The case for Frank Thomas

by EastCoastA on Jan 13, 2006 1:45 PM PST Comment 23 comments

Before I begin, let me state that I really like the way the 2006 squad looks as of today, without Thomas. However, that is part of the reason I want the A's to sign him, which hopefully will make sense to you, fellow AN'ers, momentarily. (All of this assumes his medical tests will check out.)

What I mean is the A's do not need Thomas to save the franchise or be the AL MVP to justify his acqusition. We won't even need him to be in the lineup every day, as he undoubtedly won't be able to. If Dr. Scholls isn't working one afternoon, Thomas can sit the day out and not have to be the hero, with all the depth we will have built up.

Obviously, a player of Thomas' stature is only avaliable to a team of our financial means because of his significant injury risk. But I feel this risk is a calculated one worth taking. Judging by his career numbers, Thomas is probably a $10 million a year player, and since his market has dried up, (I think Piazza will wind up in Anahiem) I think the A's can land him for $3 million plus incentives, and very possibly less than that. Therefore, the chance of having Thomas hit for 120 or even 100 games is well worth such a relatively low cost.

Many of you have pointed out that the A's currently have starters set at each position, and feel that Thomas' addition would force a trade of another player. However, I strongly feel that this is simply not the case. For one thing, Thomas will be given numerous days off to protect his fragile feet, and other players will be able to get more days off as well, keeping them fresh throughout the season. As our esteemed GM Billy Beane pointed out in his interview with Blez, (which was very well done, thanks Blez) our team has worn down at the end of each of the last two seasons because of the lack of depth. Thomas' signing should help prevent a reoccurence in '06.

To use an example of a player who would be affected by Thomas, let's use Jay Payton. It's well known here and everywhere else how he forced his way out of Boston, and many of you worry about a repeat here in Oakland. However, I feel that Payton would still start 120 games at least, and possibly more if Kotsay's back remains troublesome. A player of Payton's stature cannot reasonably complain about not playing all 162 games; in Boston, he was upset because he never played at all. In fact, I would say that Chavez and Crosby are the only canidates to play all 162, and Chavy will likely get some of his at DH. The other starters will have days off, and this is where our new-found depth will pay off, especially late in the season and in the dog days.

If the A's sign Thomas, they will have 6 capable players manning 5 spots, keeping everyone both sharp and fresh with little decline in production. At the same time, they'll reap the benefits of Thomas' still-potent bat while not overworking him.

There is already a front page poll on this topic, so I'd like to see some in-depth response from my fellow An'ers, both pro and anti Big Hurt. Let's hear it!

0 recs | Comment 23 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

We don't need him

I see him more as a bonus point. I think he would be a great addition, but he is not essential and I will not loose sleep if we do not grab him.

Most important to me is that we don't loose anyone already on the team at this time. Rincon and Dotel are gone, therefore I am very content with the make up of the team and do NOT want anyone else to leave.

So if we can get Thomas and not feel the need to let someone go, then I will be welcoming him with open arms. But if we get him and the week after we loose JayPay or Kielty, I will be very bitter.

I don't think it is necessary to let anyone go if we do acquire Thomas, so I can get on board with the idea. But I cringe at the idea of Johnson or Swisher loosing playing time due to this change. I want them on the field as much as humanly possible. It is not fair to them or their development to have them sitting during this stage in their career.

So basically, if we get Thomas, great! If not, Great! We will be a wonderful team this year either way.

"If you know Nick, having someone to talk to is a prerequisite for his sanity." ~Billy Beane on Swisher playing 1st Base.

by BobbyCrosbysGirl on Jan 13, 2006 2:04 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

I like both Swisher and DJ

but I think they both seemed tired by the end of the year, and some days off throughout the season would help that.

In other words, I think both would be more consistently productive playing 140 games than 160.

"We've come a long way, and I'm not talking about Virginia Slims, either." - Art Howe

by EastCoastA on Jan 13, 2006 2:09 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Very true

They do need a lot more time off than they got in 2005. I love it that we are in a position where the question of rest is just not going to be a problem. But then again, how many games do you expect Thomas to play at DH?

We have Swisher in at 1st playing 140 games and DJ playing 120 games at DH then switching to first on Swish's days off, that gives Thomas 40 games MAX! Then you mentioned that Chavey would get some time at DH. So that lessens his time further. Even if we assume that Swish and DJ only play 120 games each, that is only half the season worth of playing time at most for Thomas. So how does the team balance a player, who, based on pay, should be playing more than 40 games a year, into a line-up where they are already thick with talent?

That is the reason I think this team is so amazing this year. We are so rich with talent, that we are struggling to find room for a guy to play 40 games, and we just can't do it because there is already too few ABs to go around. It really is a beautiful problem to have if you ask me. Which is why I say, I will be totally ok with not getting Thomas.

