Frank Thomas Released By The Blue Jays/signed by the A's

[Steve9347]

mike will stay on. Geren already has said that

 

I love that frank is back he belongs in oakland. when Buck comes back raj davis will be gone.

Let's not get carried away here.

 

I hope he performs incredibly well when not playing the White Sox though.

[A's fan]

Let's not get carried away here.

 

I hope he performs incredibly well when not playing the White Sox though.

 

 

LOL Nick swisher should be in oakland too LOL how has nick been for you guys?

 

I think frank will help us a lot. Mike sweeney and daric barton will split time at first. How did my A's do against you guys when we played I forgot?

Edited April 24, 2008 by A's fan

[WCSox]

The question was in reference to wanting the Sox to take the same basic action at the Blue Jays did, when the vast majority feel that Toronto's actions were wrong.

 

As I said earlier, that would depend on how the Sox handled it. If they told Paulie that they wanted to go in a different direction, that one be one thing. But if they made up some bullcrap excuse like "you haven't been hitting well over the past two weeks", then it would obviously reflect poorly on KW.

 

[Dick Allen]

As I said earlier, that would depend on how the Sox handled it. If they told Paulie that they wanted to go in a different direction, that one be one thing. But if they made up some bullcrap excuse like "you haven't been hitting well over the past two weeks", then it would obviously reflect poorly on KW.

The premise was trading him days before his 5 and 10 rights vest. A lot of people on this board think not only is there nothing wrong with it, the White Sox should do it.

 

[WCSox]

The premise was trading him days before his 5 and 10 rights vest. A lot of people on this board think not only is there nothing wrong with it, the White Sox should do it.

 

For some reason, you're not wrapping your head around the idea that there's a right and a wrong way for an employer to treat an employee. If a GM wants to dump a player's salary or move him at a time when he's worth more as a FA, that's fine. But be honest about it. Don't disrespect an accomplished veteran by benching him "indefinitely" for some complete bullcrap reason, when it's obvious to everybody that the reason is to keep said player from reaching a vesting interest in his contract.

 

So, no, I wouldn't have a problem with Kenny moving Paulie before his 5-and-10 rights vest, as long as he handles the situation professionally. Nor would I have had a problem with what Ricciardi/Gibbons did to Frank if they had been honest and treated him with some respect.

 

[Dick Allen]

For some reason, you're not wrapping your head around the idea that there's a right and a wrong way for an employer to treat an employee. If a GM wants to dump a player's salary or move him at a time when he's worth more as a FA, that's fine. But be honest about it. Don't disrespect an accomplished veteran by benching him "indefinitely" for some complete bullcrap reason, when it's obvious to everybody that the reason is to keep said player from reaching a vesting interest in his contract.

 

So, no, I wouldn't have a problem with Kenny moving Paulie before his 5-and-10 rights vest, as long as he handles the situation professionally. Nor would I have had a problem with what Ricciardi/Gibbons did to Frank if they had been honest and treated him with some respect.

The question was Is trading Konerko now because of the no trade about to vest with the thought that if it wasn't about to vest they wouldn't trade him, really any different than cutting the playing time of an aging veteran with a huge option so that option doesn't vest?

Another question for you specifically after reading this post, do you have a problem with the Frank/Toronto situation because they sat him or because you don't buy the reason they gave? In other words, would you still have a problem with it if they came out and told Frank they thought he was declining and didn't want to pay him $10 million so they weren't going to let the option vest?

As for how they treated Frank, they paid him $18.2 million and granted him his release when he requested it so he could play wherever he wanted. I wish my employer treated me that poorly.

Edited April 24, 2008 by Dick Allen

[WCSox]

So there is nothing wrong with trading Paulie days before his rights vest-because they want to go in a different direction,

 

Correct

 

and while you don't believe Frank's 2008 performance had anything to do with his being benched,

 

Yes, because "Frank's 2008 performance" was based on only 60 at-bats (and only about the last 40 were unproductive).

 

you would buy that trading Konerko now was done not because his 5 and 10 rights were about to kick in, but because the White Sox had a legit reason.

 

No, I would probably suspect an ulterior motive in that case.

