It's a good thing that they haven't benched then released anyone that might have helped their offense this year.

wow, what happened to Chacin?

Frank Thomas is hitting .267/.400/.356 with no home runs and one triple since he signed with the A's. He's finally discovered his inner leadoff man.

wow, what happened to Chacin?

Reality, followed up by shoulder injury, followed up by more reality.

Chacin had labrum surgery and he is struggling in Dunedin.

Wow, there's a major-league team eager to sign Texas Ranger castoffs. This gives me new reasons to live.

It's a good thing that they haven't benched then released anyone that might have helped their offense this year.

And Reed Johnson isn't making Riccardi look bad either.
He's maintaining his 66 OPS+ from his last year as a Jay.

stupid Adam Lind and his 1-for-19.

It's a good thing that they haven't benched then released anyone that might have helped their offense this year.

Enough already with the "Frank is going to turn it around...just wait!!!" talk. The Blue Jays cannot afford to wait two months for Frank to turn it around. If they do that, they will be too far out of the wildcard to get back in the race. Add that to the fact that they would then owe him $10 million for an additional season of sub-par play.

We all like Frank. But come on...people have to stop pretending he is close to the player he used to be. He still has turned it around, so it looks like JP's gamble is paying off.

Edit: That should be "he still has not turned around".

The jays have acquired a quality lf platoon. Unfortunately, it is not a position of need and the platoon passed its sell by date 3 years ago.

He still has turned it around

He has a .400 OBP since joining the A's.

He also has two doubles and a triple in that time, so he's obviously able to get around the bases at least a little bit.

But, but, but, Tim Kurkjianksdfg just wrote that Reed Johnson can bat anywhere in the line-up, 1-9, for the Cubs, and that he is Ty Cobb...!

We all like Frank. But come on...people have to stop pretending he is close to the player he used to be.

True. He'll only hit .260 with 25 homers and a .350 OBP. Totally useless. What people really need to start doing to to focus on just how much Kevin Mench isn't the player he used to be! Because the new Kevin Mench actually doesn't suck!

He also has two doubles and a triple in that time, so he's obviously able to get around the bases at least a little bit.

Have you seen him run? I'm willing to bet those doubles and triples were actually home runs, and he just got too tired running around the bases.

Plus, don't be so selective with your stats. Why don't you state his slugging, HRs, RBIs, runs, etc? The fact that you had to point to two doubles and a triple says quite a bit about Frank's outstanding performance since joining the Oakland As. I know most Jays fans are more than happy with having Matt Stairs getting full time playing time.

Sitting second-to-last in the American League in RBI with 133 in 36 games

Who the hell ranks a team offense using RBI?

Enough already with the "Frank is going to turn it around...just wait!!!" talk. The Blue Jays cannot afford to wait two months for Frank to turn it around. If they do that, they will be too far out of the wildcard to get back in the race.

They're going to be too far out of the wildcard race at the end of the season anyway, the team is merely good without a whole lot of upside. Thomas wouldn't have helped much in the upside department but at least they might have gotten some good production out of him later in the year. The team is mediocre enough, giving up potential production was foolish since they couldn't afford to lose anything that might have helped them. The option is Ricciardi's own fault for not being tougher in negotiations, would Thomas really have ended up signing somewhere else if they hadn't included it? Maybe I suppose but that's the way things work, Ricciardi had to know that it was very possible that he'd reach a time in the second year where he had to make a tough decision regarding that vesting option. He trapped himself, just like he trapped himself with the Overbay contract. No matter how you look at it the whole problem is just another result of Ricciardi not really knowing how to build a playoff team, he's always going to be doomed to teams that are good but not good enough.

Wow, there's a major-league team eager to sign Texas Ranger castoffs other than Milwaukee. This gives me new reasons to live.

He still has turned it around, so it looks like JP's gamble is paying off.

Edit: That should be "he still has not turned around".

Frank's outplayed his replacements, and JP's paying both Frank and his replacements. How is it paying off?

Why don't you state his slugging, HRs, RBIs, runs, etc?

All right, he's slugging .356, which is more than Shannon Stewart is doing and almost as good as Lyle Overbay. He has yet to hit his first homer of 2008 in an A's uniform, though.

I know most Jays fans are more than happy with having Matt Stairs getting full time playing time.

