iamshack

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Apr 20, 2008 -> 10:35 AM) If they have a history of it, why would Frank have agreed to the contract? BTW, they paid him for for 2007 and 2008 than any other team would have. While I'm sure there is some motivation with the option, the fact that they benched him so soon tells me they still think they can win and need production now. Benching Frank after 200 AB would have also accomplished their goal if it was to make sure the option didn't kick in. Frank still would have had a shot. They just wanted him to earn the $10 million contract for next year. Evidently, Frank feels he's entitled to it just because he's Frank Thomas. The Jays, John Gibbons, and JP Ricchardi have been up to this sort of bs for a few years now. Ricchardi has gone to the media about several players, including AJ Burnett, basically saying he needs to pitch through pain. Frank doesn't feel he is entitled to it because he is Frank. He feels he is entitled to it because he has held up his end up the deal. He's been healthy, he's produced, and that is what the contract is structured under- those assumptions- that if he was healthy and producing, the option would be in the interests of both parties. And now that he has started slowly, the Jays aren't sure they want to pay him next year under the terms of that option, so they bench him. Why the hell do you think they told him the benching might be "indefinite"? Who the hell tells a player he may be benched "indefinitely"? They knew how he would react- how any player of his stature and accomplishments would react- and used that as an excuse to then release him.

QUOTE (scenario @ Apr 20, 2008 -> 10:28 AM) Yes you ARE apologizing for him. You're making it look like the big bad Blue Jays did this to him and he had no part in this bad ending. Beeeeep. Frank screwed himself by being a selfish non-team player who ran his mouth in the media. Then he walked away rather than congratulating his team mates after a win. Any body who runs a business and has an employee like that realizes that it's a potential cancer situation - so you find ways to cut and run. If Frank hadn't run his mouth, and acted like a baby, he'd still be on the team. He would have had more chances to hit. And if he started hitting, they would have played him often enough to get the option. So, for the potentially millions of dollars he is going to lose in this deal, he has no one to blame but himself. All I can say is I couldn't disagree more.

QUOTE (CaliSoxFanViaSWside @ Apr 20, 2008 -> 10:29 AM) Maybe I'm missing something. 320 AB's or less he gets $8 mill. 320+ AB's he gets $10 mill. What is there to cry about ? Where are you seeing this? I'm seeing an option that vests if he reaches 1,000 PA's between 07' and 08' or reaches 525 PA's in 08'. Frank had 612 PA's last season, and has 60 thus far this season, for a total of 672. Therefore, he only needed 328 more PA's to reach 1000.

Well, I have never been a fan of Frank's antics, but that also doesn't mean the guy shouldn't be upset for being benched. How many other first ballot HOF'er's wouldn't be pissed if they were benched for starting slowly a year after hitting 25 homers and driving in 90? And especially when whether or not an option vests is affected by being benched? I don't excuse the Jays for making an offer to him to lure him to Toronto, only to then decide to bench him to avoid fulfilling their end of the bargain. They didn't bench him because they aren't scoring runs right now. They benched him because he looks a bit old and a bit slow, and they don't want to pay him $10 million next season. That's all there is to it. And so their solution is to say 'Frank, you're benched, maybe indefinitely'. What? That's bs, and I don't blame Frank one bit for being pissed off about it. If I had performed up to what was expected of me, and was on target to reach some performance bonus, but was artificially disallowed to reach that bonus by my employer, I would be pretty damned pissed myself. I wouldn't be so hard on the Jays if they didn't have a history of this kind of nonsense, but the fact is, they do.

QUOTE (BlizzardOfOzzie @ Apr 20, 2008 -> 09:45 AM) I'm not very well-versed on baseball's trade rules. Why didn't they trade him to get something for him? Are there certain times or deadlines during the season when trades can't be made? I know there's a trade deadline in the summer, but it isn't common to make trades this early. Anyone have any insight on this? The could have tried to move him, and one would think that they could have got something decent from the A's or Baltimore or Devil Rays or someone. But evidently they have such big egos there that they just wanted him gone as soon as possible.

QUOTE (BearSox @ Apr 20, 2008 -> 09:33 AM) Indefinitely? What in god's name are you talking about? They said he would see a reduction in playing time, not that he was going to rid the bench for the rest of the season. He wasn't producing and as it is now, they are playing in a tight division, and they don't want to fall behind anymore. Stairs is a good hitter in his own right, and has had the hot bat. I guess that is the problem with having two players who can only DH. No, they said it could be indefinitely...

So am I correct in saying that Jays are eating like $8 million now to avoid paying his option next year?

This is going to have to be the inning....

For thirteen dollars, I'll be a macadamia nut.

QUOTE (fathom @ Apr 19, 2008 -> 05:29 PM) Exactly, you give those two, Price, Niemann, Wade Davis, Edwin Jackson about two years, and you might have something. Doesn't Crawford have two years left? Crawford has this year, and then club options for 09' and 10' that will most certainly be picked up.

QUOTE (fathom @ Apr 19, 2008 -> 05:26 PM) Their young pitchers are still a far way off from being legit MLB starters (see Niemann last night). One would think they could deal Crawford for a pretty darn good young starter (Lincicum and Cain, of course, come to mind) and put together a rotation of Kazmir/Garza (when they become healthy) Shields/Sonnanstine or Jackson and have a better chance of competing than with Crawford. What's killed them is Baldelli never being able to stay healthy...

