describe as "franchise player" is in fact a "marquee player". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steff Posted June 20, 2003 Share Posted June 20, 2003 Sorry to burst your bubble. LOL... Closed minded arses who s*** on other people's opinions don't burst my bubble... But whatever gets you through the day, kid. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aboz56 Posted June 20, 2003 Share Posted June 20, 2003 You started it with your little "i have no idea... yada yada yada" comment, not me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steff Posted June 20, 2003 Share Posted June 20, 2003 You started it with your little "i have no idea... yada yada yada" comment, not me. LOL... Waaaa.. what's next? "I'm tellin'"? Still have no clue as to your thought process. Franchise player means franchise player to me. No room for confusion there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mreye Posted June 20, 2003 Share Posted June 20, 2003 The term "franchise player" is one used in the context of the NFL. In 1993, the NFL and the NFL Players' Association concluded a collective bargaining agreement that first used that term. The 1993 CBA creates categories unrestrictive free agency, restrictive free agency for players who have played for a certain number of seasons. To prevent a situation whereby the very best players could be bought by other teams, The "franchise player" was created. Regardless of player's status as an unrestrictive free agent (which applies after four years of playing) each team can designate a franchise player for each season. The player may then only negotiate with the club for that season and the club must pay him the average of the five largest prior year salaries for players at that position he played the most games, or a salary of 120 percent of his prior year salary, whichever is greater. This is all I found. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chosk8 Posted June 20, 2003 Share Posted June 20, 2003 A "franchise player" is the guy you build your team around. It's a generic term, but that's what it means. Like saying "he's the type of guy you build your franchise around", hence the term. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steff Posted June 20, 2003 Share Posted June 20, 2003 The term "franchise player" is one used in the context of the NFL. In 1993, the NFL and the NFL Players' Association concluded a collective bargaining agreement that first used that term. The 1993 CBA creates categories unrestrictive free agency, restrictive free agency for players who have played for a certain number of seasons. To prevent a situation whereby the very best players could be bought by other teams, The "franchise player" was created. Regardless of player's status as an unrestrictive free agent (which applies after four years of playing) each team can designate a franchise player for each season. The player may then only negotiate with the club for that season and the club must pay him the average of the five largest prior year salaries for players at that position he played the most games, or a salary of 120 percent of his prior year salary, whichever is greater. This is all I found. Thanks eye. But since there is nothing like this in MLB, can it be applied? And if so.. and if the cutoff is 4 years.. do ya think it's 4 years with the same team, or just 4 years in the league? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steff Posted June 20, 2003 Share Posted June 20, 2003 A "franchise player" is the guy you build your team around. It's a generic term, but that's what it means. Your opinion. Respected. I call that a marquee player. But in the same token.. the Sox have adamantly claimed that Frank is "their guy" and the team is built around him. So.. I guess he is both. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mreye Posted June 20, 2003 Share Posted June 20, 2003 Thanks eye. But since there is nothing like this in MLB, can it be applied? And if so.. and if the cutoff is 4 years.. do ya think it's 4 years with the same team, or just 4 years in the league? I think it has to be with the same team - hence the term "franchise", but I could be wrong. Could MLB ever have it? Depends on if the MLBPA wants it. We all know they get just about everything they want. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest hotsoxchick1 Posted June 20, 2003 Share Posted June 20, 2003 Your opinion. Respected. I call that a marquee player. But in the same token.. the Sox have adamantly claimed that Frank is "their guy" and the team is built around him. So.. I guess he is both. "was" should be the key word there, much as i like frank i dont recall frank has been their guy since the "kw" years.........maggs is/was his choice.....and who he choose to start building around........mho....... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