Frank Thomas wasn't taking playing time away from Matt Stairs.

If you want to argue that he wasn't a good fit for the Blue Jays, that's fine. But he's clearly not done, nor is he not helping his team.

Thomas wouldn't have helped much in the upside department but at least they might have gotten some good production out of him later in the year.

Why does everyone assume that this is a guarantee? Every scout I've listened to this year has pointed to a huge drop in his bat speed. Isn't it possible that his age and lack of speed have finally got the best of him? Do people here really believe the Jays should risk $10 million on this gamble.

There is no doubt that the Jays should not have given him the vesting option--but at least they were smart enough to prevent it from vesting.

I know most Jays fans are more than happy with having Matt Stairs getting full time playing time.

Stairs is an easy guy to root for, and a Canuck to boot, but it sounds like you don't really want the Jays to win. Thomas is hitting 267/400/356 for an OPS+ of 119 since getting cut by the Jays. Over the last 14 days, because that's what B-R gives me easily,

Matt Stairs has hit 227/292/364 OPS+ 83
Shannon Stewart has hit 229/250/286 OPS+ 36
Adam Lind has hit 053/100/053 OPS+ -57

Frank would have been taking PA from one of those guys if he were still on the team. There's no way to spin it, Frank's replacements have hit worse for the Jays than Frank has hit for another team, with the Jays paying his salary. Although, I suppose you could get excited about having Stewart's or Lind's glove in left instead of Stairs.

Who the hell ranks a team offense using RBI?

Was just about to post that. It's moronic. I often see this sort of thing, people saying "they're last in Runs, RBI, ...." Not sure if it betrays a lack of understanding of baseball, or of statistics, or maybe both.

Frank Thomas wasn't taking playing time away from Matt Stairs.

Matt Stairs has played 16 games at DH. How was Frank not taking his playing time?

Enough already with the "Frank is going to turn it around...just wait!!!" talk. The Blue Jays cannot afford to wait two months for Frank to turn it around. If they do that, they will be too far out of the wildcard to get back in the race. Add that to the fact that they would then owe him $10 million for an additional season of sub-par play.

All fine and dandy...IF YOUR DAMN ALTERNATIVES AREN'T ROD BARAJAS AND AN OVERMATCHED ADAM LIND.

They signed Wilkerson and traded for Mench. Neither of these guys are much of a player. Might as well have hoped that Thomas does THE EXACT SAME ####### THING HE HAS THE PAST TWO SEASONS. Because their offense isn't beating anyone without him.

Thomas hasn't done much of anything at Oakland, but his 0.756 OPS since the trade would be good 5th on the Jays, a scant 0.10 OPS points behind Lyle Overbay. Matt Satirs' is 0.747.

Mench's OPS the past two seasons: .746, .732
Wilkerson's OPS the past four seasons: .652, .786, .728, .756

At best, they've replaced a bad Frank Thomas. Watch out playoffs, here come the Jays!

Matt Stairs has played 16 games at DH. How was Frank not taking his playing time?

Frank Thomas OPS+ for OAK is 119. Matt Stairs' OPS+ for the season is 106. In other words, they've done worse with Stairs getting more playing time.

the move was made for financial reasons only. Either that or JP is an idiot.

Mench making the minimum actually isn't a bad move for the Jays - he hits lefties, and can be a platoon partner for Stairs, or for Lind later in the year.

Not a great glove, but the Jays have been using some defensively-challenged LF before like Stairs and Lind, so he fits in.

How was Frank not taking his playing time?

Because Stairs was playing basically every day, at least against right-handed pitchers. Either he was in left field, or he was DH'ing, with Thomas sitting. The only time he's sat is against left-handed pitchers, and that hasn't changed with Thomas leaving.

At best, they've replaced a bad Frank Thomas.

...and saved themselves $10million.

Frank Thomas OPS+ for OAK is 119.

Let's see what it is after he's had at least as many PA in Oakland as he had in Toronto before we announce a dramatic turnaround.

White Jays.

All fine and dandy...IF YOUR DAMN ALTERNATIVES AREN'T ROD BARAJAS AND AN OVERMATCHED ADAM LIND.

