Ricciardi's quotes in the National Post are crystal-clear on the reason why Frank Thomas was dumped.  He was dumped for disloyalty.   It was a Hillebrand-style dumping.  By refusing to shake hands with his teammates after a game, he signaled that he was no longer supporting the team.  At that point, he had to be dumped -- just like Hillebrand had to be dumped when he scrawled his chalkboard comment about "the ship is sinking."    Ricciardi makes it very clear -- the team immediately became 24 players, instead of 25, as soon as Thomas refused to shake hands with his teammmates.  At that point, he had to be axed, even if the team had no replacement ready in the wings.

    This explains two other things:  1) statistical analysis is useless in arguing whether Thomas should have been kept or not.  Team loyalty and team unity are paramount.  You can be a .300 hitter, but if you are disloyal to your team, you are gone.  Stats don't factor that into the equation.  Maybe he will become a good hitter for another team, but the Jays simply couldn't keep him.     2) the team is scrambling for a replacement for Thomas because it never expected him to be gone so soon.  This helps explain some of the chaos in the  LF and DH slots in recent games.

If camaradarie and unity are that important to this team, I don't see how signing a me-first prima donna clubhouse cancer like Bonds is a step in the right direction, unless he was to return to his 2001 level of production.  If management's confidence in Lind really is that eroded, there's still gotta be a safer choice out there.  Sammy Sosa?  Mike Pizza?  Kenny Lofton?

"Basically, I've been told that I'm not going to be in that lineup," Thomas said. "Gibby told me that this morning. I see it as something else is going on. We'll see how that plays out.

"You know what's going on and I know what's going on. We'll see how it plays out. I'm just a little frustrated right now. There are some things going on around here this year that I haven't been happy about."

At least for now, Thomas has been informed that he's going to reside on the Jays' bench -- a result of another early season slump for the veteran. Sitting in front of his locker prior to Toronto's game against Detroit, Thomas expressed frustration over the change and questioned whether there was more to the move than mere statistics.

Do you see what I'm getting at (see bold)?

First of all, almost all 1b's are slow.

Yes, most first basemen are slow. That was a dumb remark on my part. But the predictive value of Overbay's late career start can't be ignored, if history is any indicator.

Many GMs, not just Ricciardi, seem to hand out fat contracts on the heels of a career season, without the sober objectivity to consider that the career season may not represent the player's true ability. We see it with free agents all the time. And we see it with contract extensions. We saw it with Overbay. We saw it with Wells.

I'm not saying this is an exact science, obviously, but rewarding players for performances you are not likely to see again seems to be more wishcasting than clear-headed management.

At least for now, Thomas has been informed that he's going to reside on the Jays' bench -- a result of another early season slump for the veteran. Sitting in front of his locker prior to Toronto's game against Detroit, Thomas expressed frustration over the change and questioned whether there was more to the move than mere statistics.

Do you see what I'm getting at (see bold)?

No, I don't see what you're getting at.  Your initial complaint seemed to rely significantly on the fact the Jays shouldn't have gone to the media with Thomas' benching and I don't see anything different here.  There are no quotes from Gibbons or JP and reading the article further (to the quote that I posted above) it indicates that Frank was the one who broke the news that it wasn't a one-day switch.

To remind you - your initial point was: The real point to be made is that it was extremely short-sighted to officially bench Thomas and talk about it in  public. This is what led to the "disloyalty".

     Robertdudek,  I still don't get your point.   The Jays did exactly what you believe they should have done.  They called Thomas into the office and, just as you wanted, they told him:  "Frank - we've decided to go with Matt as the everyday DH.  We'd like you to stay on getting ABs against lefties mostly."   They did not announce anything to the media, they did not announce anything publicly.   But he exploded, interpreted it as a benching, became paranoid that the Jays were trying to destroy his chances of getting his 2009 option, and complained publicly to the media.  And then he refused to shake the hands of his teammates after the game.  And then -- after all of these provocations from Thomas -- the Jays again did exactly what you say they should have done.  They called him into the office again and said:  "If you want, we can give you your release." 

   There is no evidence that the Jays precipitated the incident by announcing publicly that Thomas was benched.  They politely told him that Stairs would be getting most of the DH work.  Thomas erupted childishly and disloyally, and he was gone. 

    It's quite likely that the media sniffed out the fact of the benching and, logically enough, went to Thomas for his reaction.  This, by the way, is what sportswriters do when they're not doing calculus in the basement -- they're digging up the interesting stories on the team and disclosing them to the public.   

     Now, if you want to allege that the Jays deliberately told the media about the benching of Thomas, just to humiliate him and drive him out of the team, please provide some evidence.  Otherwise it's just your own speculation.

  By the way, Thomas wouldn't have to call a news conference to make his complaint.   Reporters are constantly approaching players and asking for their comments.  In this case, what probably happened is this:  The sportswriters notice that Thomas is not in the lineup.  They go up to him -- as they routinely do for many players -- and say:  "Hey, what's up, Frank?  Are you injured tonight?  Or just taking a breather?"   And he grumbles:    "They don't want me in the lineup tonight."   The reporters ask the obvious follow-up question:  "How come?"   And he angrily tells the whole story.   That's the way these things happen, 95 per cent of the time.