"If you know Nick, having someone to talk to is a prerequisite for his sanity." ~Billy Beane on Swisher playing 1st Base.

by BobbyCrosbysGirl on Jan 13, 2006 2:20 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Swisher will play in the OF too.

My apologies for not making that more clear.

Let's say Kotsay's back acted up on a cross country flight. Then you'd have Payton, Bradley, and Swisher in the outfield, DJ at first, and Big Hurt at DH.

Then say Bradley's knee is sort, switch him with Kotsay, same thing.

"We've come a long way, and I'm not talking about Virginia Slims, either." - Art Howe

by EastCoastA on Jan 13, 2006 2:24 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Ok, I didn't think about that.

But there is still the Kielty factor. What to do with him?

"If you know Nick, having someone to talk to is a prerequisite for his sanity." ~Billy Beane on Swisher playing 1st Base.

by BobbyCrosbysGirl on Jan 13, 2006 2:31 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

As for Kielty

He'll just resume his post as an extremely expensive clown who knows how to make magic against left handed pitchers (along with the occasional magic against righties-see: home run in extras off Goggle Rod, or walk off homer in 14 against texas)

RIP Bill King "By the Beard of Zeus!" "I don't know if you heard me counting. I did over a thousand"

by ohad on Jan 13, 2006 2:49 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Yeah, maybe, but

I was sorta hopin' we'd see Daric Barton get called up sometime this year.

by kvn on Jan 13, 2006 4:03 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Beane

Has as much of a crush on Swisher and Johnson as you and I do. No way they are benched. If Thomas was signed, Johnson would move back to first, Swisher to left, and Payton would become the rotating 4th outfielder.

RIP Bill King "By the Beard of Zeus!" "I don't know if you heard me counting. I did over a thousand"

by ohad on Jan 13, 2006 2:13 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Remember, though ...

... if we do "lose" Kielty or Payton, it would most likely be in a trade, which would mean improving the team even more and/or bolstering our minor-league depth.

And, though I'm a fan of both players and think they'll provide valuable on-field performance for the A's in '06, they're both a bit on the expensive side for the production they're likely to provide. And Payton, anyway, could likely bring decent value in trade (Kielty right now, not so much).

@('.')@

by monkeyball on Jan 13, 2006 3:01 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I'm with you

Right now, the A's have 9 players who are solid starters - at least average for their position, overall - and four more (Kielty, Scutaro, Perez, Melhuse) who I wouldn't really want playing full-time, but are good enough to play once or twice a week without killing the team. Beyond that, I think our depth at the AAA level is a little weak right now - Barton isn't likely to be ready to contribute yet, and guys like Charles Thomas, Ginter, and Watson, even if they bounce back a little from poor seasons last year, still have some serious weaknesses in their games.

Adding Frank Thomas, and making that ten good starters, with four good backups, would still be worthwhile in giving the team the depth to deal with a long-term injury without losing a beat. I'd still feel good about this team even if that doesn't happen, but if the price is right, there's little to lose by adding another bat.

Bright moments!

by andeux on Jan 13, 2006 2:10 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

Just his presence..

Alone, is the intimidation factor this team needs. Yes, this team is very good on paper right now, but as far as I know, there is still one spot left on the 25 man roster. Who gets it? Adding Thomas, and putting him behind Chavvy, FINALY gets Chavvy some pitches to hit. We would be satisfied to get 100 games out of him because even the fact that he is sitting in the dugout, waiting for a PH (with his rebar practice bat in hand) has got to get into the mind of oposing pitchers.

by ImagoDei on Jan 13, 2006 2:37 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

12 HR's in 100 AB's

He's worth an incentive-based contract. If he doesn't play, he doesn't get paid. It's worth the risk. If he's healthy, it can be HUGE.

by gdubb925 on Jan 13, 2006 3:12 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

given your last sentence ...

... would it be accurate to say that you have some Frank "performance anxiety"?

@('.')@

by monkeyball on Jan 13, 2006 3:30 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Thomas and Payton

In agreement with ohad's comment that Thomas's ABs would for the most part be taking the place of Payton AB's, its tough not to like a thomas signing. How about $3 million guaranteed, +$1 million for 300 PA's, +$2 million for 500 PA's. Obviously, I have no idea what kind of an incentives heavy contract would be both ideal for the A's and necessary for Thomas.

by SwisherSweet on Jan 13, 2006 3:15 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

rotation

consider there are 5 spots for the 6 primary players, chavez, swisher, johnson, kotsay, thomas, and payton. also remember that with the ban on amphetamines, players will most likely need more rest than in past seasons. rounding off to 160 games on the season:

1b)Johnson-120 Swisher-40
dh)Chavez-20 Thomas-100 Johnson-40
lf)Swisher-120 Payton-40
cf)Kotsay-120 Payton-40
rf)Bradley-120 Payton-40

Kotsay and Bradley have less playing time due to their increased injury risk. Payton still gets playing time without reducing that of Johnson and Swisher. Kielty could sub whenever extra rest is needed and as insurance for when an injury occurs or aganist certain righties.

by li812 on Jan 13, 2006 3:35 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

So

No playing time for Kielty?