The only problem is that Lind has not played DH at all this year, and Barajas has two times. I really wouldn't call them the "alternatives". Anyone who suggests that Barajas is the replacement is simple trying to muddy the waters. Plus, what's with the Lind bashing? He has shown he can rake at AAA, so the Jays brought him up. How can you say that Lind is "overmatched" in 19 at bats? (I realize he has been demoted--that is one JP move I don't like).

Frank Thomas OPS+ for OAK is 119. Matt Stairs' OPS+ for the season is 106.

I think the more accurate comparison would be Frank Thomas's OPS+ for the season versus Matt Stairs' OPS+ for the season. If you do that, Stairs is no worse than Frank, and is a better baserunner and fielder (as scary as that is).

the move was made for financial reasons only.

I agree that the move was "partially" made for financial reasons--what's so wrong with that? Is there a problem with a team recognizing a bad contract and rectifying it?

I think the more accurate comparison would be Frank Thomas's OPS+ for the season versus Matt Stairs' OPS+ for the season.

The actual comparison is between Frank Thomas and Shannon Stewart and Adam Lind, as they're the ones that took Thomas's plate appearances.

The actual comparison is between Frank Thomas and Shannon Stewart and Adam Lind, as they're the ones that took Thomas's plate appearances.

Really? Frank played LF? Because Lind has not played DH this season.

Does anyone really think Frank's power is gone? I don't.

And he really is running alot better than during his 2006 stint with the A's.

So, thanks JP.

Johnny,

For the minimum, Frank is a steal. There is no doubt that the reward could be huge. But I think it is foolish for the Jays to bet $10 million that Frank was going to rebound.

Really? Frank played LF? Because Lind has not played DH this season.

Don't be obtuse. Thomas leaving enabled Stairs to DH every day, and as I've explained to you, Stairs was playing just about every day even before Thomas left.

The end result was more plate appearances for Stewart and Lind, not more plate appearances for Stairs. And yes, it also got Stairs's glove out of left field and Stewart's and Lind's in, for whatever that's worth.

Enough already with the "Frank is going to turn it around...just wait!!!" talk. The Blue Jays cannot afford to wait two months for Frank to turn it around.

1. Who said anything about two months?

2. What the Blue Jays "cannot afford" is to have Shannon Stewart's wretched bat in the lineup. Stewart has nothing left, and he last hit better than Frank Thomas approximately never.

We all like Frank. But come on...people have to stop pretending he is close to the player he used to be. He still has turned it around, so it looks like JP's gamble is paying off.

He has a .291 EqA with the A's this year. What's wrong with that, exactly? It's almost identical to what he did last year.

I wouldn't call his 2007 season (.288 EqA "subpar"), and I think it's too early to tell what his 2008 season will be -- obviously he hasn't gotten off to a great start -- but even if he is "subpar," the alternatives were far worse.

Just to be clear, I am saying that he likely will not be worth $10 million for next year. If the vesting option was not an issue, I would not support the Jays releasing him.

Thomas wouldn't have helped much in the upside department but at least they might have gotten some good production out of him later in the year.

Why does everyone assume that this is a guarantee?

We don't. But you're the one assuming that poor play from him is a guarantee.

Every scout I've listened to this year has pointed to a huge drop in his bat speed. Isn't it possible that his age and lack of speed have finally got the best of him?

Possible? Yes.

But 127 PAs -- the last 55 of them good -- isn't nearly enough to conclude that he's done.

Ryan Howard is hitting .165 this year. Is he done too?

There is no doubt that the Jays should not have given him the vesting option--but at least they were smart enough to prevent it from vesting.

They've acted foolishly here.

I agree that the move was "partially" made for financial reasons--what's so wrong with that? Is there a problem with a team recognizing a bad contract and rectifying it?

Yes.

When not having the bad contract is worse than having it.

Just to be clear, I am saying that he likely will not be worth $10 million for next year. If the vesting option was not an issue, I would not support the Jays releasing him.

But $10 million is peanuts. If the Jays had made the playoffs this year because of Thomas's good play, he'd have essentially paid for the vesting option himself.

We don't. But you're the one assuming that poor play from him is a guarantee.

Ray, I think I have been clear that I have been approaching this from a risk-reward approach. I think that there is a chance that Frank will have a decent year (see post 34). I just believe the odds of him rebounding are lower than the odds of him continuing his poor play for the rest of this season (and the next). How is this "assuming" that "poor play from him is a guarantee"?

Money matters. Frank may play well for the rest of the year. But based on the history of how baseball players perform after they turn 40, I think the Jays made a calculated decision to cut him at this point.

But $10 million is peanuts. If the Jays had made the playoffs this year because of Thomas's good play, he'd have essentially paid for the vesting option himself.

Do you really think that Thomas is the difference-maker when it comes to the Jays making the playoffs? I can play that game too: If the Jays make the playoffs because of Adam Lind's good play, they will have saved $10 million dollars!!!

Do you really think that Thomas is the difference-maker when it comes to the Jays making the playoffs?

When they're playing people like Shannon Stewart, Rod Barajas, and Robinzon Diaz instead?

I don't see why not.

I can play that game too: If the Jays make the playoffs because of Adam Lind's good play, they will have saved $10 million dollars!!!

But if Thomas stays on the team, Lind plays left in place of Stewart.

I wanted Thomas and Lind playing, and not Stewart, who is simply a joke of a baseball player at this point and certainly cannot handle the offensive requirements of LF.

When they're playing people like Shannon Stewart, Rod Barajas, and Robinzon Diaz instead?

Wow Ray. For someone who is always talking about how the media misrepresents the Clemens situation, you sure are misrepresenting what the Jays are doing. How many at bats have Barajas and Diaz gotten in relation to the Frank Thomas situation? I understand that you want to make a point. I'm just not sure why you feel the need to engage in intellectual dishonesty to make it.

I will now ask the same question to everyone that I asked the last time the Thomas issue came up:

How badly does Thomas have to hit for it to be a good move by the Jays to cut him to avoid having to pay the vesting option? I'm just curious, as it seems the general consensus is that Thomas will rebound. However, in the event that he doesn't rebound (as the Jays apparently think), what is the offensive threshold at which you would cut him to avoid eating $10M in salary for next year, and how long would you wait?

Keep in mind that this question is also impacted by the problem that if the Jays waited too long to cut him, he could have a legitimate grievance over the option - even if he's still not hitting.

Wow, Big Frank's going to be 40 this month. I feel so old.

Wow Ray. For someone who is always talking about how the media misrepresents the Clemens situation, you sure are misrepresenting what the Jays are doing. How many at bats have Barajas and Diaz gotten in relation to the Frank Thomas situation? I understand that you want to make a point. I'm just not sure why you feel the need to engage in intellectual dishonesty to make it.

Barajas and Diaz each got a start at DH.

And went a combined 0-7 with a HBP. I don't see why that can't be included. Granted they won Barajas's DH start 5-3; but they lost Diaz's start 5-3.

But the larger point is that the Jays made the wrong choice, opting for Stewart over Thomas. You can talk about money all you want, but $10 million is virtually nothing, especially when weighed against a host of bad alternatives, and especially when it _could_ mean the difference between making the playoffs and not.

I know a guy who is a free agent, wouldn't cost anything but money, who hits really good and can play LF once in awhile. Wonder if he would help..

How badly does Thomas have to hit for it to be a good move by the Jays to cut him to avoid having to pay the vesting option?

It's the wrong question. It's not how "badly" he has to hit, but, rather, is how many PAs of bad hitting represent a drop in ability level rather than a fluke.

Reasonable people can disagree about the answer to that, but what I am absolutely sure of is that the answer isn't 72 PAs, let alone the ridiculousness of taking the last 45 PAs of those 72 PAs.

He had a 125 OPS+ last year, so I don't know why people were concluding with such flimsy evidence that he was done.

I'm just curious, as it seems the general consensus is that Thomas will rebound.

No. The general consensus is that he had nothing to rebound from. He only needed to "rebound" if his last 45 PAs represented a true ability level.

Otherwise, he just needed to come out of a slump.

so I don't know why people were concluding with such flimsy evidence

Hmmm...I seem to remember you saying this before...I just can't put my finger on where...

Barajas and Diaz each got a start at DH.

Didn't Barajas get a start because Adam Lind suddenly came down with a neck problem? It wasn't like the Jays were planning on starting Barajas as a full time DH. They just needed a fill-in for a single game, and he happened to be healthy and there. These things happen sometimes, no matter hod badly or well run a team may be.

$10 million next year, but they would still get to have Frank Thomas. Meanwhile, they threw away his salary this year and don't get to have Frank Thomas.

