Slow high-OBP guys get no breaks. Thomas only got 9,857 plate appearances, and already they're giving up on him.

Fat Stairs' entire career was a slow start.

You've got to get at bats for Joe Inglett

It's a perfect object lesson in why playing time-triggered options are a bad idea. To avoid triggering the option, the Blue Jays have to tick Thomas off and potentially hurt their lineup if he's still a .370 OBP guy; and Frank Thomas, whose career is almost done and no doubt wants to play while he still can, is going to be forced to sit so as not to reach the 376 PAs. It sucks for both sides.

What happened to Adam Lind?

The ESPN version of this story has a different slant on this, and includes the following quote:

Thomas, who is batting .167 with three homers and 11 RBIs in 60 at-bats, said the Blue Jays are cutting his playing time to prevent the option from kicking in.

"It's pretty obvious," Thomas said. "Sixty at bats isn't enough to make that decision. I'm angry, I know I can help this team. My career isn't going to end like this."

More outstanding management from the smooth pimp.

"Sixty at bats isn't enough to make that decision. I'm angry, I know I can help this team. My career isn't going to end like this."

More from the article:

Thomas, who is under contract for $8 million this year, hit just .217 with eight homers and 22 RBIs through his first 55 games last season -- his first with Toronto. Over his final 100 contests, though, Thomas regained his rhythm and posted a .308 average with 18 homers and 73 RBIs.

It was very similar to Thomas' showing in 2006, when he got off to a rough start with the Oakland A's. Through his first 37 games of that season, Thomas hit .197 with nine homers and 22 RBIs. Like this past year, though, he turned it up a notch over the final 100 games, hitting .298 with 30 home runs and 92 RBIs.

I guess if they feel that it's become that predictable that Thomas will have a slow start in April and May, then it makes sense to sit him more during this period. And he is indeed having a slow start once again.

But if this is happening late in the season and he's hitting well, there's no excuse.

Guys like Joey Votto get benched for having two bad weeks in April, not Frank Thomas. I think it's about trying not to trigger the option.

I guess if they feel that it's become that predictable that Thomas will have a slow start in April and May, then it makes sense to sit him more during this period. And he is indeed having a slow start once again.

Is Thomas likely to gain his rhythm at the plate on the bench?

But it is true that Thomas has a pattern of really bad starts to the season. I was on your side until I read the article, now I think it's justifiable, at least to do this in April.

But then if he gets mad about it, it might not be the right decision anyway.

I guess if they feel that it's become that predictable that Thomas will have a slow start in April and May, then it makes sense to sit him more during this period. And he is indeed having a slow start once again.

That's assuming that he will hit well later in the season regardless of whether or not he gets playing time in April and May, which might not be a good assumption.

Guys like Joey Votto get benched for having two bad weeks in April, not Frank Thomas. I think it's about trying not to trigger the option.

But benching Frank Thomas is FAR more justifiable, even if its just about the option.

If you don't want your team to have an incentive to bench you, don't sign a deal with a vesting option.

If you don't want your team to have an incentive to bench you, don't sign a deal with a vesting option.

Could Thomas just let them but out the option now, for a minimal number?

Good idea, snapper.

These kind of perverse incentives are not what the manager should be thinking about.

Matt Stairs is probably just as good as Thomas.

These kind of perverse incentives are not what the manager should be thinking about.

No.

Couldn't this be the basis of an MLBPA grievance?

Couldn't this be the basis of an MLBPA grievance?

It'd probably be tough to win with him hitting .167, though.

Couldn't this be the basis of an MLBPA grievance?

If Stairs is hitting .308 and Thomas is hitting .167, it's going to be hard to get anyone to see Thomas as much aggrieved. If Thomas were hitting .529 and they were starting some journeyman at .167, that might be a different matter, but I dunno even then: it would be a grievance that would benefit one union member but hurt another ...

If Stairs is hitting .308 and Thomas is hitting .167, it's going to be hard to get anyone to see Thomas as much aggrieved.

What could complicate things is the fact that Stairs had been the regular left fielder up to this point. Thomas' spot in the lineup is essentially going to be taken by Shannon Stewart (when healthy), and Stewart hasn't been hitting particularly well.

