did we get anything for kennedy?

by guy incognito on Aug 10, 2007 1:38 PM PDT Comment 40 comments

haven't seen anybody come our way from arizona. does that mean no deal was reached and we basically gave him away? as maddening as he had been this year for us, wouldn't he have been a type b free agent, considering how good a reliever he had been for us the past 2 seasons? we could have at least gotten a decent draft pick had we sucked up the cost of keeping him the rest of the year.

0 recs | Comment 40 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Does it really matter??

Kennedy is GONE and that is all that I could have hoped for! WOO!

"I'm already in Barry's head! He doesn't want to play against ME!" - Kotsay on facing Zito, Fan Fest 2007

by BobbyCrosbysGirl on Aug 10, 2007 1:34 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

I know what we got for Kennedy:

the absence of Kennedy!

"We are all gods. You can never underestimate the creative potential of a human being. Nor the destructive potential."- Robert Pollard, GbV

by The Pilots Dared Me To Die on Aug 11, 2007 11:35 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

$800,000

is what "we" [sic] got from the Diamondbacks; i.e. the rest of his salary for the year.

You only get a compensatory pick for a free agent if you offer that free agent salary arbitration and the player declines it.

People have concluded that the A's allowed Kennedy to be taken because Kennedy would likely have accepted salary arbitration if it had been offered. Given his poor performance this year, he was unlikely to get a substantial long-term offer and might well have opted for arbitration, which would likely have netted him ~$4 million from the A's and forced them to rehire him.

And there's no guarantee that he'd even be a Type B, although I'm not sure anyone outside the "biz" knows how Elias determines whether a player is a starter or a reliever.

by PaulThomas on Aug 10, 2007 1:39 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Even as a reliever, he'd be borderline ...

"It's for your own good. Big strong Devo knows whats best for Poppy" -- Mossback

by devo on Aug 10, 2007 1:41 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I believe we just let him go ...

It looked like he was going to be pretty borderline for gaining Type B status and he only had any chance if he qualified as a reliever, not a starter.

Even so, he wouldn't be a great bet to be given a multi-year deal, so there's a very decent chance he'd accept arbitration.

"It's for your own good. Big strong Devo knows whats best for Poppy" -- Mossback

by devo on Aug 10, 2007 1:41 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Plus, his pitching motion

frightened babies.

I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal

by Nico on Aug 10, 2007 1:46 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

I thought that was his chin

Signatures? We don't need no stinking signatures.

by jubjub on Aug 10, 2007 1:52 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Or his ERA.

The Kendall Shift: 6 infielders and 2 catchers.

by Ozzz on Aug 10, 2007 7:52 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

we got an empty roster spot

A's v Giants "is kind of like the difference between going to see the Ramones and going to see the Bee Gees. A's fans will go see the Ramones." -BB 07/27/05

by xbhaskarx on Aug 10, 2007 1:47 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

And so far the empty roster spot

has been more effective against right-handed hitters than Kennedy was, so the move is already paying off.

I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal

by Nico on Aug 10, 2007 1:49 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

We already had plenty of those

Chavez, Crosby, ...

Signatures? We don't need no stinking signatures.

by jubjub on Aug 10, 2007 1:52 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

anyone know

whatever happened to the Stewart claim? Just pulled back?

Let's have our Piazza and eat the Cust too - SPWC

by closetasfan on Aug 10, 2007 2:19 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

JoKe thinks the A's are cheap!

Asked if he thought the A’s decision to remove him from the rotation had something to do with that, he simply said, "Do the math."

link

by gotgreen on Aug 10, 2007 2:22 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

He's right

That's why they let him go for nothing. There's no way they think Lugo's better than him.

by Danny on Aug 10, 2007 2:28 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Wrong

Not only does Lugo have an almost identical career ERA (4.75 to Kennedy's 4.73) in limited major league time, Lugo is a year younger, has more upside (this is Kennedy's 7th big league season; is he really going to get much better?), and is under the A's control for the next 5 years.

Given that the A's saved $800,000, letting Kennedy go was a no-brainer. And he was removed as a starter because 4 of his last 5 starts were pretty horrible (remember the last one: 2/3 of an inning, 4 ER's). If he'd been pitching well, I think the A's would have been glad to pay him an extra $100,000. Instead he'd become ineffective. Why have him to clog up a roster spot?