QUOTE (DBAH0 @ Apr 19, 2008 -> 10:08 AM) I copied that definition from THT. Obviously not everyone agrees. I think it's a pretty damn good stat to use when judging someone's offensive performance though. Because although Quentin's hitting below .250 for example, but because his OBP and SLG are so good, he'll have a real good GPA. That's very interesting. Thanks for posting that. I've often tried to rationalize which was the more important part of OBS, OBP or Slugging, because the author is right- you do find players with higher OBP's and smaller Slugging percentages and then players like Joe Crede with lower OBP's but sometimes higher Slugging percentages- and these players can come out with the same OPS. But which is better? Or are they the same? Well, according to this, the OBP is more important than the slugging. I wish they would have explained why that is a bit more. I'm not really comfortable with understanding the value of this number simply by equating it to batting averages, but I suppose I will eventually understand the relative value of the numbers merely by seeing them for all different players.

QUOTE (Vance Law @ Apr 18, 2008 -> 06:03 PM) Thome is #3 in the AL in OPS+ over the last 2 years and we have an option on him where we only have to pay $6 or $7 million. Well, the option is for $13 million, but Kalapse has said there is a handshake deal between Kenny and Gillick to cover part of that. Who knows how much they would kick in...

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Apr 18, 2008 -> 05:48 PM) They'll get to Nienman. I have full confidence in that. Jeff has a tremendous arm, but he's going to have at least one bad inning if not more than one due to his lack of command. Ok, you were right...

I love how Pablo ran at the runner, without the ball. And then AJ seeing that, didn't bother to throw it as soon as possible. Lucky to get out of that. We aren't going to score much today.

QUOTE (scenario @ Apr 18, 2008 -> 04:31 PM) Depth is a very good thing. Keep Owens. We wouldn't get much for him in trade anyway. I hope he rakes in Charlotte, and if (God forbid) someone gets hurt, then at least we'll have a decent outfield reserve to call on. I don't think anyone wants to move him for the sake of moving him. I think most people are afraid of what Ozzie might do should Jerry start hitting well... As for Jerry, I'm not sure he is actually capable of "raking."

QUOTE (Wanne @ Apr 18, 2008 -> 03:53 PM) Or the bargaining power given his lofty .176 Avg. At this point I'd give my left testy if a Paulie for Kendrick deal would have happened.... Well, I think Paulie's resume in the past would relieve the concerns of many teams about his current average. But it's just extremely difficult to trade a veteran first basemen these days...

I believe he was doing games in the Women's NCAA tourney....

QUOTE (elrockinMT @ Apr 18, 2008 -> 03:32 PM) That may be entirely possible. Do you think he might even attempt to trade Dye before the season goes much further? Or Konerko too? Dye has a no trade clause for this year, I believe. I would love to see him explore a deal for Paulie, but I don't think they have the cajones to do so.

They just signed Longoria to a 6 year deal, with 2 option years.

Is this actually real? We don't have the lead in home runs (but we have a lot more than 14), and neither do the Angels. We also are not slugging that high.

QUOTE (fathom @ Apr 17, 2008 -> 09:02 PM) Yep, I've debated typing this after the game, but here it goes: I would rather the Sox lose tonight, given that Floyd was great, instead of winning 10-8 and Floyd going 3 innings and allowing 5 runs. This is exactly what I was thinking after the game. I think, even though we lost tonight, it's more encouraging to see Floyd pitch the way he did today than had he s*** the bed and we had pulled out some 9-8 win. It sucks, but tonight was very encouraging on several fronts, including both Quentin and Joe (nice to see him snap out of his mini-funk he was in). As for Bobby, the pitch selection didn't get him as much as the actual pitch did. That breaking ball he threw to Roberts was quite a bit more flat than the one he made Jones look foolish on. If he throws the sharp curve, the best Roberts can probably do is barely get a piece and foul it off. Bobby will be just fine.

QUOTE (WCSox @ Apr 17, 2008 -> 03:40 PM) They have larger parking lots and, IIRC, more skyboxes. Yeah, good point....enough even to offset the higher ticket prices and the addition 568,000 tickets they sold than us?

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Apr 17, 2008 -> 03:41 PM) That's a loaded question if I've ever seen one. I won't answer it. It also doesn't change the fact that trading Fields for Brian Roberts ties up, roughly, $19 mill next year between 2B and 3B and puts the Sox into a hell of a risky contract with Crede. What's the future of the Sox look like? I see more of what happened in the offseason of 2006, minus the Vazquez and Thome deals (because the Vazquez deal already was made) and I could see that turning into 2007 all over again really fast. I'd say wait about 2-3 months before you even think about either trading for Roberts or trading Fields, unless the package doesn't include Fields. Fields is the only impact position prospect the White Sox have in the upper minors right now...you don't move that for a 30 year old 2Bman I know....just harassing you... Honestly, I have no interest in moving Fields for a veteran either.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Apr 17, 2008 -> 02:27 PM) If KW traded Fields for Roberts, I'd probably cry, because I would see that as another Chris Young for Javier Vazquez type deal, where, sure, the return you get is good for you, but hanging on to the prospect would save you so much money and trouble. And what would be your reaction if we made that deal and won the World Series this year?