What could complicate things is the fact that Stairs had been the regular left fielder up to this point. Thomas' spot in the lineup is essentially going to be taken by Shannon Stewart (when healthy), and Stewart hasn't been hitting particularly well.

But then you have to factor in the defensive improvement also. I'm assuming that Stewart is a significant upgrade over Stairs in the field.

Oh, on a performance level, a Stairs/Thomas platoon at DH makes perfect sense, but if $10 million wasn't on the line, I don't think Frank Thomas is going to get benched after a slow first two weeks.

Stairs had been the regular left fielder

A Ranger hit a fly ball to left the other night and I thought for a moment that some fan in a Toronto jersey had run onto the field to try to catch it.

Oh, on a performance level, a Stairs/Thomas platoon at DH makes perfect sense

True, Stairs has been good, so why let Shannon Stewart on the field?

If you don't want your team to have an incentive to bench you, don't sign a deal with a vesting option.

But of course you can't have an incentive based on performance.

I know Matt Stairs is a horrible fielder, but Frank Thomas OBP'd .370 last year with a good SLG. If he can do that, Shannon Stewart would have to be Willie Mays in the outfield to make it worth giving up that much OBP to play him.

Thomas looked odd when I first saw him in the Oakland jersey. And then even odder when I first saw him in the Toronto jersey last year. And now in the revamped powder-blues they adopted for this year (in the picture accompanying this story), he looks far odder even than that.

Can they get a special exemption for him to just wear a White Sox jersey that says "Toronto" instead of "Chicago" on it? What harm would that do?

Wasn't there a thread last year along the lines of "hardest-to-imagine in that uniform"?

Maybe making Frank Thomas mad is a good idea. Guy has a history of coming back with a vengeance after he is proclaimed dead.

It would be great if Frank Thomas could lead the Blue Jays to the playoffs at the end of his career. Like Will Clark with the Cardinals or something like that.

The Jays face Nate Robertson tomorrow, Frank should be in line for a start then. If not let the conspiracy theories run wild.

At Thomas's age, it's always hard to tell if this is it or if he's just going through a bad spell. He's certainly missed a lot of hittable pitches lately. Probably he should sit against any RHP with a good fastball at this stage.

If Thomas had "said the right things", he's almost certainly back in there tomorrow against a lefty. Now I don't know. He chose to pop off with his conspiracy theories instead.

Wouldn't surprise me in the least if the Blue Jays decide they don't need the distraction, release Thomas and call up Adam Lind to play LF with Stairs and Stewart platooning at DH.

I like it. The White Sox will pick him up off waivers in late August and he'll get another World Series ring.

Benched for time being? Sure, you can bench him for not hitting, but don't sit him for the existence of time.

The existence of time has been the source of more problems for me than I could shake a stick at. Curse you, time!

Next up, the Yankees try to void Jason Giambi's contract, as a result of wave-particle duality.

Ahh, the old Frank Thomas. We missed you, Frankie.

The existence of time has been the source of more problems for me than I could shake a stick at. Curse you, time!

I've noticed that all of my problems are caused by other people.

I think it is rather idiotic that they have "announced" this, and all the resulting hubbub. Why not just say you're resting Frank and put him back out tomorrow? It's perfectly normal to sit a 40-year-old with injury history on a Saturday afternoon. Say you're keeping him fresh for the playoffs, which is even better for PR. Why say you're "benching" him?

All of this is rather stupid to me.

Why say you're "benching" him?

If Thomas starts sitting out on a regular basis (which looks like it will be the case), it would become pretty clear he's being benched. If Gibbons hadn't informed him of his benching, Frank would be justified in criticizing the team for not being upfront with him.

It's perfectly normal to sit a 40-year-old with injury history on a Saturday afternoon.

Especially because it has the side effect of giving another 40-year-old a day off from playing the field.

Thomas did not shake hands with his teammates following Toronto’s 3-2 victory over Detroit on Saturday and left the clubhouse without speaking to reporters.