 

But you're missing the point. I don't care WHY they would deal Paulie. I just want them to TREAT HIM PROFESSIONALLY. I'd rather that Kenny told Paulie "we're trading you because you're more valuable on the market now than as a 5-and-10 player" or simply "we want to get younger" than "we're trading you because you haven't hit well over the past two weeks, and therefore you're washed-up and won't be able to help us for the remainder of your contract."

Edited April 24, 2008 by WCSox

[iamshack]

The question was Is trading Konerko now because of the no trade about to vest with the thought that if it wasn't about to vest they wouldn't trade him, really any different than cutting the playing time of an aging veteran with a huge option so that option doesn't vest?

Another question for you specifically after reading this post, do you have a problem with the Frank/Toronto situation because they sat him or because you don't buy the reason they gave? In other words, would you still have a problem with it if they came out and told Frank they thought he was declining and didn't want to pay him $10 million so they weren't going to let the option vest?

As for how they treated Frank, they paid him $18.2 million and granted him his release when he requested it so he could play wherever he wanted. I wish my employer treated me that poorly.

 

I noticed you have not once addressed my argument in re what is "customary" in MLB.

 

Once again, this is not a valid comparison. Trading Paulie before his 10/5 rights vest has no impact on his paycheck. Additionally, trading a player is an accepted and customary business transaction in MLB. Benching a player to prohibit him from reaching a performance incentive or having an option year vest is not.

 

Why do you continue to struggle to see that offering a player an option year in his contract, and then making a baseball-related decision to affect that contract, as opposed to a strictly business-related decision is almost unheard of in MLB and therefore, being judged by many to be extremely unethical?

[hammerhead johnson]

For some reason, you're not wrapping your head around the idea that bleh!

 

But you're missing the point.

 

LOL.

 

Hey Dick, stop missing the point! Why are you such an idiot?

[Dick Allen]

I noticed you have not once addressed my argument in re what is "customary" in MLB.

 

Once again, this is not a valid comparison. Trading Paulie before his 10/5 rights vest has no impact on his paycheck. Additionally, trading a player is an accepted and customary business transaction in MLB. Benching a player to prohibit him from reaching a performance incentive or having an option year vest is not.

 

Why do you continue to struggle to see that offering a player an option year in his contract, and then making a baseball-related decision to affect that contract, as opposed to a strictly business-related decision is almost unheard of in MLB and therefore, being judged by many to be extremely unethical?

Frank's contract with Toronto was far from "customary" and several players have had their playing time cut in order for options not to vest. Bengie Molina for 1, with guess who, Toronto. Frank signed the contract.Frank grabbed a $9.2 million signing bonus. He was paid before he ever played a game with the Blue Jays. Maybe I might sort of see your point if Frank was benched while actually hitting, not mired in a 4-35 slump. Or maybe I might see your point if after a week or 2 Frank wasn't getting any time, and then popped off. But he popped off immediately and compounded it by blowing off his teammates after the game. He's a diva.

 

Juan Uribe had an option for this year. KW took money out of his pocket when he said he wasn't going to exercise it, and Uribe signed for $500k less. Its business. He wanted him on the team, but not at the original price. No one wants a 40/41 year old Frank Thomas for $10 million a year.

 

Frank was also quoted after he received his requested release that a lot of things were going on in Toronto that he didn't like. Evidently for $10 million in 2009 he was willing to overlook them. Is that a baseball or business decision?

Edited April 25, 2008 by Dick Allen

[Melissa1334]

LOL Nick swisher should be in oakland too LOL how has nick been for you guys?

 

I think frank will help us a lot. Mike sweeney and daric barton will split time at first. How did my A's do against you guys when we played I forgot?

hes been great for us, great in the clubhouse. sure, not that great of an avg, hrs or rbi but has an obp close to 400 and 18 walks. 1-1

[iamshack]

Frank's contract with Toronto was far from "customary" and several players have had their playing time cut in order for options not to vest. Bengie Molina for 1, with guess who, Toronto. Frank signed the contract.Frank grabbed a $9.2 million signing bonus. He was paid before he ever played a game with the Blue Jays. Maybe I might sort of see your point if Frank was benched while actually hitting, not mired in a 4-35 slump. Or maybe I might see your point if after a week or 2 Frank wasn't getting any time, and then popped off. But he popped off immediately and compounded it by blowing off his teammates after the game. He's a diva.