So, they were either possibly wasting money next year (assuming Thomas was totally worthless next year, which I don't think is a totally safe assumption) or definitely wasting money this year by cutting Frank and getting nothing.

It's the wrong question. It's not how "badly" he has to hit, but, rather, is how many PAs of bad hitting represent a drop in ability level rather than a fluke.

So you're of the opinion that, even if it turns out that Frank Thomas is done as an effective player, it was still the wrong move to release him. Instead, they should have kept him (no matter how bad he played) and eaten the $10M for next year, which is 10% of their player budget? I see. That makes perfect sense to me.

So you're of the opinion that, even if it turns out that Frank Thomas is done as an effective player, it was still the wrong move to release him.

Yes.

They had no basis to conclude that he was done.

Meanwhile, they threw away his salary this year and don't get to have Frank Thomas.

A variation on my question above - What would Thomas have to hit next year to be worth $10M? Also, given that Thomas will be 41 next, how likely is it that he will achieve that threshold?

Yes.

They had no basis to conclude that he was done.

So, even if they're right, they're wrong. Perfect.

Just to be clear, I am saying that he likely will not be worth $10 million for next year. If the vesting option was not an issue, I would not support the Jays releasing him.

What was the option trigger? Couldn't they have given him another 300 PA, and then cut him if they didn't want to give him the option? If nothing else, it would give them a lot more information on which to make that decision. Hey, in July, $10 million for a year of Frank Thomas might look like a pretty good deal.

Yes.

They had no basis to conclude that he was done.

No evidence? Come on Ray. He looked horrible in spring training and during the season. Scouts were of the opinion that his bat speed had significantly regressed. He's 40 years old (how many 40 year olds have been productive hitters?). His numbers last year were a decline from the year before.

You can say that the evidence was not overwhelming, but no evidence? Please Ray, stop practicing the intellectual dishonesty that you always criticize others for (i.e. see some of your Clemens posts).

What was the option trigger? Couldn't they have given him another 300 PA, and then cut him if they didn't want to give him the option -- if nothing else, it would give them a long more information on which to make that decision. Hey, in July, $10 million for a year of Frank Thomas might look like a pretty good deal.

In this case, Frank would have a legitimate grievance and they would end up paying the $10 million anyways.

What was the option trigger? Couldn't they have given him another 300 PA, and then cut him if they didn't want to give him the option -- if nothing else, it would give them a long more information on which to make that decision. Hey, in July, $10 million for a year of Frank Thomas might look like a pretty good deal.

If they wait too long, and then cut him after he's had regular playing time (regardless of how he's hit), then Thomas has an excellent case for a grievance.

[Edit: or what Stiebferno said]

No evidence? Come on Ray. He looked horrible in spring training and during the season.

After the 7th game, he was hitting .240/.296/.640 and was coming off of home runs in three straight games.

After the 17th game, the Jays concluded that he was done.

I don't care that he looked horrible in spring training. And I don't care that he looked horrible from games 8 to 17. Players in slumps often look horrible.

Scouts were of the opinion that his bat speed had significantly regressed.

Funny that he homered in three straight games, then.

He's 40 years old (how many 40 year olds have been productive hitters?).

Few, since most players are out of the majors long before then. Thomas has proven he's far better than "most" players. How many players have Hall of Fame careers? Few, but Thomas has. So why are we comparing him to other normal players?

It's fine to suggest that he might fall off a cliff very quickly. But 45 PAs is not a "cliff."

You can say that the evidence was not overwhelming, but no evidence?

Yes. 45 PAs is not "evidence." As Robinson Cano shows. It's impossible to tell whether it's a chance in ability level or just a slump.

Please Ray, stop practicing the intellectual dishonesty that you always criticize others for (i.e. see some of your Clemens posts).

What is your obsession with my comments about Clemens? You bring up this irrelevancy in every post.

Players in slumps often look horrible.

Not that Frank is necessarily done, but players who are done also often look horrible.

45 PAs is not "evidence."

45 PAs is evidence. The observations of scouts and announcers (and team officials who may not be talking publicly) is evidence. The age of the person in question is evidence. It's just evidence that you have chosen to value differently than others.

If they wait too long, and then cut him after he's had regular playing time (regardless of how he's hit), then Thomas has an excellent case for a grievance.

