Joe Kennedy claimed of waivers by D'BACKS!
by bballfanr33 on Aug 4, 2007 12:55 PM PDT
52 comments
Joe kennedy is claimed of waivers by the dbacks. No link yet but was announced on fox. I dont think the A's got anyone for him
Joe kennedy is claimed of waivers by the dbacks. No link yet but was announced on fox. I dont think the A's got anyone for him.
Kennedy was great last year for the A's , its too bad the As didnt do a move at the deadline. .................................................................................................... ............................................................... I wonder who the A's were going to do a trade with and who they were going to get.
0 recs |
52 comments
Email
Print
Comments
Oh Happy Day!
by Flashfire on Aug 4, 2007 12:54 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Thank God!
That is the best news I have heard all year!!!!!
by mrod on Aug 4, 2007 12:57 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Hell Yea!!!
IF this is a JoKe im going to be very upset!!!
by Shippee33 on Aug 4, 2007 12:57 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Official press release:
link.
I had no idea he'd even been DFA'd, so this sounds to me like Arizona wanted him but a deal couldn't be done by the deadline, so the A's DFA him and the DBacks snag him before the news hits the wires.
Expect something to come our way later on as a result of our cooperation.
by Ozzz on Aug 4, 2007 1:34 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yes, I would think the A's let
Kennedy to go to the Diamondbacks, and will receive something back. When a player is put on waivers the team has the option to pull him off waivers if he is claimed, in view of the fact the A's chose not to would seem to indicate that they reached a deal with Arizona.
Of course, as some think perhaps the A's just wanted to unload his contract for the remainder of the year in which case they just let him go.
by china bob on Aug 4, 2007 4:13 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
please let them send Byrnes to us!
by 0R0H0E on Aug 4, 2007 9:17 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think the closest we are going to see of Byrnes
is San Francisco or maybe Texas.
by mlleaimee on Aug 5, 2007 1:57 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
How did this work?
by RenoTy on Aug 4, 2007 1:22 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
No
Almost all players are put on waivers to see if they can be traded after July 31 deadline. A's could have pulled him back, but decided not to do so.
The Dbacks have also claimed Byung-Hyun Kim and Jeff Cirillo. I guess they were a bit claim happy.
by jubjub on Aug 4, 2007 1:53 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Why would we be happy about this?
Losing him for nothing is pointless. As sucky as he is, he has more value than a Colby Lewis, or whoever the heck will replace him.
by JediLeroy on Aug 4, 2007 1:32 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Here's why:
He's a free agent at season's end. He's eating payroll now. He sucks all ass whenever he's handed the ball. We're no shot at the playoffs.
At least we can maybe make something out of Lugo by handing him the ball a few times.
by Ozzz on Aug 4, 2007 1:35 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Could he be considered a type-b free agent?
Otherwise, I guess it makes sense to just let him go.
And concerning Lugo, a D-Rays fan friend of mine said he met him once. To him, Lugo seemed like one of the nicest baseball players he has met, and a really genuine guy. He though he needed a lot more seasoning in the minors, though, which seemed to be what we saw.
by RenoTy on Aug 4, 2007 1:43 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
yes, he could be a type b
but perhaps the A's have already decided they won't offer him arbitration.
by whobob on Aug 4, 2007 4:35 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
If the A's waived him ...
and the entire American League passed before most of the National League did the same, there's a good chance he would not have gotten any decent offers for a multi-year contract that would have allowed him to decline arbitration.
by devo on Aug 5, 2007 10:36 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Payroll, schmayroll.
I doubt that's going to affect what the A's do this or next year. And at the least, we could get someone to take a spot at Sacramento.
by JediLeroy on Aug 4, 2007 1:48 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Smart move
If Kennedy had any significant trade value, the A's would have unloaded him before the deadline. The fact is they saved about $800,000 (the unpaid portion of his $2.8 million salary) by letting Arizona claim him.
The only way a trade was going to get done before the deadline was for the A's to absorb most of Kennedy's remaining $800,000, which would have completely negated the value of just getting "someone" to fill a roster spot in Sacto. Unless they could get a player who was worth $800,000 (i.e., someone who projects as a major league player), any trade would have been counter-productive.
No chance that Kennedy's a type-B free agent -- I believe he'd have to be in the top-20% at his position over the last 3 years. He's really suited to be a lefty specialist not a starter or a top-flight reliever (lefties hit .203 against him this year, righties .305). And the A's have Marshall/Flores to fill the lefty specialist role next year.
