management is willing to open their wallet..."

So would signing Burnett (although, he doesn't quite fit the short term qualification of your post, if that was a qualification).  It doesn't make it a wise decision.  We must be careful when looking for the management to prove to the fans that they are willing to spend more; we must seperate the desire for proof of that from smart decisions.  Maybe not signing the ominously nicknamed big hurt would be the wise decision.  I, for one, am for getting him if for 4-6 mil/yr for 1-2 years, but will not say that not signing him is an indication of scrooge-like finances.

This organization has already proven that they are about winning when it comitted to Beane, I do not need constant reassurance, especially if that reassurance would pressure the management to take risky moves that they would otherwise not make (again, I think that Thomas at the right price could mitigate risk, and be a smart decision, but disconected from an indication that management is comitted).

If they want to prove to me that they are comitted to winning (something they have aleady done, as I have said previously), they can continue to lock up our young studs, when the time comes try a little harder to resign our players (but again, not to the detriment of the franchise) and decidedly NOT just go after players, PARTICULARLY in free agency-where just about everyone is overpriced, because they want to keep up the image thay they are doing someting for the off-season mental health of the fan base.

But, one last time:  The Big Hurt would be a nice addition if he's not... well, hurt a significant portion of the season.  If it isn't the right price, then I implore you, management, to WALK AWAY.   What's that line, 'you can always recover from the player you didn't sign, you may never recover from the player you did sign, but at the wrong price,' or something.

As long as the price tag isn't too high.  Maybe 3-4 mil would do the trick.  At any rate it would certainly be taking a huge risk, one with potentially tremendous returns.  Thomas has not lost any power, and still has that tremendous command of the strike zone.  What he has lost is some bat speed, so it would be unreasonable to expect an average close to .300.  However, If he's anywhere close to healthy, he will make his trots to first and around the bases.  I'd say .250/375/525 is a reasonable projection, with around 250-300 at bats at DH.  I understand there is a healthy risk of Thomas succumbing to injuries, but I'm sick of Oakland never taking chances.  Sometimes it's better to take a calculated risk than to sit back and watch.  Nonetheless, If Thomas is looking for bigger money or anything more than a 1 year deal w/ an option, I wouldn't give him the time of day.

a healthy everyday player that can also field a position occaisionally

if he'll take it, we should offer it to him. i bet he'll get better offers and more guaranteed money from the teams w/ deeper pockets, though. but if he takes a deal w/ us predicated on him getting a higher salary if he gets, say 400 AB's, he's worth it. cuz if thomas gets 400 AB's in a year, he'll probably have a better year than any of our recent dh's.

flier, sure i would take him. but would he take it, that is the question...coming from a $10 million /year contract, this is high unlikely. money=respect.

I'd do it.  Anymore than $1M and the Big Skirt can take his injury act to another team's DL.  

I don't really want the guy at all.  He can't field.  There's no positional flexibility with him.  He'll spend most of his time on the DL, meaning we still need another option for the games he misses, something that a low-budget team cannot really afford.  

If he wants to sign for less than $1M, it might be worth it to have him around.  Otherwise, we're just throwing money away on a guy we'll have to have a ready backup for anyway since he's injured all the time.