Why did BB want Kennedy?

by SoCal As Fan on Jul 12, 2005 4:39 PM PDT

I was checkin out the free agent pool in my fantasy league, and who should show up (way down in the rankings btw) on the pitchers list... none other than Joe Kennedy. I clicked on his notes and saw this;

The Colorado Rockies have decided to shift Kennedy to the bullpen when they resume play after the All-Star break. The lefthander was the team's Opening Day starter this season, but he has struggled most of the year, posting a 4-8 record and 7.04 ERA in 16 outings.

Now this is the same guy who had one foot in the door in Oakland, and was high on BB trade for list. How happy are we that he didnt hit the panick button and let our young pitching staff work through their early season slumps?

Tweet Comment 17 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

I have no reason

to believe BB wanted Kennedy. I only have reason to believe that Kennedy -> the A's was the subject of rumors.

My position on rumors: 90% of all rumors are false. The other 10% are simply ridiculous.

Nico

by Nico on Jul 12, 2005 4:43 PM PDT reply actions

And...

...having a 7+ ERA at Coors Field is like being a 4-5 ERA guy anywhere else.

Mike Hampton anyone?

by Ozzz on Jul 12, 2005 5:11 PM PDT up reply actions

I'm not sure about Beane, but I would like...

Joe Kennedy because he's 26 years old as a starting left handed pitcher, and would fit nicely to be our lefty specialist. Colorado really has no need for him as well, especially when he's making 2.2M, age 26, and not really dominant.

Moving him to a different league could only help him as well.

I'm not going to get into the numbers, but i'm sure if we obtained Kennedy, he would most likely be in the bullpen to face lefty's during certain situations.

However, the asking price from Colorado was probably too much, especially for a club that's trying to rebuild and pretty much doing nothing to improve that. When the owners of Colorado find that it would be advantageous for them to shop some aged players, the Rockies might actually get some young talent for their players for their future. However, by their history, it would seem that their owners could care less.

by Instant Replay Umpire on Jul 12, 2005 5:52 PM PDT reply actions

LOOGY?

Why acquire Kennedy to fill Rincon's job for more money? Rincon has proven that he can do it, Kennedy has not.

"Baseball is dull only to dull minds."
Red Barber, announcer

by Furious George on Jul 12, 2005 6:28 PM PDT up reply actions

But

How do you prove you can do the job as a pitcher in a place where pitchers get hammered every night?

by Ozzz on Jul 12, 2005 7:31 PM PDT up reply actions

You could start

by not getting hammered on the road too.

Nico

by Nico on Jul 12, 2005 8:06 PM PDT up reply actions

We don't have a LOOGY

Rincon hasn't been that lights out against lefties this season. We have like half a loogy. A loo, or maybe a runny nose if you will; not a bonafide LOOGY.

Kennedy would be a welcome addition and would be more productive for us than Bradford or Payton.

by fadedash on Jul 12, 2005 9:31 PM PDT up reply actions

Rincon

He's not the best but he's good enough. For 2.2 million we can get better. Maybe if Colorado pays some of his salary and doesn't ask for much in a trade I'll go for it. It makes sense to trade for him based on his value being about as low as possible, but it doesn't make sense to trade for him as a reliever when we don't even know how he's going to perform in relief.

"Baseball is dull only to dull minds."
Red Barber, announcer

by Furious George on Jul 12, 2005 9:54 PM PDT up reply actions

Makes more sense than paying Payton $3m.

Is $2.2m really that much of a blow to the bank balance?

by Ozzz on Jul 13, 2005 8:50 AM PDT up reply actions

To Furious George

If I was the GM, I might just try to acquire Kennedy for cheap, and that would give us more options to trade or keep Rincon too, if Kennedy pans out.

Kennedy could also pose as our 6th starter, or long relief guy as well if LOOGY doesn't work out.

Of course all of this is pretty much a non-issue because Colorado is asking for too much.

by Instant Replay Umpire on Jul 12, 2005 9:31 PM PDT reply actions

His 2004 numbers were a lot more favourable

And I'm not saying we should have got him, but yeah - 3.66 ERA for a pitcher who plays at Coors is pretty good, and you'd be forgiven for thinking someone who can do that in any year has at least some talent. That said, if you delve deeper into his 2004 numbers, there are things that should cool any enthusiasm or desire to trade for him.

by textonly on Jul 13, 2005 6:29 AM PDT reply actions

i predict kennedy will be an A by:

the end of this week. bradford WILL be traded to boston for payton and beane will flip payton to the rockies for kennedy. kennedy will end up in the bullpen or scarloos might be traded and kennedy will start. either way, mark it down.

We're not dunderheads here...

by bigelephant on Jul 13, 2005 7:12 AM PDT reply actions

i'd be okay with that.

It'd basically be a trade of Bradford for Kennedy. Not much ventured, not much gained, but with a higher upside than present.

Decent deal.

by Ozzz on Jul 13, 2005 8:52 AM PDT up reply actions

agreed,

it would be classical billy beane to make that trade.

We're not dunderheads here...

by bigelephant on Jul 13, 2005 9:00 AM PDT up reply actions

If Kennedy

becomes an A, I think he will be tried as a starter. He has shown flashes of being pretty good in the past. I don't know who would be sent to the pen.

If Kennedy does well his value would increase immensely either as a keeper, or, some future moves.

by sommers on Jul 13, 2005 8:28 AM PDT reply actions

I don't see any reason

to believe that Kennedy (a mechanical nightmare who has been pitching terribly) would be a "definite upgrade" over Saarloos, worth altering a rotation that is part of a team that is clicking beautifully. Makes no sense = won't happen, IMO.

Nico

by Nico on Jul 13, 2005 8:48 AM PDT reply actions