I also think giving Lugo a longer look makes a lot of sense -- he has lots of talent if he can put it together and he's under the A's control for the next 5 years.
by andyinfremont on Aug 4, 2007 3:35 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I have an idea
Put that 800k towards one of their still-unsigned draftees.
by phastphill on Aug 4, 2007 3:53 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Best comment of the month.
by Ozzz on Aug 4, 2007 9:15 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
The A's have most of the top picks
Late-rounders are way less likely to sign anyway. There are a couple of HS guys who haven't signed, but other than that almost everyone from the first 20 rounds has.
Heck, for their own sake, I hope some of the HS guys (and juniors) taken in the late rounds don't sign and skip college for a few grand.
This is not to say that plowing the money into signing said early-round HS players is a bad idea, because it isn't. It's an excellent idea.
by PaulThomas on Aug 4, 2007 11:44 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
very well said!
I think BB would agree.
by Playball on Aug 4, 2007 4:11 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Type B are the 20th-40th percentile
Joe Kennedy was towards the bottom of the Type B group under the old rules going into this year -- meaning under the new rules, he would likely not have been Type B.
If he still qualifies as a reliever, I wouldn't be surprised if he could sneak into the type B group, as his season is statistically pretty decent.
by devo on Aug 5, 2007 10:48 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
The problem with this logic
is that to get a compensatory pick, you have to offer arbitration to the player in question. With the way Kennedy's pitching lately, he'd jump at the offer-- and then the A's would be stuck with him for at least 80% of his current salary (the lowest you can offer a player in arbitration). I dunno about you all but Kennedy for another year and another $2 million seems like a bad move to me. Maybe they'd get lucky and he would decline arby, but I wouldn't count on it and it doesn't sound like Beane would either.
by PaulThomas on Aug 5, 2007 12:34 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
That has nothing to do with my logic ...
which was merely speculating on whether or not he would be a Type B. I made the exact same point as you did earlier.
by devo on Aug 5, 2007 6:16 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Good point.
by JediLeroy on Aug 5, 2007 2:42 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Oz has it
I totally agree. JoKe don't let the door hit ur butt on the way out. Now if we can just get rid of Kotsay
by Jackson_A on Aug 4, 2007 1:40 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
JoKe for nothing--
finally the A's make a great trade!
by Nico on Aug 4, 2007 5:14 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Kielty and Kennedy
It goes to prove that the A's have a few players that nobody really wants.
They won't even throw in a bucket of balls for these guys.
by china bob on Aug 4, 2007 6:05 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I saw JoKe say good-bye to Huston today
I sit on the 3rd base side right by the bull pen. JoKe came out of the dugout and came directly to Huston. JoKe had a pretty big smile. Huston looked a little suprised by what JoKe was saying then gave him a big hug and shook his hand. I immediately thought that these were 2 people saying goodbye. As JoKe was going back to the dugout, he turned back around and waved to Huston. Huston then turned around to go back to his running drill and, as he was running back toward the bull pen, he reached up to wipe his eyes. He did not look too happy. Between this kind of stuff and what Bradley said, you just have to be concerned about what is going on. Will I miss JoKe, heck no, but I worry about the churn that is the A's roster.
by 0R0H0E on Aug 4, 2007 5:40 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Thanks for this story
I think it's easy to forget that players are people and not emotionless fictional game pieces. I wasn't happy with JK's performance in Oakland but I do wish him the best.
by Reg on Aug 4, 2007 7:11 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I thought when MB was DFA'd
that is would send Swisher into a tailspin. Unfortunately I was only partially right. It actually sent the whole team into one. People think that "professionals" (in whatever business) should be able to put all emotions aside and just perform. Unless you are Robert the Robot, it just does not work that way. The team does seem to be coming out of their funk. . . .they didn't look as lifeless today as they have been.
by 0R0H0E on Aug 4, 2007 9:16 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I liked it too
I repeated it to my sister.
by mlleaimee on Aug 5, 2007 1:59 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, I am a little bit more than concerned
at this point. this has not been a very happy or uplifting season for the GnG...apart from Buck and Cust breaking out and Embree showing his true worth, that has been a pretty dismal affair. It started, imho, with the firing of Macha. He should still be the A's skipper. I know that opinion will be unpopular, but do you REALLY thing hiring Geren was a good move on Beanes part? Don't get me wrong, I think hes purely a victim of circumstance but the whole thing just left a bad taste in my mouth. Who cares if Kotsay or Melhuse were unhappy? Everyone else seemed to be just fine.
