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

[Dick Allen]

It's pretty obvious that they Jays were not going to give him the at-bats, regardless of how he performed as part of a platoon. They were clearly forcing him out so that they wouldn't be on the hook for that $10 million.

Maybe, but if he got hot like he was in Oakland, they would have a hard time with their fanbase sitting him. The bad pub would cost them more than $10 million. Its also possible Frank would have go hot and hurt, and his option wouldn't have kicked in, and of course he might not ever have really got hot. We'll see how he does on another team.

[santo=dorf]

It's pretty obvious that they Jays were not going to give him the at-bats, regardless of how he performed as part of a platoon. They were clearly forcing him out so that they wouldn't be on the hook for that $10 million.

Show some concrete proof or shut up. It's getting really old. Dick is the only one citing quotes here before and after he is put on the spot. How exactly were the Blue Jays classless in the situation, because they gave Frank what he wanted? His release?

[fathom]

Show some concrete proof or shut up. It's getting really old. Dick is the only one citing quotes here before and after he is put on the spot. How exactly were the Blue Jays classless in the situation, because they gave Frank what he wanted? His release?

 

The only thing classless about this entire situation was the person who wouldn't shake hands with his teammates after a win.

[santo=dorf]

Maybe, but if he got hot like he was in Oakland, they would have a hard time with their fanbase sitting him. The bad pub would cost them more than $10 million. Its also possible Frank would have go hot and hurt, and his option wouldn't have kicked in, and of course he might not ever have really got hot. We'll see how he does on another team.

Exactly. If Frank got hot, which he claims he would've done, over his next couple hundred PA's the Blue Jays would have good "problem" on their hands. Instead they bench him two games out of 18, tell him to take a rest, plan to use someone who has better numbers and had better numbers than him last year, and he pouts and asks for a release.

[iamshack]

Show some concrete proof or shut up. It's getting really old. Dick is the only one citing quotes here before and after he is put on the spot. How exactly were the Blue Jays classless in the situation, because they gave Frank what he wanted? His release?

 

Why don't you read the damn thread. We've pointed out why the Blue Jays were classless ad nauseum.

[Controlled Chaos]

Check out YASNY's post from bold prediction thread....

 

http://www.soxtalk.com/forums/index.php?s=...t&p=1574850

[Dick Allen]

Why don't you read the damn thread. We've pointed out why the Blue Jays were classless ad nauseum.

Let me ask you a question since you brought up the Blue Jays actions being unethical. There's been a lot of posts on this board how the White Sox must trade Paul Konerko before his 5 and 10 rights kick in, thus giving him the power to determine where he wants to play. Considering Konerko has done far more for the White Sox than Thomas has ever done with the Blue Jays, wouldn't it be unethical to trade him to a team he doesn't want to be with just days before those rights vest, or does good business or good baseball sense only apply to the White Sox?

Edited April 23, 2008 by Dick Allen

[WCSox]

Maybe, but if he got hot like he was in Oakland, they would have a hard time with their fanbase sitting him.

 

LOL, what fanbase? The Maple Leafs fans? When was the last time that the Jays ranked in the top half of the league in attendance?

 

Players also tend to not get hot when they don't have the at-bats against live pitching.

 

Show some concrete proof or shut up. It's getting really old.

 

If you believe that 60 at-bats (three weeks) is a reasonable window to deem a "lack of production" (especially after a relatively solid first week), you must not be thinking clearly. That may explain the tone of your post.

Edited April 23, 2008 by WCSox

[Dick Allen]

LOL, what fanbase? The Maple Leafs fans? When was the last time that the Jays ranked in the top half of the league in attendance?

 

Players also tend to not get hot when they don't have the at-bats against live pitching.

 

 

 

If you believe that 60 at-bats (three weeks) is a reasonable window to deem a "lack of production" (especially after a relatively solid first week), you must not be thinking clearly. That may explain the tone of your post.

A couple of things, remember the damage the white flag trade did for the White Sox? There were tumbleweeds in the stands before that happened and it hurt them for several years, even when they did well. The Blue Jays have a decent base. They drew more last season than the White Sox did in 2005 when they won it all. If you read Frank Thomas' current scouting reports, they say that it looks like he's hitting with rollerskates on, and the only pitch he can hit is a change-up. He was 4-35, why wouldn't that warrant a little break?

Edited April 23, 2008 by Dick Allen

[WCSox]

A couple of things, remember the damage the white flag trade did for the White Sox? There were tumbleweeds in the stands before that happened and it hurt them for several years, even when they did well. The Blue Jays have a decent base. They drew more last season than the White Sox did in 2005 when they won it all.

 

The White Flag Trade was nothing compared to the strike of '94. The Sox didn't even draw that well in '97, after throwing a ton of money at Albert Belle, because the season-ticket holders told JR & Co. to stick it after the strike. The Sox were still suffering from a poor season ticket base going into '05. But I'm not sure what this has to do with Toronto's situation.

 

If you've ever been to Toronto, you've likely noticed that people there care a heck of a lot more about hockey than baseball. (Hell, they have CURLING on TV!) That's not to say that the Jays don't have a fan base at all, but it's not a very strong one. They're drawing now because they've renovated the stadium recently and they've spent a ton on free agents. But if they don't spend AND WIN, they're not going to sustain a $100 million payroll for much longer. The fans will stop buying tickets, just like they did back in the late 90's.

 

If you read Frank Thomas' current scouting reports, they say that it looks like he's hitting with rollerskates on, and the only pitch he can hit is a change-up. He was 4-35, why wouldn't that warrant a little break?

 

It certainly didn't warrant an "indefinite" yank from the lineup. Didn't the guy on rollerskates hit three homers during the first week of the season? And I'm pretty sure that he put up an .850 OPS and 26 homers the previous year. I agree that he's sucked over the past two weeks, but you don't dump a player with a recent track record of success based on two bad weeks at the plate. There has to be an ulterior motive, and the guaranteed $10 million if Frank reaches 300-some at-bats this year sounds like a damn good one to me.

 

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on this point.

Edited April 23, 2008 by WCSox

[max power]

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on this point.

From what I have read in this thread, he'll probably disagree with that too.

[Texsox]

From what I have read in this thread, he'll probably disagree with that too.

 

I have been impressed that overall, with about everyone disagreeing with him, Dick has been remarkably patient and level headed.

[max power]

I have been impressed that overall, with about everyone disagreeing with him, Dick has been remarkably patient and level headed.

I agree. I was more making a point that he is incredibly unwaivering.

[Texsox]

I agree. I was more making a point that he is incredibly unwaivering.

 

I probably should not have quoted you, I understood what you meant. He'd make a great Republican. Stick to his guns, no flip flopping, even when he is wrong

[southsider2k5]

Let me ask you a question since you brought up the Blue Jays actions being unethical. There's been a lot of posts on this board how the White Sox must trade Paul Konerko before his 5 and 10 rights kick in, thus giving him the power to determine where he wants to play. Considering Konerko has done far more for the White Sox than Thomas has ever done with the Blue Jays, wouldn't it be unethical to trade him to a team he doesn't want to be with just days before those rights vest, or does good business or good baseball sense only apply to the White Sox?

 

I asked the same basic question in the Bench Konerko thread, and no one really had an answer there either...

[WCSox]

I asked the same basic question in the Bench Konerko thread, and no one really had an answer there either...

 

Note that Paulie has been hitting about as badly as Frank over the past few weeks, yet Ozzie hasn't "indefinitely" benched him for lack of production, even with a much cheaper and ML-ready Josh Fields waiting patiently in AAA.

 

[Dick Allen]

Note that Paulie has been hitting about as badly as Frank over the past few weeks, yet Ozzie hasn't "indefinitely" benched him for lack of production, even with a much cheaper and ML-ready Josh Fields waiting patiently in AAA.

It doesn't answer the question.

[iamshack]

Let me ask you a question since you brought up the Blue Jays actions being unethical. There's been a lot of posts on this board how the White Sox must trade Paul Konerko before his 5 and 10 rights kick in, thus giving him the power to determine where he wants to play. Considering Konerko has done far more for the White Sox than Thomas has ever done with the Blue Jays, wouldn't it be unethical to trade him to a team he doesn't want to be with just days before those rights vest, or does good business or good baseball sense only apply to the White Sox?

 

I've explained several times now why the Blue Jays actions are unethical.