And I suppose Kennedy thinks Arizona is cheap too for not starting him and letting him hit his contract incentives....

by andyinfremont on Aug 10, 2007 4:06 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

right?

Lugo has nearly an identical ERA, but he's pitched exclusively as a reliever. Relievers, as a whole, have an ERA nearly a half run lower than starters.

I don't think Kennedy was removed from the rotation due to cheapness (I don't even see how that could make sense), but I think he was given to Arizona as a financial move rather than a baseball one.

Lugo is under the A's control for longer, but I don't see why that necessitates calling him up for August instead of just September.

by Danny on Aug 10, 2007 4:16 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Lugo's stuff is vastly superior

to Kennedy's. He's a live-arm/dead-head type guy. Kennedy was struggling just to hit the strike zone and not have the ball get instantly clobbered.

Or to put it another way, Lugo's ceiling is waaaay higher than Kennedy's.

I actually thought your original post was sarcastic. Apparently, not so.

by PaulThomas on Aug 10, 2007 4:43 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Ceiling

I don't understand why you're so focused on Lugo's ceiling. The A's control him beyond this year regardless, and they would have brought him up in September whether Kennedy was here or not.

by Danny on Aug 10, 2007 5:21 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

JoKe sucks ...

Lugo aside, JoKe was not helping us win this year and he was not going to be part of the team next year. Not wanting to pay him if they have the option is not cheap, it's just common sense.

"It's for your own good. Big strong Devo knows whats best for Poppy" -- Mossback

by devo on Aug 10, 2007 4:43 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Track record

Kennedy has a long track record of being an average pitcher. Unless there's an injury issue we don't know about, one month of poor pithcing doesn't change that.

They let Kennedy go to save money, not to win baseball games. I don't think that was necessarily a bad decision (though it certainly will be if he's a B free agent), but it does indicate cheapness.

by Danny on Aug 10, 2007 5:18 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

They did let him go to save money

BECAUSE he wasn't going to help them win baseball games. He wasn't playing well, being used, or going to be back. Jettisoning his salary isn't cheap, it's smart.

Compensation is unlikely to matter (or exist) in this case because we were unlikely to take the risk of him accepting arbitration.

"It's for your own good. Big strong Devo knows whats best for Poppy" -- Mossback

by devo on Aug 10, 2007 5:46 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

On the contrary...

Kennedy wasn't helping us win ballgames. He was horrible for over a month -- to use your words, he was "an average pitcher" who pitched himself off the club. He wasn't going to be resigned, so the A's had zero reasons to keep him.

Bringing up Lugo now gives the A's and Curt Young an extra month to evaluate him and work with him. This is a very smart move that also happens to save the A's a bunch of money. Kennedy will never be better than average over the long haul -- Lugo might be.

by andyinfremont on Aug 10, 2007 7:12 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

They let him go

Because Beane hates white pitchers.

by sprtsnwyn on Aug 11, 2007 8:44 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

/me does the math.

3 wins - 9 losses + 43 strikeouts - 48 walks = a YayScore (TM) of -11.

Then throw in $800,000 owing...

The Kendall Shift: 6 infielders and 2 catchers.

by Ozzz on Aug 10, 2007 7:57 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Kinda like Kendall

His absense is reward enough.

"This is a very simple game. You throw the ball, you catch the ball, you hit the ball" ~ Bull Durham

by panamanianexpress on Aug 10, 2007 2:24 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

haha

Now Kennedy can team with the guy that he was traded for in Eric Byrnes. Kinda a funny, its like an A's reunion out there in the dessert. Except we didn't get anything for Kennedy. Billy!

"His kind of baggage makes Bradley's look like a Hello Kitty backpack." - Mychael Urban on Sammy Sosa

by Mulderfan on Aug 10, 2007 5:21 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Sure we did.

We got financial freedom and one less guy who can't find his ass with both hands.

The Kendall Shift: 6 infielders and 2 catchers.

by Ozzz on Aug 10, 2007 7:58 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Maybe we got DaVanon back?

Just checked out the Rivercats Box Score and saw Jeff DaVanon starting in CF. He was last with the Dbacks and their minor league system, maybe we got him for JoKe.

He was 1-2 with 2 R, 1 RBI and 4 BB (looks like an A to me)

by Dusty Baker on Aug 10, 2007 11:37 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

I think you're on to something there.

We might have easily pulled Kennedy back from waivers. If Arizona really wanted him, it makes sense that we'd ask for a small favor in exchange for letting him go. Releasing Jeff DaVanon to sign with us would fit the bill.

(I wonder if letting San Diego have Bocachica off waivers was a favor to Kevin Towers, too. Maybe something related to the Cust deal.)

"Ten times thy self were better than ten Hattebergs" -- Monkeyball, channeling Shakespeare

by iglew on Aug 11, 2007 2:20 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Still thinking about this....

DaVanon was on the D'Backs' 40-man roster, wasn't he?

If they wanted to trade DaVanon for Kennedy directly, DaVanon also would have had to clear waivers. Is releasing him a sneaky way to get around this requirement?

Or does a player have to clear waivers before a team can release him?

"Ten times thy self were better than ten Hattebergs" -- Monkeyball, channeling Shakespeare

by iglew on Aug 11, 2007 2:35 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I don't see a quid pro quo here

It's too early on a Saturday morning for me to injure my brain looking up various reference sources on the rules, so this is just from memory. I invite correction if anyone has a firmer grasp on this.

But I think that DaVanon would have been released by means of being put on waivers. Not the kind of revocable waivers that Stewart was put on (and from which they must have pulled him back), but "unconditional release waivers." As these were explained when we released Kielty, other teams have 48 hours to claim him (in which case they'd pick up his contract and pay the full remainder of his salary), after which he becomes a free agent. At that point he can sign with anyone, and the signer just has to pay a pro-rated share of the minimum salary.

Either way, I don't think there's any way the Padres could have "directed" him toward the A's. Other teams could have claimed him while on waivers, and other teams could have negotiated to sign him after he cleared.

I think it was just coincidence: Claiming Kennedy forced Arizona to drop someone from their 40-man, and then the A's just decided that DaVanon was about the kind of roster-filler they like to have around at AAA.

by Faust on Aug 11, 2007 5:43 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

That sounds about right

Once they released DaVanon I don't think the D'Backs could do anything more than mention that Oakland had expressed interest in him in the past. Anything beyond that would probably be considered tampering by TPTB.

Yep. Warm and fuzzy... that's me.

by grover on Aug 11, 2007 7:02 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I wasn't thinking the D'Backs

"directed" DaVanon toward Oakland. I was thinking that Oakland already had a plan in place to sign him, and they were just waiting for Arizona to release him. Sure, DaVanon would have the right to negotiate with any other team, but if Billy and Josh both knew that he was ready to go to Oakland, that might be sufficient reason for them to make a handshake.

That said, I recognize that I might be way off base on this and there's no connection at all other than roster space. Like Witasick for Ruddy Lugo.

"Ten times thy self were better than ten Hattebergs" -- Monkeyball, channeling Shakespeare

by iglew on Aug 11, 2007 12:18 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Speaking of DaVanon

This makes it more likely (IMO) that Stewart is going to be dealt.

Yep. Warm and fuzzy... that's me.

by grover on Aug 11, 2007 7:05 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Can Stewart be traded?

I though I read somewhere that you can't put a guy on recallable waivers twice in a year. If true wouldn't the trading Stewart ship have just sailed?

by Larry E on Aug 11, 2007 8:18 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

48 hour window

I'm not sure when the waiver claim was put in, but I think it was on the 9th. If he's not gone by noon today than the window should be closed.

Yep. Warm and fuzzy... that's me.

by grover on Aug 11, 2007 8:24 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Wed night

Looks like it was sometime Wednesday night.
http://www.athleticsnation.com/story...

by Larry E on Aug 11, 2007 8:45 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

OK, thanks

Then nevermind.

Yep. Warm and fuzzy... that's me.

by grover on Aug 11, 2007 8:18 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I think we got equal value for Kennedy.

So it goes.

by jeepers on Aug 11, 2007 10:44 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

lower blood pressure?

A's v Giants "is kind of like the difference between going to see the Ramones and going to see the Bee Gees. A's fans will go see the Ramones." -BB 07/27/05

by xbhaskarx on Aug 11, 2007 5:04 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs