iamshack

QUOTE (rangercal @ Apr 24, 2008 -> 10:55 AM) http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=3365079 Frank Signs with Oakland Good for him.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Apr 23, 2008 -> 04:00 PM) Most of those people arent from New York, and probably have never been there in the first place. I DID like the guy behind the plate though that kept telling Cabrera the count and that it didnt look good for him. "0-2 Melky, it doesn look good." "Melky! Melky! Here comes a fastball!" "Melky...Melllllkkkkkyyyyyy....forkball!"

QUOTE (knightni @ Apr 23, 2008 -> 05:41 PM) 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.

Honestly, it's just that he can't throw his fastball more than 86 mph anymore, or at least not this early in the year. He'll get it going a bit better in the summer months, but now hitters can just sit on his curveball and react to his fastball.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Apr 23, 2008 -> 09:29 AM) 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?

QUOTE (southsideirish71 @ Apr 22, 2008 -> 11:00 PM) Are we in the negative catch all thread. Yes we are. The purpose of this thread is for posters to rant and rave. Its a landing place for people to do exactly what is happening. Yet you feel the need to play amateur shrink. Its simple. I haven't liked Juan Uribe for a long long time. You coming in here is not going to change that. If that hurts your eyes, then close them and move on. Yeah, my bad, I guess that is what this thread is for, after all. Go on with your ranting and raving...

QUOTE (southsideirish71 @ Apr 22, 2008 -> 10:46 PM) Juan is a rotten ball player. We thought he was gone when Cabrera was picked up. We dont want to live with it. We want him gone. Repeating this over and over and over every time we lose a game does not change this. Getting angry everytime he swings at a pitch he shouldn't have doesn't make him any better. It's a broken record. What is the definition of insanity or whatever it is? Doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result?

QUOTE (southsideirish71 @ Apr 22, 2008 -> 10:37 PM) I think you let the fact that you supposedly went to a dinner with the man cloud your judgement. If anyone else on this team did the things that he does you would have him roasted. Yet for personal reasons this bad player is gold. Well, I'm not sure who DA went to dinner with or whatever that story is, but I have to continue to side with him on this one. At some point one would think Sox fans would take Juan for what he is and live with it. And yet, people continue to expect him to wake up one day and become something that he hasn't been. Juan should not have swung at the breaking ball Joba threw him after Joe's walk, but let's not forget he did have the 2 RBI double earlier in the game.

QUOTE (WhiteSoxfan1986 @ Apr 22, 2008 -> 11:05 PM) Dotel has been pathetic so far. I really wish the team would call up Broadway/Wasserman and get rid of Massett/MacDougal. I'm not sure I understand the logic...Dotel has been pathetic so we should send down Massett/MacDougal? I think Mac is starting to pull it together, so I'd like to stick with him a bit longer... As for Dotel, he seems to have a penchant for giving up the huge home run so far, doesn't he?

QUOTE (santo=dorf @ Apr 22, 2008 -> 09:10 PM) 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.

QUOTE (WCSox @ Apr 22, 2008 -> 12:27 PM) 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.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Apr 22, 2008 -> 09:42 AM) 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.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Apr 22, 2008 -> 09:15 AM) 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.

QUOTE (scenario @ Apr 21, 2008 -> 04:59 PM) Somebody PLEASE explain to me how the Indians moved up from #4 to #3 on that same list in the last week... while the Sox are ranked 7th. The Tribe is 7-12. They have lost 7 of their last 10 games They have the lowest batting average of any team in the AL. They are last in slugging in the AL. Their team ERA is 11th out of 14. But... they are 3rd in the Power Rankings this week. LOL. The author must be from Cleveland. From what I can tell, Dayn Perry and Rob Neyer are the two print journalists who routinely tell us the Indians are the best team ever, so that's why.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Apr 22, 2008 -> 07:58 AM) 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.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Apr 21, 2008 -> 07:04 AM) 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.

QUOTE (southsidehawkeye @ Apr 21, 2008 -> 02:52 PM) The DNC has released their first 2008 commercial, its called "Better Off" What do you guys think? Yeah, I like how he states "I think you could argue..." Hah! Makes you recognize immediately that he is full of it...

Sort of a thread hijack here, but what about looking at this from a slightly different perspective....like when people have an engagement party, and they register at fricking Williams-Sonoma, and then there are the showers, sometimes even for men (I had to go to a "man shower" last year because my friend's bride to be scheduled it as a surprise), then there is the rehearsal dinner, then the wedding, then the housewarming party, then the baby shower....Sometimes I think I am going to throw a "Give me free stuff for no particular reason" shower, because I need things too...