Do you have any evidence for this? Can you cite to a section of the CBA or to a precedent that would support it? The whole point of a playing time clause is that it's an indication that the player is playing well enough to merit another year. If Thomas had sucked after another 300 PAs, why couldn't they have released him without consequence? And why did they have an obligation to play him at all -- no matter how he was doing -- let alone be forced to keep him on the roster?

Ray,

What would qualify as evidence, besides waiting out the entire season? Your dismissal of all the evidence which I provided (which, as a fellow lawyer, you should know all qualifies as evidence) was all too predictable.

Nope. I can't cite a specific passage of the CBA, and the best example I can find relates to Steve Avery's option vesting after 18 starts in Boston, and them pulling him from the rotation after 17. He threatened to file a grievance, and they put him back in the rotation for one final start shortly thereafter.

The problem is that lack of a precedent doens't mean that Thomas couldn't be the precedent. It would be my guess that this hasn't come up previously (as far as I can tell), partially because teams are (probably) smart enough to not wait until the player is extremely close to the point of vesting.

What would qualify as evidence, besides waiting out the entire season? Your dismissal of all the evidence which I provided (which, as a fellow lawyer, you should know all qualifies as evidence) was all too predictable.

Scouts' opinions and 45 PAs are only of marginal utility. You of course wouldn't conclude that he was done after he went 0-4 in a game; 45 PAs is a larger sample than 4 PAs, but it's still too small a sample to tell us anything meaningful.

If he had gone half the season without hitting, or even 2-3 months, it would have been one thing.

Two and a half weeks? No.

The problem is that lack of a precedent doens't mean that Thomas couldn't be the precedent. It would be my guess that this hasn't come up previously (as far as I can tell), partially because teams are (probably) smart enough to not wait until the player is extremely close to the point of vesting.

Teams are not obligated to play players.

Teams are not obligated to keep players on the roster.

I don't see why Toronto would lose a grievance if Thomas were hitting badly and they released him just short of the magic number. (Not that a grievance couldn't be filed, which is different.)

I don't see why Toronto would lose a grievance if Thomas were hitting well and they released him just short of the magic number. I suspect the reason teams don't play games like this is not because they're afraid of losing a grievance, but that they're afraid of the image it would create in the eyes of future free agents who were deciding whether to sign with the team.

Note that everyone thinks Toronto released Thomas _now_ for the sole purpose of avoiding the option, and, yet, there was never any talk from the MLBPA of filing a grievance.

45 PAs is not "evidence."

45? Big Frank has 127 PA's this year.

I don't see why Toronto would lose a grievance if Thomas were hitting well and they released him just short of the magic number. I suspect the reason teams don't play games like this is not because they're afraid of losing a grievance, but that they're afraid of the image it would create in the eyes of future free agents who were deciding whether to sign with Toronto.

You don't see why Toronto would lose this grievance? Have you ever heard of a legal principle called acting in bad faith? It is especially relevant in the employment/labour context. It is such a basic tenant of labour law that I am surprised that you have never heard of it.

Also, there is a huge body of jurisprudence on employers losing cases for dismissing employees right before a bonus or option vests. But you are a "lawyer"...I'm sure that you already knew that.

In regards to grievances stemming from playing time options, there are a couple of cases that I know of, both involving Jimy Williams. One is the Avery case, mentioned earlier, where he needed 18 starts in 1997 to trigger the option and got it, despite pitching poorly. Jimy Williams gave him his 18th start in the 159th game of the year, despite Avery pitching out of the bullpen for all of September. The other one, which I think affected how Williams handled the Avery situation, occured in 1986 during Jimy's first year managing Toronto. If I remember the details correctly, Dennis Lamp had a vesting option regarding innings pitched, and after a poor first half, saw a dropoff in innings pitched in the second half that prevented the option from vesting. I believe he filed a grievance and won. I am fuzzy on some of the specifics about the case, though, does anyone else remember the details of it?

Edit: I did what I should have done before posting and googled it, and the Blue Jays actually won the grievance. It's been a while since I read Diamond Dreams by Stephen Brunt, but I remember him describing the whole situation as being very taxing on Williams, something that made me think Avery's 18th start was related to Lamp's grievance.

