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

[jackie hayes]

No, it's not strange at all. You can't just keep spending, spending, and spending on high-priced veterans and free agents without dumping SOME salary at some point. Dumping an aging player doesn't necessarily mean that you're about to hold a firesale. It's simply operating within a budget. The Jays aren't exactly the Yankees or Red Sox in terms of financial resources, yet their payroll this year is $97 million. Do you honestly think that they can sustain that payroll while mired in third place in a city in Canada wit attendance in the bottom half of the league over each of the past few years?

 

The fact that they still owe Rolen over $30 million through 2010 and that he hasn't had a single major-league at-bat for them yet may have been a wake-up call for them. He and Frank ALONE would've cost them $22 million next year. Would you want two declining/injury-prone players taking up that much of your payroll? I sure wouldn't.

They knew Rolen's situation when they acquired him. It's hardly a wake-up call when it's exactly what you expect.

 

The last paragraph is odd. You're saying you wouldn't want them both around. So why wouldn't you do what Toronto did?

 

If they thought Thomas + Stairs fielding would be much more productive than Stairs + Lind fielding, they could have had that for 2 more years for $10 mil. No, obviously they can't spend just any amount of money, but that's just not that much for a $100 mil team. They aren't going to hurt a good team to save a mere 5% of payroll. And it's not too far-fetched that someone might think Stairs + Lind fielding makes a better team than having Stairs in the of and Thomas hitting. I understand that you think that's utterly ridiculous. Fine, I just don't agree.

 

I'm done with this argument. I think I've said what I have to say, and at this point it's becoming redundant. Last word is yours.

[jackie hayes]

Rolen will be their DH for the next three years thus the reasoning why Frank was let go.

http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20...sp&c_id=mlb

 

Toronto manager John Gibbons noted that Rolen will not serve as the DH when he is activated from the 15-day disabled list.

[WCSox]

They knew Rolen's situation when they acquired him. It's hardly a wake-up call when it's exactly what you expect.

 

Did they *know* that Rolen would start the year on the DL? If they did, picking up Rolen's contract was also an incredibly stupid move on their part. And given his declined production and inability to stay healthy over the past few years, it was a stupid move regardless. Ricciardi is an idiot.

 

The last paragraph is odd. You're saying you wouldn't want them both around. So why wouldn't you do what Toronto did?

 

I wouldn't have picked up the $35 million or so left on Rolen's contract in the off-season or signed Ryan to that ridiculous deal, so I never would've felt compelled to do it. Why couldn't Ricciardi have told Frank this past winter that they were releasing him because his 2009 option would've gotten in the way of Rolen's salary? Wouldn't that have been a little more professional than telling a guy that he was being benched "indefinitely" because of a "lack of production" 60 at-bats into the season? It would've cost them exactly the same amount of money and not dragged their organization's reputation through the mud.

 

but that's just not that much for a $100 mil team.

 

They're not going to be a $100 million team for much longer. They're trying to buy their way into the playoffs and are failing miserably. They don't have the fan support/broadcast revenue to be a perpetual Top 10 payroll team if they're not competitive.

 

[Steve9347]

Rolen will be their DH for the next three years thus the reasoning why Frank was let go.

No, that role will go to top prospect Adam Lind by the end of the week. Rolen is one of the best fielding 3B in baseball, so I see no reason why they wouldn't play him there upon his return.

 

You fantasy players out there, jump on Lind, as he fixed the hole in his swing in the offseason. He'll be sick.

Edited April 21, 2008 by Steve9347

[Reddy]

wait a second - we've all missed the REAL tragedy of this situation!

 

 

 

I bought Sox/Jays tickets in September so I could see Frank play one more time. CURSES!!!!!!!

[Steve9347]

wait a second - we've all missed the REAL tragedy of this situation!

 

 

 

I bought Sox/Jays tickets in September so I could see Frank play one more time. CURSES!!!!!!!

You can just give them to me...

[Texsox]

I've never said there was anything wrong with wanting to play.

 

No you did not and I did not respond to that. What you asked was

 

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Apr 20, 2008 -> 10:36 PM) I'm confused as to how hitting like crap, but staying in the line-up so a $10 million option will certainly kick in is a sign of wanting to EARN his money.

 

So you are confused and I explained that for a player to earn his money, he needs to be playing, hence the term player. If you didn't have to actually play to earn your money, the bench players would be dressed more like cheerleaders. Which might not be a bad idea. I'm not saying that Frank should or should not be in the lineup.

 

This applies to any player. Otherwise imagine this scenario back in 2005. You know who should get serious consideration for MVP? Brian Anderson. Here it is the ninth inning, it's been a long night here in Houston, Podsednik is at bat against Brad Lidge. Most bench guys would be sitting back on the bench, but Anderson is there, on the rail. He knows that Pods needs a little extra power, and he's right f***ing there, top step, all the way. All-Star move. Now watch, that ball leaves the bat and Anderson is really cheering. He knows that Pods should be batting and not him, so he's willing that ball out of the stadium. Damn, that is a HoF move right there. Look how he turns to Rowand and start hugging him and they sprint from the dugout, other bench players are still getting off their ass, but Anderson is half way to home and look at that skipping and leaping ability. HoF buddy. That nice clean uniform looks great next to the dirty one that Rowand is wearing. That is why Anderson should be earning $8,000,000 a year.

 

So at Frank's salary, hitting .275, popping a few dozen home runs would be earning his salary.

hitting .175, a dozen or two home runs, is not fully earning his salary, but waaay closer than

cheerleader. Cheerleaders get paid squat and are usually a lot better looking.

[Dick Allen]

No you did not and I did not respond to that. What you asked was

 

 

 

So you are confused and I explained that for a player to earn his money, he needs to be playing, hence the term player. If you didn't have to actually play to earn your money, the bench players would be dressed more like cheerleaders. Which might not be a bad idea. I'm not saying that Frank should or should not be in the lineup.

 

This applies to any player. Otherwise imagine this scenario back in 2005. You know who should get serious consideration for MVP? Brian Anderson. Here it is the ninth inning, it's been a long night here in Houston, Podsednik is at bat against Brad Lidge. Most bench guys would be sitting back on the bench, but Anderson is there, on the rail. He knows that Pods needs a little extra power, and he's right f***ing there, top step, all the way. All-Star move. Now watch, that ball leaves the bat and Anderson is really cheering. He knows that Pods should be batting and not him, so he's willing that ball out of the stadium. Damn, that is a HoF move right there. Look how he turns to Rowand and start hugging him and they sprint from the dugout, other bench players are still getting off their ass, but Anderson is half way to home and look at that skipping and leaping ability. HoF buddy. That nice clean uniform looks great next to the dirty one that Rowand is wearing. That is why Anderson should be earning $8,000,000 a year.

 

So at Frank's salary, hitting .275, popping a few dozen home runs would be earning his salary.

hitting .175, a dozen or two home runs, is not fully earning his salary, but waaay closer than

cheerleader. Cheerleaders get paid squat and are usually a lot better looking.

Its a cute story, it still doesn't answer the question as to how stinking up the joint earns you at bats and earns you a $10 million option just because you were an MVP 14 years ago. Sammy Sosa hit .252 last year in 412 AB with 21 homers and 92 rbi. Pretty similar to Frank last year. He wanted $7 million or $8 million to play this year. He's not playing. Its not about being a cheerleader, its about a team needing to play its 9 best players at the time to win the game. I have no problem with Frank wanted to play, but sometimes he has to be realistic. How many o 0-fers until you get a break? Frank has been bad lately, so he has to sit. Take some extra hitting, make some adjustments and when you hit again, you play regularly again.

[kjshoe04]

wait a second - we've all missed the REAL tragedy of this situation!

 

 

 

I bought Sox/Jays tickets in September so I could see Frank play one more time. CURSES!!!!!!!

Thank god this didn't happen last year when I went to see him in Toronto.

[jackie hayes]

Its a cute story, it still doesn't answer the question as to how stinking up the joint earns you at bats and earns you a $10 million option just because you were an MVP 14 years ago. Sammy Sosa hit .252 last year in 412 AB with 21 homers and 92 rbi. Pretty similar to Frank last year. He wanted $7 million or $8 million to play this year. He's not playing. Its not about being a cheerleader, its about a team needing to play its 9 best players at the time to win the game. I have no problem with Frank wanted to play, but sometimes he has to be realistic. How many o 0-fers until you get a break? Frank has been bad lately, so he has to sit. Take some extra hitting, make some adjustments and when you hit again, you play regularly again.

You want to start by explaining away the 66 points in obp, or how the season before that is completely irrelevant, or how more frequent steroids testing should affect them both equally? Your choice.

 

That is a RIDICULOUS comparison.

[Texsox]

Its a cute story, it still doesn't answer the question as to how stinking up the joint earns you at bats and earns you a $10 million option just because you were an MVP 14 years ago. Sammy Sosa hit .252 last year in 412 AB with 21 homers and 92 rbi. Pretty similar to Frank last year. He wanted $7 million or $8 million to play this year. He's not playing. Its not about being a cheerleader, its about a team needing to play its 9 best players at the time to win the game. I have no problem with Frank wanted to play, but sometimes he has to be realistic. How many o 0-fers until you get a break? Frank has been bad lately, so he has to sit. Take some extra hitting, make some adjustments and when you hit again, you play regularly again.

I wasn't trying to answer that question. I copied your specific post twice now. That is what I am responding to.

 

A player earns his money by playing. How much simpler can I make it?

 

so

 

If you are taking a shower after the game and the other players stare and say, why are you taking a shower? You didn't play! You might not have earned you money.

If the trainer has not washed your uniform in two weeks. You might not have earned your money.

If your career ending insurance premium is less than a McDonald's cheeseburger, you probably are not earning your money

If the manager forgot your name because he hasn't penciled it in for a month, you probably have not earned your money

If the equipment manager gives away your jersey number, you probably are not earning your pay.

If your uniform has left a shadow on the back of the bench, you are not earning your pay.

 

 

Anytime a player is not playing they are not earning their money. For whatever reason. Injury, poor play, manager doesn't like guys from Ohio, suspended for arguing balls and strikes, it doesn't matter. If they are not playing, they are not earning their money. If they started hiring sitters, then guys could earn money sitting. But they hire players.

 

So if after this, you are still confused, reread your posts and my replies.

[jackie hayes]

I wasn't trying to answer that question. I copied your specific post twice now. That is what I am responding to.

 

A player earns his money by playing. How much simpler can I make it?

 

so

 

If you are taking a shower after the game and the other players stare and say, why are you taking a shower? You didn't play! You might not have earned you money.

If the trainer has not washed your uniform in two weeks. You might not have earned your money.

If your career ending insurance premium is less than a McDonald's cheeseburger, you probably are not earning your money

If the manager forgot your name because he hasn't penciled it in for a month, you probably have not earned your money

If the equipment manager gives away your jersey number, you probably are not earning your pay.

If your uniform has left a shadow on the back of the bench, you are not earning your pay.

 

 

Anytime a player is not playing they are not earning their money. For whatever reason. Injury, poor play, manager doesn't like guys from Ohio, suspended for arguing balls and strikes, it doesn't matter. If they are not playing, they are not earning their money. If they started hiring sitters, then guys could earn money sitting. But they hire players.

 

So if after this, you are still confused, reread your posts and my replies.

So vampire players are cool, right?

 

Just want to make sure all our beloved Pale Sox are okay.

[Texsox]

So vampire players are cool, right?

 

Just want to make sure all our beloved Pale Sox are okay.

 

As long as they are playing

 

I did think of one example. If Team A is picking up part of a player's contract who is now on Team B, then perhaps they are earning their money just be being gone, doesn't matter if they are playing or not. But if Team B is also paying him, then he needs to be playing to earn that money.

Edited April 22, 2008 by Texsox
updated info

[santo=dorf]

You want to start by explaining away the 66 points in obp, or how the season before that is completely irrelevant, or how more frequent steroids testing should affect them both equally? Your choice.

 

That is a RIDICULOUS comparison.

Sammy Sosa is a future hall of famer! How dare the Cubs treat him the way they did. If it weren't for Sosa, they wouldn't have made the playoffs in 1998 and 2003.

 

Seems to be a decent comparison to me if you subtract the roids from Sosa.

[iamshack]

What I don't understand about the people griping about this the most is the Blue Jays did Frank a favor. Even if it was only about the option for next year, so what? There isn't 1 team in MLB that would want to be on the hook for $10 million to Frank in 2009. He still gets paid the same amont this year, some are saying the Blue Jays have no realistic chance anyway, I disagree but what do I know. Frank now has the opportunity to find a team that does.

 

The problem I have with your entire analysis of this issue is that you are arguing as if benching a player to prohibit him from reaching a vesting option is a common occurrence in mlb. It's simply not the case. This isn't the NFL, where the money isn't guaranteed and you know that basically the best way to interpret the contract is the signing bonus or other forms of guaranteed money. This is mlb, where the money is guaranteed and contracts cannot just be torn up, players aren't removed from the field when perfectly healthy to avoid reaching performance incentives, and players don't hold out of voluntary minicamp or training camp to get their contract restructured.

 

When the teams and the players sign a contract, it is assumed that all parties will act in good faith, that both parties will have to live by whatever change in the market might bring for other players, and players won't be restricted from reaching performance incentives or vesting options by being benched. That's my problem with this situation. Frank signed a contract, which included a vesting option which was a VERY significant part of the contract, and the Blue Jays prohibited him from reaching that option by benching him. Whether they signed him to a contract that was far and away more money than any other team was offering is completely irrelevant.

 

If they were honest about the situation, I would take less of an issue with it, although it still would bother me. Instead, they're lying to everyone, and especially to Frank, saying it has to do with the play of the team. Who was the last first ballot Hall of Famer, who has produced at a solid rate the past two seasons, that was told he would be benched "indefinitely" after a sample size of just 60 at bats? That just doesn't happen. It's bs, and everyone knows it. It's all about the money.

Edited April 22, 2008 by iamshack

[Dick Allen]

I wasn't trying to answer that question. I copied your specific post twice now. That is what I am responding to.

 

A player earns his money by playing. How much simpler can I make it?

 

so

 

If you are taking a shower after the game and the other players stare and say, why are you taking a shower? You didn't play! You might not have earned you money.

If the trainer has not washed your uniform in two weeks. You might not have earned your money.

If your career ending insurance premium is less than a McDonald's cheeseburger, you probably are not earning your money

If the manager forgot your name because he hasn't penciled it in for a month, you probably have not earned your money

If the equipment manager gives away your jersey number, you probably are not earning your pay.

If your uniform has left a shadow on the back of the bench, you are not earning your pay.

 

 

Anytime a player is not playing they are not earning their money. For whatever reason. Injury, poor play, manager doesn't like guys from Ohio, suspended for arguing balls and strikes, it doesn't matter. If they are not playing, they are not earning their money. If they started hiring sitters, then guys could earn money sitting. But they hire players.

 

So if after this, you are still confused, reread your posts and my replies.

But on the other side of the coin, there are players who are playing everyday who aren't earning their money. I know Frank will do better than he is currently., but if he hit .220 with 18 homers next year and his salary was $10 million and Brian Anderson was making $400k to occassionally be a defensive replacement and bat 80 times, if you were running a team, who would you rather pay? Its a lot easier, earning $400k performance-wise than $10 million, especially when you don't play a defensive position. We all complain about players playing and guys who have "earned" chances to play not getting those chances because of what they are paying certain players.

 

And if it was all about his option. So what, it is called an option. If Jose Contreras had a $10 million option that would be vested if he pitched 80 innings this year, if after his first start he was waived, I don't think there would be 1 person on this board crying foul. Jose Contreras has done a heck of a lot more for the White Sox than Frank Thomas ever did for the Blue Jays.

 

Maybe ultimately Frank's demise in Toronto was about the option, but the Blue Jays still had over 300 plate appearances before that kicked in. For them to sit him now tells me at least for the moment his benching was performance-related.

[Texsox]

Two different concepts here. You are actually talking about comparative worth and if a team is over or under paying for the results. But regardless, fans are paying to watch people play baseball. That is what they come to the ballpark for. That is why they turn on the TV and radio and advertisers are there. To watch someone play baseball, not watching someone else watch a baseball game. So teams pay people to play.

 

Is it worth $8,000,000 to have a guy hit .147? No, you could get a guy at the minimum to do that.

 

but

 

Is it worth $8,000,000 to have a guy slapping backs, patting butts, cheering? No, you can get people to pay to do that. You are really overpaying when you pay anything for those services. Just like your spare tire, a player only earns their money when they are playing, not sitting on the bench at any price.

 

And just because I thought this was kind of funny. Imagine if they actually did sign guys to sit on the bench. Coaches meeting with the GM.

 

"OK, the positions, rotation, and bull pen is set. Now we need four guys for the bench. Thoughts?

"OO yes. I thought a couple of those Ultimate Fighter guys would be great. Pitchers would think twice before pitching inside if they knew we had that kind of muscle in the dugout."

"I was thinking a couple jockeys. They would make our guys seem so much bigger and more intimidating".

"I have a great idea! Mimes! Imagine trying to steal signals if we have a troupe of frickin' mimes in here! LMAO, I love mimes."

 

Players are on the roster, and earn their money, for playing. Not working out. Not taking batting practice, not slapping butts. You and I could do that. They earn their money when they step on the field and compete. That is what the fans and advertisers are paying for. Watching guys play.

[Dick Allen]

Two different concepts here. You are actually talking about comparative worth and if a team is over or under paying for the results. But regardless, fans are paying to watch people play baseball. That is what they come to the ballpark for. That is why they turn on the TV and radio and advertisers are there. To watch someone play baseball, not watching someone else watch a baseball game. So teams pay people to play.

 

Is it worth $8,000,000 to have a guy hit .147? No, you could get a guy at the minimum to do that.

 

but

 

Is it worth $8,000,000 to have a guy slapping backs, patting butts, cheering? No, you can get people to pay to do that. You are really overpaying when you pay anything for those services. Just like your spare tire, a player only earns their money when they are playing, not sitting on the bench at any price.

 

And just because I thought this was kind of funny. Imagine if they actually did sign guys to sit on the bench. Coaches meeting with the GM.

 

"OK, the positions, rotation, and bull pen is set. Now we need four guys for the bench. Thoughts?

"OO yes. I thought a couple of those Ultimate Fighter guys would be great. Pitchers would think twice before pitching inside if they knew we had that kind of muscle in the dugout."

"I was thinking a couple jockeys. They would make our guys seem so much bigger and more intimidating".

"I have a great idea! Mimes! Imagine trying to steal signals if we have a troupe of frickin' mimes in here! LMAO, I love mimes."

 

Players are on the roster, and earn their money, for playing. Not working out. Not taking batting practice, not slapping butts. You and I could do that. They earn their money when they step on the field and compete. That is what the fans and advertisers are paying for. Watching guys play.

Some players are actually worth more not playing than playing. Toby Hall for one. The thing about Frank is, it isn't about the playing time, trying to earn his money. Its about the money. If the option had already vested or Toronto said they would pick it up anyway, do you really think he would have made such a scene, and not even shook hands with his teammates after a victory? Frank's been banking on that $10 million. Now if he needs $10 million, he's going to have to play beyond 2009.

 

[StrangeSox]

Some players are actually worth more not playing than playing. Toby Hall for one. The thing about Frank is, it isn't about the playing time, trying to earn his money. Its about the money. If the option had already vested or Toronto said they would pick it up anyway, do you really think he would have made such a scene, and not even shook hands with his teammates after a victory? Frank's been banking on that $10 million. Now if he needs $10 million, he's going to have to play beyond 2009.

 

If they didn't want that clause in the contract, they shouldn't have agreed to it. Signing a contract and then cutting him so they don't have to worry about fulfilling it is dishonest and may hurt them in the FA market down the road.

[Dick Allen]

If they didn't want that clause in the contract, they shouldn't have agreed to it. Signing a contract and then cutting him so they don't have to worry about fulfilling it is dishonest and may hurt them in the FA market down the road.

Why is it dishonest? If Frank didn't want to be subject to it, he could have refused to sign the contract, not received his $9.2 million bonus before he ever played a game for the franchise and went to play somewhere else. The bottom line is Frank didn't have any other team offering him $18.2 million for 2007 and 2008 let alone a $10 million option. Once again, I ask, if Jose Contreras had a clause the vested a $10 million option next year and needed 80 IP, if KW cut him before he reached it, would you think it was wrong? Baseball is a business. If Frank were hitting better, the Blue Jays wouldn't have any excuses to cut him. He's about to turn 40, he's not the hitter he once was, and the scouting reports on him from an article I read were not good. Of course they never are when you are slumping, but 40 year olds slumping is a different animal from a 30 year old or even a 35 year old slumping.

[StrangeSox]

We may get to see Frank in the Chicagoland area again!

http://blogs.suburbanchicagonews.com/naper...-with-joli.html

 

Why is it dishonest? If Frank didn't want to be subject to it, he could have refused to sign the contract, not received his $9.2 million bonus before he ever played a game for the franchise and went to play somewhere else. The bottom line is Frank didn't have any other team offering him $18.2 million for 2007 and 2008 let alone a $10 million option. Once again, I ask, if Jose Contreras had a clause the vested a $10 million option next year and needed 80 IP, if KW cut him before he reached it, would you think it was wrong? Baseball is a business. If Frank were hitting better, the Blue Jays wouldn't have any excuses to cut him. He's about to turn 40, he's not the hitter he once was, and the scouting reports on him from an article I read were not good. Of course they never are when you are slumping, but 40 year olds slumping is a different animal from a 30 year old or even a 35 year old slumping.

 

The bottom line is that it doesn't matter what anyone else did or didn't offer Frank. The Toronto Blue Jays signed a contract with the 10M option. Now, they wanted to bench/ cut him before that option could become a reality. Why include the option in the first place if you never intend to honor it? Seems dishonest to me. They lured him in with that option and then tore up the contract when it came time to deal with it.

Edited April 22, 2008 by StrangeSox

[iamshack]

Why is it dishonest? If Frank didn't want to be subject to it, he could have refused to sign the contract, not received his $9.2 million bonus before he ever played a game for the franchise and went to play somewhere else. The bottom line is Frank didn't have any other team offering him $18.2 million for 2007 and 2008 let alone a $10 million option. Once again, I ask, if Jose Contreras had a clause the vested a $10 million option next year and needed 80 IP, if KW cut him before he reached it, would you think it was wrong? Baseball is a business. If Frank were hitting better, the Blue Jays wouldn't have any excuses to cut him. He's about to turn 40, he's not the hitter he once was, and the scouting reports on him from an article I read were not good. Of course they never are when you are slumping, but 40 year olds slumping is a different animal from a 30 year old or even a 35 year old slumping.

 

The Jose Contreras/Frank Thomas comparison is a not a good one. Frank produced at a reasonably good level last season, while Jose had an absolutely terrible year.

Edited April 22, 2008 by iamshack

[Dick Allen]

You want to start by explaining away the 66 points in obp, or how the season before that is completely irrelevant, or how more frequent steroids testing should affect them both equally? Your choice.

 

That is a RIDICULOUS comparison.

Sosa wanted $7 million or $8 million after last season's numbers. You want to talk OBP, what good does OBP mean if you don't score? Sosa had about 170 less plate appearances, hit 5 fewer homers, drove in 3 less runs and scored 10 less times. Project him with Frank's ABs and he scores more runs than Frank, hits more homers and drives in more runs. Frank is beyond station to station. We'll see when Frank is on the market next season exactly what he is offered. I'd bet my house its nowhere near $10 million.

 

[Dick Allen]

The Jose Contreras/Frank Thomas comparison is a not a good one. Frank produced at a reasonably good level last season, while Jose had an absolutely terrible year.

Well if its about last year, Frank hit .223 in April and May combined, so wouldn't it be the correct decison to sit him down until he starts to hit?

[jackie hayes]

Sosa wanted $7 million or $8 million after last season's numbers. You want to talk OBP, what good does OBP mean if you don't score? Sosa had about 170 less plate appearances, hit 5 fewer homers, drove in 3 less runs and scored 10 less times. Project him with Frank's ABs and he scores more runs than Frank, hits more homers and drives in more runs. Frank is beyond station to station. We'll see when Frank is on the market next season exactly what he is offered. I'd bet my house its nowhere near $10 million.

You can't project that way, because Sosa was used largely as a platoon player. He had almost exactly the same number of abs against lhp as Thomas, and hit them worse (.328/.410/.613 vs Thomas's .336/.431/.633). The only reason his numbers 'look' close is because they often sat him against rhp, who owned him (.222/.267/.410 vs Thomas's .259/.360/.435). He's basically a pure platoon dh, which means he's less valuable than Frank, who kills lefties even more than Sosa and is decent against righties (approximately an .800 ops -- still a productive hitter).

 

I never said Frank would get $10 mil next year, and I don't believe he will. But comparing his hitting to Sosa's is absurd.