"If you know Nick, having someone to talk to is a prerequisite for his sanity." ~Billy Beane on Swisher playing 1st Base.

by BobbyCrosbysGirl on Jan 13, 2006 3:40 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

kielty

i dont think that swisher and johnson will actually play all 162 games so he would get some playing time, but he hasn't seemed of primary condern to people when they have been considering signing thomas, so i didn't numerically factor him into the equation. it has been the other 4 outfielders and johnson that most people focus on.

by li812 on Jan 13, 2006 3:46 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

I honestly don't think we need him right now

I'm optimistic about the team we have at the moment.

by Squeaky on Jan 13, 2006 4:08 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

This might be a crazy theory...

but I'm going to say it anyway....

I can't find the quote, but Buck Showalter said recently that without steroids the game is going to change, no more 60 or 70Hr seasons, and without the massive offensive power the speed, defense, contact, pitching, stolen Bases, hit and runs etc... etc... would be really important in the near future, basically we are going back to the early 80's...

Like Showalter, many people around baseball is looking that way and I think our GM is one of them, Beane has built this team based on speed, defense, contact hitters and pitching...

Speed: We have average to above average runners at every position, In fact even our Catcher runs really well, I think DJ is the only player who can't go from 1st to 3rd with at single...

Defense: This OF is the most impressive defensive OF I have seen in years, without steroids we are going to see less balls in the bleachers and more ball on the field, and that's why a good OF would be so important...

Contact: No team SO less than the A's in the AL last year, our players are really good making contact and as long you put the ball in play you have a good chance to score some runs...

Pitching: Do I have to say something about it?

This team is set, we have all the pieces to be a championship team in the NON-STEROIDS era...

Thomas WAS really good, but I think he isn't a perfect fit for this team at this moment, right now IF HEALTHY he can only help in ONE way, because he can't run (heck we don't know if he can even walk) and he can't play defense and yes he hit 12 HR in 105 AB last year, but he also SO 31 times, last year he couldn't hit a good fastball, his bat is getting really SLOW and he's not getting younger, or better for that matter...

I'm not sure about him, Thomas has never been a platoon player and he has never been a team player, I'm not sure if he's going to be fine with it, and when he's upset he could be a very destructive force in the clubhouse (just ask Jerry Manuel), I just hope Kenny can handle this situation if we finally sign him...

by Olijerez77 on Jan 13, 2006 5:18 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

Best noninjury-related argument contra FT ...

... but it opens itself up to a counterargument, namely that Thomas would "round out" the A's lineup/roster with one big traditional high-OPS, low-speed slugger.

@('.')@

by monkeyball on Jan 13, 2006 7:27 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

He'd be a great addition, super!

The more I look at the A's, the more I see their glaring weakness is Isolated Power. The best IsoP on the team now is Swisher, which is why I think he'll play a lot, and why he'll play more than people think, even if he doesn't regain bat discipline.

But Frank Thomas? The A's having had a banger like him since, well, the steroid brothers, or their Yankee-loving follower. The chance to get 300 ABs from him, even at this decrepit stage of his career -- would have a huge impact on this team and its ability to score runs.

He is so much better a power hitter than anyone on the team, there really is no debate about getting him, but for the price. He'll change things so much when he's in the line-up. Its almost too good to contemplate.

Who would lose playing time? I don't know. Maybe no one. Has there ever been a year when the A's haven't had at least one hurting outfielder or big stick? It was Ruby last year.

To me, Bradley, Swisher, Johnson, Crosby and Chavez are the power in the A's order. Payton, Kielty, Kotsay -- from the standpoint of offense -- are interchangeable. So without an injury, probably the losers are Payton and Kielty. And Scutaro.

by dingerpower on Jan 13, 2006 5:37 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

Compensation

Sorry if this has already been discussed, but does anyone know if the signing would make us lose a draft pick. I am all for singing Thomas, but just wondering if the second round pick would be gone as well.

by bloodshot13 on Jan 13, 2006 6:01 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

Nope

The Sox declined arby because it would have cost them about 10 mil. Which means that we are free to sign him with no loss (well, except that it costs us money).

"A nickel ain't worth a dime anymore." - Yogi Berra

by vignette17 on Jan 13, 2006 9:14 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs