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

[iamshack]

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?

 

Sure, if you believe that was the actual reasoning behind the move. But the move was designed to prevent the option from vesting, to anger Frank, and to then give the Blue Jays an excuse to release him.

 

 

[Dick Allen]

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.

Everyone has their own opinions. I'd take Sosa's production as a platoon, because even if he was "wned" by right handers I'm pretty sure he would have had as more RBI, HR and R than Frank if he had the same amount of plate appearances.

 

The fact was nobody wanted to pay Sosa $7 million. Nobody will want to pay Frank $10 million for the same thing or worse but 50 more walks.

Edited April 22, 2008 by Dick Allen

[WCSox]

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....Frank has been bad lately

 

"Stinking up the joint" based on 60 at-bats? Coming from somebody who uses the "small sample size" argument all of the time, that's pretty funny. Frank didn't exactly "stink up the joint" in Toronto or Oakland and has a history of bad Aprils in years where he was a legitimate MVP candidate.

 

[WCSox]

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.

 

Well-said. Frank signed the contract, so nobody's feeling sorry for him or anything. But the Jays are lying their asses off about their motives.

 

[Dick Allen]

Sure, if you believe that was the actual reasoning behind the move. But the move was designed to prevent the option from vesting, to anger Frank, and to then give the Blue Jays an excuse to release him.

They told him he would play 2 or 3 times a week. Seems reasonable when you're hitting .167, you've been a real slow starter, are almost 40, were awful in spring training, are cheating to try to catch up to fastballs. I agree the Blue Jays wouldn't want to pay even the 2007 version of Frank Thomas $10 million in 2009. No team would. But if you really think the goal was to eat $8 million and to piss him off to give them a reason to cut him, I totally disagree.

[Dick Allen]

The Blue Jays weren't going to release him. Frank asked for his release.

[jackie hayes]

Everyone has their own opinions. I'd take Sosa's production as a platoon, because even if he was "wned" by right handers I'm pretty sure he would have had as more RBI, HR and R than Frank if he had the same amount of plate appearances.

You're "pretty sure" that if his plate appearances against rhp were doubled, he would suddenly start hitting them better? Even before last year, in 2005 with Baltimore, he hit them to the tune of .196/.266/.341 in 276 abs. Or you're "pretty sure" that if other teams generously conceded to pitching lefties against him every day, he'd hit better? Even though Thomas hit them better last year. (And 2005, for what that's worth.)

 

Sure, everyone's entitled to his own opinion, but if that opinion is based on nothing but a hunch, I don't know why you think anyone else should believe it.

[iamshack]

They told him he would play 2 or 3 times a week. Seems reasonable when you're hitting .167, you've been a real slow starter, are almost 40, were awful in spring training, are cheating to try to catch up to fastballs. I agree the Blue Jays wouldn't want to pay even the 2007 version of Frank Thomas $10 million in 2009. No team would. But if you really think the goal was to eat $8 million and to piss him off to give them a reason to cut him, I totally disagree.

 

You're the only one claiming he was still going to play 2-3 times a week. From what I read, they told him he was going to be benched "indefinitely." Now honestly, when was the last time you heard of a manager telling a player that? He didn't say "Look, Frank, you're really struggling, Stairs is hitting pretty well, I'm going to get him some more ab's for now because we aren't scoring runs." The manager, who also got in a fist fight with Ted Lilly, tells Frank "you're going to be benched, and it could be indefinitely." Are you kidding me? I don't see any other way you could possibly read into the situation.

 

And as for the $8 million they have to eat, that is the price they are paying to avoid the option vesting next year. Believe me, if they could have figured out a way to get rid of that money, I'm sure they would have. I don't understand why you are not faulting the Blue Jays for entering into a valid contract with Frank, that no one coerced them into entering into, and then not living up to its terms. If this were the NFL, this would be a completely different story, because that is a common practice there. But this is not a common practice in mlb, players do not expect teams to bench them to prohibit them from reaching performance incentives or having options vest, and frankly, I don't particularly care for the fact that the Blue Jays are setting the precedent.

 

The Blue Jays offered Frank this contract. Teams overpay all the time to attract key free agents, and they are forced to live by the contracts they hand out. They knew Frank's age and health when they signed him. It's not like he was on PED's when he was playing for the A's, and that was the reason for the gaudy numbers. He didn't deceive them in any way.

 

The Blue Jays may have made a poor decision in offering that contract to Frank. But now they have made an unethical one.

[StrangeSox]

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?

 

That's a nice Catch-22. If you're not hitting well, you can't play until you're hitting well.

[Balta1701]

That's a nice Catch-22. If you're not hitting well, you can't play until you're hitting well.

We can call it the "Brian Anderson" rule.

[Texsox]

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.

I agree some guys may be worth more not playing, but they are still not earning their money sitting. Or a player would not be earning his money hitting .200 but could be earning his money batting .000 on the bench? That is one hell of a butt patter and cheerleader. The guys on the bench are like insurance policies, spare tires, personal flotation devices, life rafts, they are worthless until you need them. Then when you dust them off and use them, they earn their keep. And like those things, some poeple find that buying the best is a great value, some want to go cheap. And again using this analogy, a spare tire is much more valuable as a spare, it sucks as a replacement tire. So you would rather have it in the trunk then on the road. But that still does not mean it is earning its cost sitting in the trunk.

[Dick Allen]

You're the only one claiming he was still going to play 2-3 times a week. From what I read, they told him he was going to be benched "indefinitely." Now honestly, when was the last time you heard of a manager telling a player that? He didn't say "Look, Frank, you're really struggling, Stairs is hitting pretty well, I'm going to get him some more ab's for now because we aren't scoring runs." The manager, who also got in a fist fight with Ted Lilly, tells Frank "you're going to be benched, and it could be indefinitely." Are you kidding me? I don't see any other way you could possibly read into the situation.

From the ESPN.com story

 

Ricciardi said the Blue Jays offered Thomas "a lesser role playing two or three times a week," but weren't surprised the veteran slugger chose not to accept.

 

[Dick Allen]

You're "pretty sure" that if his plate appearances against rhp were doubled, he would suddenly start hitting them better? Even before last year, in 2005 with Baltimore, he hit them to the tune of .196/.266/.341 in 276 abs. Or you're "pretty sure" that if other teams generously conceded to pitching lefties against him every day, he'd hit better? Even though Thomas hit them better last year. (And 2005, for what that's worth.)

 

Sure, everyone's entitled to his own opinion, but if that opinion is based on nothing but a hunch, I don't know why you think anyone else should believe it.

Considering Sosa didn't play everyday like Frank did, if he got 170 AB against RHP, he would have scored 10 more runs, hit 5 more homers and had at least 3 more rbi which would equal Frank's production in those categories.

[StrangeSox]

Considering Sosa didn't play everyday like Frank did, if he got 170 AB against RHP, he would have scored 10 more runs, hit 5 more homers and had at least 3 more rbi which would equal Frank's production in those categories.

 

You can't just extrapolate the numbers like that. There's way too many variables. And Sosa didn't play everyday because he was TERRIBLE against RHP. Why would you expect increased success against them?

[jackie hayes]

Considering Sosa didn't play everyday like Frank did, if he got 170 AB against RHP, he would have scored 10 more runs, hit 5 more homers and had at least 3 more rbi which would equal Frank's production in those categories.

You would take Sosa's line last year plus 170 more abs of .222/.267/.410 production over what Frank did last year? You're serious?

 

Well alrighty then.

[Dick Allen]

You would take Sosa's line last year plus 170 more abs of .222/.267/.410 production over what Frank did last year? You're serious?

 

Well alrighty then.

If it means more homers, more rbi and more runs scored in the same amount of AB, yes I would, but then again I always thought the object when batting was scoring runs.

[jackie hayes]

If it means more homers, more rbi and more runs scored in the same amount of AB, yes I would, but then again I always thought the object when batting was scoring runs.

No, you're completely right. Rbi and runs are completely independent of what your teammates do, it really isolates a player's contribution. It's like how wins are the best stat to go by when judging pitchers, because the point of playing is to win games. Totally.

[Texsox]

No, you're completely right. Rbi and runs are completely independent of what your teammates do, it really isolates a player's contribution. It's like how wins are the best stat to go by when judging pitchers, because the point of playing is to win games. Totally.

 

Fixed that for the sarcasm impaired

[Dick Allen]

No, you're completely right. Rbi and runs are completely independent of what your teammates do, it really isolates a player's contribution. It's like how wins are the best stat to go by when judging pitchers, because the point of playing is to win games. Totally.

The problem with Frank is his foot. His OBP isn't as important considering it takes 3 singles to score him, although on a walk he will push a guy on first to scoring position. The reason I mentioned Sosa is their similar numbers last year and that Sammy couldn't find anyone to pay him $7 million this season. I was using this to show that Frank will find no one to pay him $10 million next year, and regardless of everything else, why is it wrong of Toronto if their motivation was to avoid the option? Its clearly within their rights. Why didn't they just bench him from the start, or why didn't they wait until he was getting closer? He's 4 for his last 35. I think most players in that situation usually get a break. Frank was decent last year , not great. Considering he pulled in over $10 million, I doubt Toronto felt like they got their money's worth. There are more than a few scouts, and scouts could be wrong, who think Frank is on his last legs.

[WCSox]

You're the only one claiming he was still going to play 2-3 times a week. From what I read, they told him he was going to be benched "indefinitely." Now honestly, when was the last time you heard of a manager telling a player that? He didn't say "Look, Frank, you're really struggling, Stairs is hitting pretty well, I'm going to get him some more ab's for now because we aren't scoring runs." The manager, who also got in a fist fight with Ted Lilly, tells Frank "you're going to be benched, and it could be indefinitely." Are you kidding me? I don't see any other way you could possibly read into the situation.

 

I agree with you here. They way they handled this situation is completely unprofessional. If you want to cut a guy, fine. But don't give a bullcrap "lack of production" excuse based on 60 at-bats.

 

And as for the $8 million they have to eat, that is the price they are paying to avoid the option vesting next year. Believe me, if they could have figured out a way to get rid of that money, I'm sure they would have. I don't understand why you are not faulting the Blue Jays for entering into a valid contract with Frank, that no one coerced them into entering into, and then not living up to its terms. If this were the NFL, this would be a completely different story, because that is a common practice there. But this is not a common practice in mlb, players do not expect teams to bench them to prohibit them from reaching performance incentives or having options vest, and frankly, I don't particularly care for the fact that the Blue Jays are setting the precedent.

 

As I understand it, what they did was completely legal within the terms of the CBA. And Frank DID sign the contract, so he shouldn't "expect" that $10 million option because he's Frank Thomas. But, honestly, if you were running a business where you wanted to attract free-agent talent, why in the hell would you treat a high-profile employee this way? It's just stupid. If they didn't want Frank around in 2009, they could've just told him up-front and released him before the season started. It would've cost them the exact same amount of money and they wouldn't look like a bunch of lying assholios. If I'm a free agent, there's no way in hell I sign with the Jays after this and some of the other crap that has happened under Ricciardi's watch.

 

[iamshack]

I agree with you here. They way they handled this situation is completely unprofessional. If you want to cut a guy, fine. But don't give a bullcrap "lack of production" excuse based on 60 at-bats.

 

 

 

As I understand it, what they did was completely legal within the terms of the CBA. And Frank DID sign the contract, so he shouldn't "expect" that $10 million option because he's Frank Thomas. But, honestly, if you were running a business where you wanted to attract free-agent talent, why in the hell would you treat a high-profile employee this way? It's just stupid. If they didn't want Frank around in 2009, they could've just told him up-front and released him before the season started. It would've cost them the exact same amount of money and they wouldn't look like a bunch of lying assholios. If I'm a free agent, there's no way in hell I sign with the Jays after this and some of the other crap that has happened under Ricciardi's watch.

 

 

It absolutely is legal within the terms of the CBA. And no one is arguing that it isn't. However, there are certain customs within the industry that are certainly major factors in the construction and signing of these contracts.

 

By no means can anyone claim that what the Blue Jays did was somehow illegal, or against the CBA. But they are setting a precedent here of going against the custom in the industry, and I wouldn't be shocked to see this very action have long-term implications with the players, whether that is through action from their union and Donald Fehr, or whether that comes from the agents.

 

The most basic assumption here, at least to me, is that performance incentives and options which vest based upon plate appearances are designed to award a player for staying healthy. These incentives and options are normally a carrot for veteran players that have produced over the course of their careers to stay healthy. Thome has a contract with a vesting option based on plate appearances, and so do several other veteran ballplayers. 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.

 

I simply disagree with the precedent the Jays are setting here.

 

And as a result, I think you're going to see higher buyout clause's in option contracts, as well as more "opt-out" clauses which allow the player to opt out of the contract (such as ARod, JD Drew, and possibly, AJ Burnett) in order to take advantage of better market conditions.

Edited April 22, 2008 by iamshack

[fathom]

This reminds me of the M. Jeff A-L S

[witesoxfan]

From the ESPN.com story

 

Ricciardi said the Blue Jays offered Thomas "a lesser role playing two or three times a week," but weren't surprised the veteran slugger chose not to accept.

 

2-3 times a week could easily be for the whole year so as to not vest Thomas' option too. If he got 376 PAs this year - meaning 304 more - he could have had his option vest for next year at $10 mill.

 

Thomas asked for his release because he wants his money both for this year and next, and the Blue Jays didn't want to pay next year but obviously were willing to this season. When he found out he would not get his money for next year essentially guaranteed, he wanted out so he could go make more money and get more playing time somewhere else.

 

That seems logical to me.

[Dick Allen]

2-3 times a week could easily be for the whole year so as to not vest Thomas' option too. If he got 376 PAs this year - meaning 304 more - he could have had his option vest for next year at $10 mill.

 

Thomas asked for his release because he wants his money both for this year and next, and the Blue Jays didn't want to pay next year but obviously were willing to this season. When he found out he would not get his money for next year essentially guaranteed, he wanted out so he could go make more money and get more playing time somewhere else.

 

That seems logical to me.

There is no team that will give him a big guarantee next year. He will play off the same contract he played with when he was with Toronto. His only chance at $10 million next year would have been to accept the role offered and perform at a high level forcing the Blue Jays to give him the ABs.

[WCSox]

His only chance at $10 million next year would have been to accept the role offered and perform at a high level forcing the Blue Jays to give him the ABs.

 

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.