For the minimum, Frank is a steal. There is no doubt that the reward could be huge. But I think it is foolish for the Jays to bet $10 million that Frank was going to rebound.

It might well not be a good risk, but it's a million times worse to settle for certain mediocrity, another 83-win season, and finishing third or fourth.

Ricciardi's conservatism is killing the Jays right now.

Ricciardi's conservatism is killing the Jays right now.

Heh.

He's 40 years old (how many 40 year olds have been productive hitters?)

This year, there are four active hitters who were born in 1968 (Kent, Sheffield, Stairs, and Thomas). Here is a comparison of their totals from last year to this year:
All four of them are of to slower starts than their totals from last year. None has an OPS+ lower than Sheffield's 91. Last season, none had an OPS+ lower than Sheffield's 120. OPS+ is not the best number for this group, as most are lousy defenders and OPS+ overstates their value as ballplayers.

[T]hey're afraid of the image it would create in the eyes of future free agents who were deciding whether to sign with the team.

Yes. That would be the last contract with a vesting option they (or at least that GM) would ever sign. They would have to offer the additional year and the additional money up front in the future, putting them at a competitive diasadvantage.

[Acting in bad faith] is especially relevant in the employment/labour context. It is such a basic tenant of labour law that I am surprised that you have never heard of it.

Labor law is much more favorable to employers than labour law.

Teams are not obligated to keep players on the roster.

This isn't entirely true. The Uniform Player's Contract makes it clear that a team has to have an actual reason to release the player.

7.(b) The Club may terminate this contract upon written notice to the
Player (but only after requesting and obtaining waivers of this contract
from all other Major League Clubs) if the Player shall at any time:
(1) fail, refuse or neglect to conform his personal conduct to the
standards of good citizenship and good sportsmanship or to keep
himself in first-class physical condition or to obey the Club’s training
rules; or
(2) fail, in the opinion of the Club’s management, to exhibit sufficient
skill or competitive ability to qualify or continue as a member
of the Club’s team; or
(3) fail, refuse or neglect to render his services hereunder or in
any other manner materially breach this contract.

Now, in Thomas's case, they could easily argue he was playing badly and use his grumbling in the clubhouse after being benched as justification for the release, but there clearly are hypothetical scenarios in which a team could lose a grievance filed by the player.

Hmm. Under the old regime, O's would do stuff like hold Raffy out of games late in the '04 season to prevent his $4.5 mil. or whatever it was option from vesting. Raffy understood, and let it happen, and then they signed him the following year for $2.5 mil. (or whatever it was).

However I think the O's played Millar extra last year just to make sure his option vested...

Probably the Raffy situation hurt the club a little bit with proven veteran free agents. So, in other words, Toronto, did exactly the right thing with cutting Thomas before he vested because they'll have a smaller pool of expensive players on the decline to choose from in the future.

Labor law is much more favorable to employers than labour law.

I'm assuming that this is a Canadian/American joke, but it makes me somewhat curious as to which one a Jays player would be subject to. In other words, as someone who signed with and played for a team in Canada, but working for a central body in the US (MLB), would Frank be able to file a claim under the Canadian or American versions of the law?

Labor law is much more favorable to employers than labour law.

Actually, a lot of Canadian labour law derives from the American system. The principle of acting in bad faith (and the negative repercussions thereof) is a central tenant of BOTH the Canadian and American system.

This year, there are four active hitters who were born in 1968 (Kent, Sheffield, Stairs, and Thomas). Here is a comparison of their totals from last year to this year:
Year G AB R H 2B 3B HR RBI BB SO BA OBP SLG
2007 549 1876 306 530 114 3 92 313 266 292 .283 .375 .494
2008 115 398 52 96 16 2 12 50 55 76 .241 .339 .382

All four of them are of to slower starts than their totals from last year. None has an OPS+ lower than Sheffield's 91. Last season, none had an OPS+ lower than Sheffield's 120. OPS+ is not the best number for this group, as most are lousy defenders and OPS+ overstates their value as ballplayers.

So...it looks like they are hitting worse. Not surprising, considering that guys in their 40s tend to be near the end of the line.

He might be the slowest guy in the majors.

As long as the Molinas continue to exists, this will not be true. With that being said, Thomas is definitely one of the slowest guys in the game today, even with that fluke triple this year.

Now, in Thomas's case, they could easily argue he was playing badly and use his grumbling in the clubhouse after being benched as justification for the release, but there clearly are hypothetical scenarios in which a team could lose a grievance filed by the player.

Such as, the case where the Jays don't release the grumbling player in April who is hitting like crap, but they do release the same guy who's hitting a little better in May-June when he starts to close in on triggering his 09 option?

The principle of acting in bad faith (and the negative repercussions thereof) is a central tenant of BOTH the Canadian and American system

I think you mean "tenet". A central tenant is someone who rents the middle of your house.

I think you mean "tenet". A central tenant is someone who rents the middle of your house.
Page 1 of 1 pages

Yup. I should know better than to post first thing in the morning...

A variation on my question above - What would Thomas have to hit next year to be worth $10M? Also, given that Thomas will be 41 next, how likely is it that he will achieve that threshold?

No, no no. This is the type of crap that has you arguing past each other. This question is completely irrelevant.

The question is whether Thomas' increased production over his replacements BOTH this year and next would be worth $10 mil minus what they are paying his replacements this year and next plus the prorated salary that the A's are paying this year (which is basically nothing).

It's a completely different question, and probably one with a different answer than the worthless question you are posing.

What would qualify as evidence, besides waiting out the entire season? Your dismissal of all the evidence which I provided (which, as a fellow lawyer, you should know all qualifies as evidence) was all too predictable.

This post should be framed and put on the front page of BTF like that plastic sample food they put out in front of Japanese restaurants to show you what you'll be getting.

I don't know, something other than a stratospheric OBP might help your argument.

This question is completely irrelevant.

Actually, it's quite relevant, given that the Jays had to make a decision on this at some point during the current season. They did not have the luxury of waiting until after the season to decide whether or not to pick up his option for $10M.

As a result, in determining whether or not he is worth picking up, you need to determine what value he would need to provide to justify a $10M signing, and what value he is likely to provide.

Incidentally, the Jays are paying his replacements about the same as Oakland is paying him - Mench is getting $600K for the season, and the Jays picked Wilkerson off waivers - so that's a write off.

I don't know, something other than a stratospheric OBP might help your argument.

Like his overall .213 .351 .343 line? Or does the time spent in Toronto not count?

Look, I agree that he probably won't hit as badly as he did in Toronto (.167 .306 .333). But I also don't expect him to hit as well as last year, and any drop-off from last year very quickly pushes him to the point where, given that he has no defensive value and is terrible on the bases, he is no longer a player worthy of a $10M salary, which is why the Jays cut him rather than risk having to eat his salary for another season after this one.

Actually, it's quite relevant, given that the Jays had to make a decision on this at some point during the current season. They did not have the luxury of waiting until after the season to decide whether or not to pick up his option for $10M.

As a result, in determining whether or not he is worth picking up, you need to determine what value he would need to provide to justify a $10M signing, and what value he is likely to provide.

Incidentally, the Jays are paying his replacements about the same as Oakland is paying him - Mench is getting $600K for the season, and the Jays picked Wilkerson off waivers - so that's a write off.

Your first sentence in the above quote is inconsistent with the rest of the quote. The original question that I responded to was "Will Thomas next year be worth $10mil?" That's not important. The value in question is the value over the next two years for ten million since this year's salary is spent either way.

Also, is the MLB minimum really $600K now, cause that seems high to me?

Or does the time spent in Toronto not count?

If we're going to evaluate the question of whether releasing Frank Thomas was a good idea, then no, Thomas's time in Toronto doesn't count. At that point, it was a sunk cost. As was Thomas's 2008 salary, which is Eraser-X's point.

Your first sentence in the above quote is inconsistent with the rest of the quote. The original question that I responded to was "Will Thomas next year be worth $10mil?" That's not important. The value in question is the value over the next two years for ten million since this year's salary is spent either way.

Also, is the MLB minimum really $600K now, cause that seems high to me?

First off, you're right about the MLB minimum not being $600K - it's actually $390K. However, at this level, we're talking about trivial differences. After all $200K a year is probably less than what some teams spend on the post-game buffets.

Second, even using your evaluation of $10M total for the next two seasons:
a) What would Frank have to hit to make a salary of $10M over two years a reasonable salary?
b) Given his age/performance/injury history (and so on), what is the likelihood of him achieving the level of performance from (a)?