witesoxfan Posted June 20, 2003 Share Posted June 20, 2003 Hasnt Frank Thomas been the Franchise the last 13 or so years and Paulie has been average the last 3?? I wouldn't call Frank the franchise. He's more or less been just a big piece over the past 5 years or so(except in 2000, when he carried his young team to a division crown, and gave Jerry Manuel manager of the year....what's Frank get for that? A runner-up in the MVP race and a player's choice of Comeback Player of the Year award....he deserved better, and should have bolted if he could have). IMO, Maggs has been the franchise over the past couple years(once again, except in 2000). Konerko has been nothing more then a 1-dimensional player who has played somewhat well over the past couple years, but has sucked for about 11 straight months now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steff Posted June 20, 2003 Share Posted June 20, 2003 Your opinion. Respected. I call that a marquee player. But in the same token.. the Sox have adamantly claimed that Frank is "their guy" and the team is built around him. So.. I guess he is both. "was" should be the key word there, much as i like frank i dont recall frank has been their guy since the "kw" years.........maggs is/was his choice.....and who he choose to start building around........mho....... Jerry has had no troubles continually calling Frank his guy. You know as well as I that KW's thoughts and ideas are s***. Hense why Frank is still here and not playing elswhere Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted June 20, 2003 Share Posted June 20, 2003 Your opinion. Respected. I call that a marquee player. But in the same token.. the Sox have adamantly claimed that Frank is "their guy" and the team is built around him. So.. I guess he is both. Built the team around Frank? I agree that Frank has been Mr. Sox for the past 14 years but I don't think you can build a baseball team around a DH. At some point, and maybe it has already happened, the main guy is going to go from Frank to Maggs. He'll be the guy you think of when you think of the white sox. Whether you call that a franchise player or marquee player. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steff Posted June 20, 2003 Share Posted June 20, 2003 Your opinion. Respected. I call that a marquee player. But in the same token.. the Sox have adamantly claimed that Frank is "their guy" and the team is built around him. So.. I guess he is both. Built the team around Frank? I agree that Frank has been Mr. Sox for the past 14 years but I don't think you can build a baseball team around a DH. At some point, and maybe it has already happened, the main guy is going to go from Frank to Maggs. He'll be the guy you think of when you think of the white sox. Whether you call that a franchise player or marquee player. Agree about Maggs. But that has not happened yet. Just this morning watching the news.. "Here it is. Sox versus the Cubs. Frank versus Sammy. What the Chicago fans have been waiting for". All over the radio, too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rex Hudler Posted June 20, 2003 Share Posted June 20, 2003 Personally I think you could both be right based on how you define it. And both seem to be reasonable definitions. Can we stop arguing now? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
upnorthsox Posted June 20, 2003 Share Posted June 20, 2003 ........ He'll be the guy you think of when you think of the white sox. Whether you call that a franchise player or marquee player. Exactly, and up until last season that was Frank. Maggs has passed him now though but for how long is still a ??????? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted June 20, 2003 Share Posted June 20, 2003 Personally I think you could both be right based on how you define it. And both seem to be reasonable definitions. Can we stop arguing now? No Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest hotsoxchick1 Posted June 20, 2003 Share Posted June 20, 2003 Your opinion. Respected. I call that a marquee player. But in the same token.. the Sox have adamantly claimed that Frank is "their guy" and the team is built around him. So.. I guess he is both. "was" should be the key word there, much as i like frank i dont recall frank has been their guy since the "kw" years.........maggs is/was his choice.....and who he choose to start building around........mho....... Jerry has had no troubles continually calling Frank his guy. You know as well as I that KW's thoughts and ideas are s***. Hense why Frank is still here and not playing elswhere jr is the reason that frank is here and not with danny evans in la.........the only reason... .kw tried to get rid of him and jr shipped him off to the dominican while he hammered out the deal with frank... but by no means is frank the so called "franchise player" anymore cause this team is not being built with him in mind for the long haul......that status has been passed on........so in that respect i do not see frank as the "franchise player" i see him as a marque type of guy....one name which brings the fans into the stadium, but not the guy who the team is built around....... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steff Posted June 20, 2003 Share Posted June 20, 2003 Your opinion. Respected. I call that a marquee player. But in the same token.. the Sox have adamantly claimed that Frank is "their guy" and the team is built around him. So.. I guess he is both. "was" should be the key word there, much as i like frank i dont recall frank has been their guy since the "kw" years.........maggs is/was his choice.....and who he choose to start building around........mho....... Jerry has had no troubles continually calling Frank his guy. You know as well as I that KW's thoughts and ideas are s***. Hense why Frank is still here and not playing elswhere jr is the reason that frank is here and not with danny evans in la.........the only reason... .kw tried to get rid of him and jr shipped him off to the dominican while he hammered out the deal with frank... but by no means is frank the so called "franchise player" anymore cause this team is not being built with him in mind for the long haul......that status has been passed on........so in that respect i do not see frank as the "franchise player" i see him as a marque type of guy....one name which brings the fans into the stadium, but not the guy who the team is built around....... Oh.. :fyou HSC!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.