   Alternatively, it could have gone this way:  the media notice that Thomas is not in the lineup, they ask Gibbons why not, Gibbons politely declines to discuss it, and the media go to Thomas, who explodes with his complaint.

   Those are the most likely explanations, and neither one of them is lacking in class in any way, except on the Thomas side.

Anyone think that JP gets a little bit too much heat for all of this kind of stuff?

Thomas, Lilly, Hillenbrand......these guys have a history of leaving teams on bad terms.

1. Thomas behaviour was poor. Spouting off to the press is annoying enough, but not shaking hands with the team is unacceptable. They had nothing to do with the decision.
2. Management should have foreseen the possibility of a blowup- last thing they needed right now- and managed things better. For example "Frank, we are going to give Matt more ABs against righties until you are swinging the bat more consistently". If he turns around you move him back to a FT role, if not...
3. Leaving Lind in the minors is making them look hypocritical. The rationale for benching Thomas was they couldn't afford to fall further behind, yet they leave Lind to rot in the minors while their bench further decays
   

    I'm going to try, one more time, to understand the argument that the Jays were "unclassy" in their handling of Thomas.  If I understand your point correctly, the Jays should have axed him without even offering him the chance at a part-time gig?   He's batting poorly, so he should have been called into the manager's office and told:  "Frank, we know you'll never accept a benching, even for a few games, so boom, you're gone. Clean out your locker."  And this would be good for morale?  Good for the team?

    Your other point, apparently, is that the Jays fully knew that Thomas would act like a selfish child if he was benched, and the Jays fully expected that he would refuse to shake the hands of his own teammates.  All of these immature behaviors were completely predictable, according to this theory, and were actually manipulated by the Jays with the explicit purpose of pushing him off the team while making the management look good.

     I have to disagree.  I don't think anyone could have expected that Thomas would act so childishly as to refuse to shake the hands of his own teammates.  I find it implausible that the whole chain of events, including his own bizarre behavior, was controlled by management puppet-masters who just wanted Frank to look bad.

First - no reason to yell out indefinitely.  We aim to a higher standard here.

I think Robert knows the standards around here, he's one of the founding fathers of the Box and a very astute baseball observer , and especially in the early days a very frequent contributor. He can be acerbic ( trust me I've been on the other side of an arguement with him )  and I realize his opinion on this matter is contrary to that of the majority, but I think it's sound. This place should not be a mutual fan boys circle jerk.

This whole Thomas situation, as somebody opined is very messy, tossing a hall of fame player under the bus, based on a sample size of 0.007 % of his career is very debatable. The notion that Thomas is "done like dinner",  in analytical circles is certainly not clear.

Your other point, apparently, is that the Jays fully knew that Thomas would act like a selfish child if he was benched, and the Jays fully expected that he would refuse to shake the hands of his own teammates.  All of these immature behaviors were completely predictable, according to this theory, and were actually manipulated by the Jays with the explicit purpose of pushing him off the team while making the management look good. I have to disagree.  I don't think anyone could have expected that Thomas would act so childishly as to refuse to shake the hands of his own teammates.  I find it implausible that the whole chain of events, including his own bizarre behavior, was controlled by management puppet-masters who just wanted Frank to look bad.

Not to derail the original argument, which I've sort of lost pace with, but I think this Thomas situation was quite clean.  Afterall, he's already an Athletic just four days later.  He was benched (the exact reason is pure speculation).  He didn't like it.  They immediately met with Thomas to rectify the situation and concluded their relationship within hours in the only manner that was acceptable to both parties - outright release.  No "designation for assignment".  No "we'll try to trade you, just stew on the bench for a few weeks and avoid the media."  It was simple - "you're not helping us right now"...."then cut me".

It can seem messy when we make assumptions and argue with each other based on our own perceptions of what actually happened.

It should have gone like this ... A) Frank called into Ricciardi's office, B) Ricciardi: "we want to make you a part-time player", C) Frank: "I didn't sign on to be a part time player", D) Ricciardi: "If you can't accept it, we'll have to grant you your release", E) Frank: "fine with me".

That's really no different than how it reportedly went down ... A) Frank called into Gibbons' office, B) Gibbons: "you're going to the bench for the time being", C) Frank to the media: "I didn't sign on to be a part time player, we all know what's going on here", D) Ricciardi (next day in his office): "what do you want us to do", E) Frank: "release me".

Sorry, A.Y., but there is a HUGE difference between your scenario and mine. Under my scenario, handshake-gate never happens and Frank doesn't get to talk to the media about how unhappy he is because he's been told he has to ride the pine.

fair enough....I guess I can see what you're driving at.  It'd still be a huge story though, and JP would be getting burned if nobody was given the opportunity to see Big Frank at his best (discontent).  But I guess I agree that what you propose it the "right" way to handle it, if JP was in on the decision to bench Thomas (likely).

I don't really understand what Beane's thinking here.

I'd guess that his thinking runs along the lines of "this guy singlehandedly dragged my team into the playoffs just two years ago, finishing 4th in MVP voting because of it, and here I can pick him up for FREE".

Closure?  Some wonderful posts in there.

Last week I muddled my way into the perennial debate over Gibby's usage of Frasor.  There was much talk of whether or not Frasor could be trusted in high leverage situations, or whether he repeatedly shattered his manager's faith at each opportunity.  Unsurprisingly, statistics are once again coming to the defence of Mr. Green.  It's as though Mike personally commissioned the Appleman Study.  Oh well.  I may be wrong on this one, and it may not be the last time.  I humbly present Jason Frasor - second most clutchy reliever in baseball in 2007.

I'm sorry if you don't accept this. All I can say is that you don't understand ballplayers like Frank Thomas very well.

I'm sure your years of watching Frank Thomas on TV has given you keen insight into the psychological make-up of Frank Thomas.

  Just to change the subject slightly, and to broaden the discussion to include another malcontent who was dumped by the Jays, whatever happened to Shea Hillenbrand?   Having mentioned him earlier, I checked to see where he was playing these days, and cannot find any record of him anywhere in the majors or the minors.  Is he out of baseball?  If so, that was an extremely swift descent.  I know he was having difficulty finding anyone to sign him as a free agent (after the $7-million he was getting last season), but does anyone know if he is playing anywhere these days?

Shea is out of baseball. His son was recently attacked by a pet lemur.

No. That is not a joke.

http://ballhype.com/story/shea_hillenbrand_s_pet_lemer_attacked_his_son/

Clog alert. Thomas is on base for Oakland.

And speaking of clogging, wasn't it Jamie Campbell who made the "clogging the bases" remark about Thomas, with Mulliniks simply agreeing with him rather than being the one spouting the words himself?

I want to like Jamie Campbell more than I do. He seems affable, he is skilled at adapting his style to best accommodate the colour man du jour (and they are all very different) and he is enthusiastic. But I don't think his knowledge of baseball has improved a whit since he started this gig. He still makes too many Fauldsian gaffes.

As others have noted, Mulliniks is not terribly charismatic and is sometimes a little too textbook (productive outs and all), but he is one sharp fellow otherwise. The way he is able to think along with the pitcher reveals exactly how a player with his limited physical ability was able to succeed as he did. I always thought he would make a fine batting coach.

It's not complicated. Hall of Fame type ballplayers don't ever think they need to be benched. They are always going to be unhappy about it. Frank, based on various situations well-known to the public, does not have a reputation for grinning-and-bearing-it. Use a little logic and it isn't too hard to predict Frank's reaction.

I would hazard a guess that 99% of players don't ever think they need to be benched.  Your analysis reads like a gross over-simplification.

Rolen will be activated tonight:

http://www.globesports.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080424.wsptrolen0420/GSStory/GlobeSportsBaseball/home

Should we be concerned about his 0-9 showing during his rehabilitation assignment in A+?

According to Blair, Rolen will bat 6th upon his return tomorrow night, behind Wells and Stairs.  So the batting order should look like this going forward:

Eckstein
Hill
Rios
Wells
Stairs
Rolen
Overbay
Zaun
Scutaro/Inglett

Hopefully Ricciardi wakes up from his coma soon so that Lind can get in the lineup instead of Scutaro or Inglett.  I'd bat Lind 8th (for now) against righties and 9th against lefties, until his feet are wet and then hopefully move him up in the order.

I have to say that the recent discussions have restored a lot of my faith in this site - good solid comments, whether I agree with them or not.

I had been increasingly concerned lately that a lot of silly whining and second-guessing, especially after losses, was crowding out the substantive discussions.

Oops, I meant played right into their hands. Well I guess that's what previewing is for.

I also don't understand why people think Adam Lind will be up tomorrow. JP was extremely dismissive about him in calls yesterday, it was very odd. Something might be up there.

• Stewart over Johnson - some argument for this but Johnson is younger and appears healthy - I assumed when the Jays dumped him they saw something we couldn't see, that he couldn't play defense as well or that his bat wouldn't return but neither seems to be the case
• Thomas situation - while I can understand what the Jays did, signing Thomas was odd for the money it cost (again, can see why they did it but it was an odd use of limited resources - taking up 10% of your budget on an older player who could cliff dive at any moment) then not finding a better way to defuse the situation this year
• Lind in AAA - the only baseball reason would be they don't think  he is ready yet
• Ignoring two free agents who could help today - Bonds (for obvious reasons), and Piazza who at least could platoon with Stairs and/or Overbay while being an emergency third catcher
  

Wilner stated in his blog that both Rolen and "probably" Lind will be in the lineup tonight against KC.  Let's hope so!  I don't know if it's a hunch or if Wilner has been given a tip from a source, but he projects a lineup with Stairs batting 5th, Rolen 6th, and Lind 7th, ahead of Overbay batting 8th.  I guess it makes sense to have Lind, who's hit for power this year in AAA, hitting behind Rolen who has the highest career OBP on the team. 

Blair made no mention of Lind, though.  We shall see tonight.

Sorry, here's the link:

http://blog.rogersbroadcasting.com/mikewilner/2008/04/25/the-crappiest-place-on-earth/