 

Juan Uribe had an option for this year. KW took money out of his pocket when he said he wasn't going to exercise it, and Uribe signed for $500k less. Its business. He wanted him on the team, but not at the original price. No one wants a 40/41 year old Frank Thomas for $10 million a year.

 

Frank was also quoted after he received his requested release that a lot of things were going on in Toronto that he didn't like. Evidently for $10 million in 2009 he was willing to overlook them. Is that a baseball or business decision?

 

How was Frank's option year far from customary?

 

Who are the other "several" players who have been benched so their teams could avoid option years vesting?

 

How many of them were first ballot Hall of Famers, Dick?

 

What does the fact that he had a signing bonus have anything to do with it? His signing bonus was $9.12 million, but his regular salary for 07' was only $1 million. I'm not sure why this has any bearing on anything. You keep saying the Jays "paid him before he ever played a game" for them. What does that matter? The money was guaranteed. Even if he had injured himself before every playing a game for the Jays, and could NEVER play a game for them, they still would have had to pay him for 07' and 08'. That's how baseball works. This is not the NFL.

 

You keep bringing up that Frank was not hitting, and "mired in a 4-35 slump." Give me a break. That's like a week's worth of games. You honestly believe that the Blue Jays decided to bench Frank Thomas, for baseball reasons, indefinitely, over a week's worth of at bats? If you do honestly believe that (and I don't believe you do), than you're one of the very, very few.

 

As for Juan Uribe's situation, his option was a CLUB OPTION. Completely different from a vesting option. The Club chose not to exercise Juan's option at their discretion. It was strictly a business decision. That is not even close to analogous to a player having a vesting option or performance incentives, WHERE THE CLUB'S BUSINESS DECISIONS OVERFLOW ONTO THE FIELD AND INFLUENCE BASEBALL DECISIONS DURING THE ACTUAL SEASON. I don't know how I can say it any more clearly. Additionally, Juan Uribe had underperformed for a period of two years, not a mere 35 at bats.

 

 

[Dick Allen]

How was Frank's option year far from customary?

 

Who are the other "several" players who have been benched so their teams could avoid option years vesting?

 

How many of them were first ballot Hall of Famers, Dick?

 

What does the fact that he had a signing bonus have anything to do with it? His signing bonus was $9.12 million, but his regular salary for 07' was only $1 million. I'm not sure why this has any bearing on anything. You keep saying the Jays "paid him before he ever played a game" for them. What does that matter? The money was guaranteed. Even if he had injured himself before every playing a game for the Jays, and could NEVER play a game for them, they still would have had to pay him for 07' and 08'. That's how baseball works. This is not the NFL.

 

You keep bringing up that Frank was not hitting, and "mired in a 4-35 slump." Give me a break. That's like a week's worth of games. You honestly believe that the Blue Jays decided to bench Frank Thomas, for baseball reasons, indefinitely, over a week's worth of at bats? If you do honestly believe that (and I don't believe you do), than you're one of the very, very few.

 

As for Juan Uribe's situation, his option was a CLUB OPTION. Completely different from a vesting option. The Club chose not to exercise Juan's option at their discretion. It was strictly a business decision. That is not even close to analogous to a player having a vesting option or performance incentives, WHERE THE CLUB'S BUSINESS DECISIONS OVERFLOW ONTO THE FIELD AND INFLUENCE BASEBALL DECISIONS DURING THE ACTUAL SEASON. I don't know how I can say it any more clearly. Additionally, Juan Uribe had underperformed for a period of two years, not a mere 35 at bats.

Wouldn't trading players at the deadline for squat, Durham, Lofton, Mackowiak, Iguchi be business decisions influencing baseball decisions during the actual season? Wouldn't keeping players in the minors to keep their arb clocks from ticking also fall under this category? The Blue Jays were within their rights. If they are as guilty as you say and really thought Frank was going to break out of it, they still have a lot more ABs to play with.

[iamshack]

Wouldn't trading players at the deadline for squat, Durham, Lofton, Mackowiak, Iguchi be business decisions influencing baseball decisions during the actual season? Wouldn't keeping players in the minors to keep their arb clocks from ticking also fall under this category? The Blue Jays were within their rights. If they are as guilty as you say and really thought Frank was going to break out of it, they still have a lot more ABs to play with.