AP

" Thomas did not shake hands with his teammates following Toronto’s 3-2 victory over Detroit on Saturday and left the clubhouse without speaking to reporters.

AP"

Way to stay classy Frank.

A side question that coaches need to explore is what should be done differently to avoid slow starts. We have all heard hundreds of players over the years excuse poor a April (and sometimes May and June too) with a "I always get off to slow starts" comment. Other than weather related problems, slow starts would appear to be related to preparation. Is timing off due to too few AB's in ST? Or is there something else that needs to be changed. Because if a player really does always get off to a slow start he needs to change something.

Well if they are benching him for multiple days that would be absolutely idiotic.

If they think he's not going to hit any more, why would they give him the AB's that would cost them 10 million next year? 10 million gets them a pretty good FA. Or a bunch of kids.

Not that I expect him to succeed at it, but I suspect this is going to wind up with Thomas filing a grievance.

Thomas was working with Walt Hriniak in Dunedin before officially reporting to camp this year. He also got into some early spring training games, something he didn't do last year. All of this was done to be more prepared in April and ward off another slow start. Unfortunately it didn't seem to help.

Mike Wilner of the FAN590 said that Frank will be released by the end of the weekend.

Hriniak's still alive?!?!

For some reason, I thought he had joined Charlie Lau in the Great Hitting School In The Sky.

I consider this like pot odds in poker, where you calculate your possible payouts and your bet, versus the chances of winning the hand.

If they keep Frank all year, there's very little chance he doesn't get 300 PA. Yet by sitting him, they are making him angry, and in terms of the scope of the year, putting out an inferior hitter there. The Jays are "all-in" to try and win this year. There's no reason to believe he won't have an 830 to 860 ish OPS by season's end, which would be one of the best in the lineup. So unless you release him and effectively waste 9 million this year, you may as well bite the bullet, have a slightly better lineup, and take the 10 million next year.

Now, if they called up Adam Lind to take his spot, or got Barry Bonds, that would be a plan. I guess I can't complain that this will have ruined his trade value, cause its doubtful anyone would have taken his contract (because of the option) even as a straight Abreu-esque salary dump. I think getting rid of Thomas and getting Bonds might be the best idea in terms of trying to win.

Why wouldn't they just let him play his 300 PA and then release him before the option kicks in? That way you are getting some value for this year, and then are off the hook for next. Or a buyout is a good compromise.

If Toronto releases Thomas, and he clears waivers, Thomas can then sign with any team, and the new team will pay only the minimum salary with Toronto responsible for the balance of the contract.

If Thomas gets enough PA to trigger the option, who pays it, since Toronto would still technically be on the hook for the contract?

Techincally, he wouldn't reach the PA threashold on THAT contract, would he? Otherwise they wouldn't be thinking of releasing him clearly.

Still, when trying to win, why start thinking about next year's contracts? The Jays are built to win now. This is not the Pirates releasing Matt Morris. I like how someone else put it. In terms of baseball decisions, this is the wrong move. But in terms of money, which is the bottom line for the Jays, its the right one.

The problem is that to avoid spending $10 million in 2009, you have to mostly waste $8 million in 2008 (by parking Thomas on the bench), and Thomas is going to make it ugly. Unless they really, really think Thomas is cooked (in which case they should consider releasing him or buying him out, because he doesn't do anything but hit), the Blue Jays look to be willing to do quite a lot to avoid paying the $10 million. I'm not making any right/wrong moral judgment of the Jays' apparent decision to save the $10 million, but that's certainly not going to generate good PR.

If Toronto releases Thomas, and he clears waivers, Thomas can then sign with any team, and the new team will pay only the minimum salary with Toronto responsible for the balance of the contract.

What a deal that would be. Frank could just get on a jet and head southwest; his agent could radio the destination long before the plane ran out of fuel.

WEEI reporting that ESPN is reporting that Thomas has been released

yep

http://www.tsn.ca/mlb/story/?id=234740&lid=headline&lpos=topStory_mlb

Wow. Thomas was getting half the salary of Giambi, and doubled his output this year. Sure, he's a few years older, but he was an all-time great, while Giambi was very good for a few years.