Anyways.../soapbox>
by BleedGreen on Aug 4, 2007 8:12 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm sorry...I meant Crosby, not Kotsay
by BleedGreen on Aug 4, 2007 8:13 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
No...
I think you mean Kotsay. He was the one who was upset about the communication with Macha. Crosby praised Macha for sticking by him through his ups and downs.
by alamedagirl on Aug 4, 2007 9:19 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I have must missed the ups. :-)
by Nico on Aug 4, 2007 9:30 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
lol...
I knew someone was gonna say that. Where's the edit button when you need it?
by alamedagirl on Aug 4, 2007 9:34 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Wasn't Crosby upset at one point...
when Macha was referring to him to the media as a "non-entity"?
Anyways, it was surprisng to me that after such a great season it turns out these problems (issues) existed. I guess they happen with any ballclub, regardless or trher success.
by BleedGreen on Aug 4, 2007 10:25 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I thought it was Harden who was upset,
but who can keep track any more? (!)
by Nico on Aug 4, 2007 10:35 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
indeed it was Harden
how I remember, I don't know...
by alamedagirl on Aug 4, 2007 11:21 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Harden, Crosby, Kotsay....
Who are these guys??
by BleedGreen on Aug 5, 2007 8:49 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Macha called it right...
Crosby is still a "non-entity"
by The Pilots Dared Me To Die on Aug 6, 2007 12:09 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm not a Macha or Geren fan
but I also don't have a problem with either one of them. My only gripe with Macha was that he didn't pull guys (pitchers, really and Kendall sometimes) when they started to tank, soon enough. My gripe with Geren is that he seems like a smiley, ball-less wonder although I love the PH of Buck today (something I don't think Macha would have done). Would Wash have been better? I think the fielding might have been better and maybe there would have been a better atmosphere in the clubhouse but I don't think Billy would have thought he could 'control' Wash enough (and we all know Billy is OCD). I think that there have been a lot of bad breaks (both figuaratively and well actually) and no one could have made this team better even with duct tape. As my mum always says 'You pays yer money and you takes yer chances.'
by mlleaimee on Aug 5, 2007 2:09 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
finally
joKe is gone
by greenandgoldpolarbear on Aug 4, 2007 9:57 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
LOL False Claimaments
http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2007/0...
"UPDATE: According to Nick Piecoro of the Arizona Republic, there are some indications that the Diamondbacks intended some of these claims as blocks and didn't want the players."
by Dusty Baker on Aug 4, 2007 11:23 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
According mlb.com
The three moves provide the first-place D-backs with some depth heading into the season's final two months. They also raised some eyebrows with speculation around the game being that the club claimed the three players to block them from going to other teams and did not expect to wind up with them.
"There's a lot of names on waivers," Arizona general manager Josh Byrnes said. "We measured a lot of things. What if Player A would be traded, specifically to teams in our division? What is our interest in that player? We essentially, some by accident, some by design, got depth and insurance so that if we had injuries with our pitching, we're a lot more covered today than we were a couple of days ago."
by athleticsBB4life on Aug 5, 2007 7:19 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
The first comment in that article
made me spit my coffee out..."Gosh, why didn't the Braves pick up Kennedy? They really need another starter!".
by Englishmajor on Aug 5, 2007 9:15 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
My husband and I had the following...
conversation.
Me: Joe Kennedy is gone.
Hubby: Where did he go?
Me: Arizona.
Hubby: Arizona? Aren't they a winning team?
Me: Yeah, they are.
Hubby: Don't they want to stay that way?
I think that pretty much says it all.
by IM4Oakgal on Aug 4, 2007 11:28 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Meh.
Winning's overrated.
by Helloooo 1st on Aug 5, 2007 5:15 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Evidently, the A's believe
that losing is currently the most undervalued commodity.
by Nico on Aug 5, 2007 6:41 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Wow
QOTM, maybe QOTY.
by Steve in Napa on Aug 6, 2007 11:05 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
but... but...
who's going to protect the guys from face-lick girl now?
by ArakSOT on Aug 6, 2007 9:45 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2009 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