 

Yes, I thought of those other scenarios, such as "showcasing" a player, and what the Rays tried to do with Longoria this year (before Aybar got injured and forced his promotion). But these are all custom within the industry and don't usually have a huge affect on a player's paycheck.

 

You can continue to try and point out other scenarios which are similar to this, but are not. And you can continue to state that the Blue Jays were within their rights, which I have not disputed. But the fact is, this is almost unprecedented in its ethics, and the Jays have had raised eyebrows with their treatment of other players.

 

And as for them waiting another 300 at bats or so, I think the Jays recognized the possibility of them being competitive in that division, perhaps around late July, and seeing the disaster it would be to release a player like Frank Thomas should he be hitting near what he is capable of. There is no way they could have released him then. They had to do it now.

[Dick Allen]

Yes, I thought of those other scenarios, such as "showcasing" a player, and what the Rays tried to do with Longoria this year (before Aybar got injured and forced his promotion). But these are all custom within the industry and don't usually have a huge affect on a player's paycheck.

 

You can continue to try and point out other scenarios which are similar to this, but are not. And you can continue to state that the Blue Jays were within their rights, which I have not disputed. But the fact is, this is almost unprecedented in its ethics, and the Jays have had raised eyebrows with their treatment of other players.

 

And as for them waiting another 300 at bats or so, I think the Jays recognized the possibility of them being competitive in that division, perhaps around late July, and seeing the disaster it would be to release a player like Frank Thomas should he be hitting near what he is capable of. There is no way they could have released him then. They had to do it now.

Frank appears to be backing down some:

 

"The situation there, they had just spent $200 million on two guys," Thomas said. "I understand it and I respect it. Maybe it wasn't a good fit there for me. I'm just happy to be back here. I wasn't forcing their hand. For them to tell me I wasn't going to play every day and I wasn't in their future plans, it really wasn't a good situation. I respect J.P. for coming out and saying that to me and we parted ways, peacefully."

[iamshack]

Frank appears to be backing down some:

 

"The situation there, they had just spent $200 million on two guys," Thomas said. "I understand it and I respect it. Maybe it wasn't a good fit there for me. I'm just happy to be back here. I wasn't forcing their hand. For them to tell me I wasn't going to play every day and I wasn't in their future plans, it really wasn't a good situation. I respect J.P. for coming out and saying that to me and we parted ways, peacefully."

 

I think he realizes that if he gets regular playing time in a place he is comfortable, the numbers will come and he will get paid next year regardless. There is no sense in b****ing and moaning about it now that he is in Oakland.

 

 

[WCSox]

The one area where I do agree with DA is that Frank and his agent were stupid for not including a buyout in his contract for that last year.

[max power]

A buy out doesn't really apply to this situation. Franks option became guaranteed with his PA. They don't get to buy out of that. Its smart not to have a buyout because teams typically won't eat 7.5 million dollars to avoid an option like that. Furthermore, even if they had the buyout, I don't think they would have to play him because he didn't get those at bats in toronto, just as they won't have to pay him for the entire year next year. Toronto might have kept him because of a buyout, but frank didnt want to stay and ride the bench.

Edited April 25, 2008 by max power

[WCSox]

A buy out doesn't really apply to this situation. Franks option became guaranteed with his PA. They don't get to buy out of that. Its smart not to have a buyout because teams typically won't eat 7.5 million dollars to avoid an option like that. Furthermore, even if they had the buyout, I don't think they would have to play him because he didn't get those at bats in toronto, just as they won't have to pay him for the entire year next year. Toronto might have kept him because of a buyout, but frank didnt want to stay and ride the bench.

 

I've always thought that it's better for both sides to include a buyout, rather than a plate-appearances clause. Organizations can always find ways to limit a player's at-bats and those clauses also can destroy a player's trade value. But they can't get out of a buyout. If Frank had a $2 million buyout for 2010, I imagine that things would've gone down differently in Toronto, as he would've been much easier to trade. And even if they didn't, Frank would've received that $2 million on top of this year's $8 million.

Edited April 25, 2008 by WCSox