I don't know how many other ways there are to say this....but the fortunes of this team do not depend on what Juan Uribe does at the plate.

In his prime, Frank was the best hitter of his era and one of the best of all time. He's gone on to have a long and productive career. The difference between he and a guy like ARod is Arod has done it better over a longer number of years. But Thomas in his prime was as good as anyone.

QUOTE (CaliSoxFanViaSWside @ Apr 20, 2008 -> 11:03 AM) I respect your opinions in this forum. You are well informed and always make sense. I don't think Blue Jay mgmt. would want to see an $8 million dollar investment leave after 3 weeks of a season. You make it seem as though they huddled up and said let's piss off Frank by telling him he's benched "indefinitely", which could be anywhere from a day to the whole year , and then release him and blow $8 mill. this year but save $10 mill. on next year. I don't buy into any conspiracy theory. How could they even give an $8 mill. contract to someone and just expect 304 plate appearances ? That's a lot to pay for a base clogging part time DH. I absolutely believe they decided to take the hit this year to avoid taking the hit next year. They have a lot of salaries rising next year, AJ Burnett can opt out of his deal after this season, they just signed Alexis Rios to an extension, and they have some young players in Lind and Snider they think they can use next season. Whether they actually "huddled" up and decided to intentionally try and piss off Frank so they would have an excuse to release him, I'm not sure. But Frank's temper is well documented throughout baseball, he is a first-ballot Hall of Fame player, and he has produced the last two years when no one thought he would. I don't think it takes a rocket scientist to foresee that Frank would react this way at the news of being benched indefinitely, especially given the vesting option he has for next year. Again, this is an organization that has had trouble with 4 players now in the last 2 years. It's not surprising at all that this move comes from them.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Apr 20, 2008 -> 10:59 AM) Maybe we can take up a collection for the Big Whiner here's his contract details, basically the Blue Jays are paying him $18.2 million for 1 season and 60 ABs and people think he's being screwed: Thomas gets a $9.12 million signing bonus that is payable in January, a $1 million salary next year and $8 million in 2008. The deal includes a $10 million vesting option for 2009 that would become guaranteed if Thomas has 1,000 plate appearances in the next two seasons or 525 plate appearances in 2008. If the Jays would have come out and admitted they didn't want the option to vest, so they were going to bench him, fine. But don't make a bs excuse and say they are benching him because they feel they have a better lineup without him.

QUOTE (fathom @ Apr 20, 2008 -> 10:58 AM) Addition by subtraction....sometimes it's better to get rid of that negative attitude in the clubhouse. They also have some stud offensive players in the minors, so I wonder if they'll call up Snider. Adam Lind first.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Apr 20, 2008 -> 10:52 AM) What is indefinite? It could be 2 games, it might be 20. I seriously doubt he was just going to take up a roster spot and get paid $8 million to occassionally pinch hit. If that was Toronto's plan, its not a bad job. Frank will be 40 in a couple of months, isn't it a possibility that he may be at the end of the line anyway? If you were running the Blue Jays would you just keep sending him out there doing nothing when you had guys on the bench who could produce, and then be on the hook for $10 million with a perhaps washed up almost 41 year old in 2009? Like the poster above stated, maybe Stairs breaks his leg tomorrow. He was under contract for this season. He can cry to the Blue Jays all he wants, but he shouldn't have gone to the media, and he shouldn't have blown off his teammates after they won a game where Frank's replacement reached base 3 times. Riccardi going to the media about players is wrong, yet Frank crying to the media about being benched isn't? I'm not excusing Frank's behavior last night. I don't even particularly like Frank. You don't see me posting in these threads where people are gushing about Frank. But there is a difference between a move that is designed to help the team and a move that is designed to avoid living up to a contract that was agreed to in good faith by both parties. Frank will be fine, and I am glad he got his release. But I agree with him that the move was bs, and the fact that it occurred by the Blue Jay's front office is not particularly surprising. What do you suppose Jim Thome would do if he was told right now that he was going to be benched indefinitely? Obviously he would handle it with more class than Thomas, because he is a classier guy. But I doubt he would ever want to play for this team again.

QUOTE (max power @ Apr 20, 2008 -> 10:50 AM) Its pretty sad that a young player like that can't even play first base. He makes Ryan Braun look like a solid fielder.