 

The difference between the hypothetical your raise and the Frank Thomas situation is purely about what is the custom in Major League Baseball. Trading players is a fact of life in mlb. Players, agents, owners, GM's, managers all understand that trades are a fact of life, just as players leaving a team to pursue free agency is a fact of life. Players are traded all the time, both for business reasons and for performance reasons. Likewise, some players even have trade protection which allows them to block trades to some, or even all other teams.

 

Contrarily, performance incentives and options which vest based on players reaching certain criterion, especially a criteria such as plate appearances, which is designed to reward a player for staying healthy, but not based on any specific performance criteria, are often included in contracts for veteran players with which health has been a factor. Veterans such as Jim Thome and Frank Thomas, who have had extremely successful and productive careers, are rewarded with these incentives because they can demand them based on the conditions of the market, and their past performance history. The Clubs assume the risk that if the player stays healthy, he will produce. The protection for the club in these contracts, should the player not produce to their liking, is a buyout clause for the club, whereby the club can pay a smaller $ amount to void the option year, should the player reach the terms necessary to make it vest. I haven't seen Thomas' actual contract with the Jays, but from the details I was able to find, I did not see a buyout number for the Jays. That's their own fault.

 

The point of all of this is that the custom in the industry is for the club to allow a player to reach incentives and vesting options, should he stay healthy, by allowing him regular playing time. Certainly a club cannot be forced to play the player if he is not producing, or for any other reason, but the sample size for which Thomas was allowed to prove he could still produce was ridiculously small. And when you are dealing with players of Thomas' stature in the game, it's relatively unheard of to pull the plug so quickly on a player who has been as productive over the full course of his career as he has.

 

A better hypothetical would be one wherein Ozzie Guillen and Kenny Williams decide to bench Jim Thome "indefinitely" because he has an option which vests should he reach 1100 plate appearances between 07' and 08', and the White Sox don't wish to pay him next year for that option year. In my mind, the club still wouldn't be as culpable as in the case of the Blue Jays, since they weren't the club to offer Thome that contract, while the Blue Jays did offer Thomas that contract. However, I would find it incredibly unethical if they benched Jim Thome now to prevent his option from vesting.

 

What would happen if a player was having an incredible, breakout season, and knew that if he reached another 50 plate appearances in the final month 3 weeks of the season, an option would vest which would pay him vastly less than his value on the market would dictate if he were to enter free agency. Would it be ok for him to fake an injury so as to avoid reaching the plate appearances to make the option vest?

 

[WCSox]

It doesn't answer the question.

 

If the Sox were to dump Paulie RIGHT NOW and give the "lack of production" excuse then, yes, I would question Kenny's business practices, as well as his honesty. If Paulie were still hitting .190 in late July, and the Sox decided to move him, I might feel more inclined to consider Kenny an ethical businessman.

 

This isn't about WHAT the Jays did, but HOW they did it.

 

[max power]

Its not the same because there is no option avoiding involved. Paulie gets paid either way.

[knightni]

The NFL "cuts the cord" on guys due for bonuses all the time and the players don't get guaranteed contract money like they do in MLB.

 

That's not considered unethical. That's standard NFL practices.

 

What's the difference here?

 

 

[WCSox]

The NFL "cuts the cord" on guys due for bonuses all the time and the players don't get guaranteed contract money like they do in MLB.

 

That's not considered unethical. That's standard NFL practices.

 

What's the difference here?

 

NFL players get massive signing bonuses. MLB players do not, and are also under the control of their original team for longer.

 

[knightni]

Not every guy gets a signing bonus.

[iamshack]

The NFL "cuts the cord" on guys due for bonuses all the time and the players don't get guaranteed contract money like they do in MLB.

 

That's not considered unethical. That's standard NFL practices.

 

What's the difference here?

 

The difference is that that practice is customary in the NFL as a matter of course. Players and agents are fully aware of that when negotiating contracts. It is not a matter of course in MLB, however, it may just become an issue now.

[WCSox]

Not every guy gets a signing bonus.

 

Undrafted free agents might not. But just about everybody else does, including third-string journeymen.

 

And some of the bonuses are enormous. Vick got $34.5 million up front in his last deal. Marvin Harrison got $22.5 million guaranteed at age 32 (when most receivers begin to decline).