The Kendall trade
Now that it’s official, here’s the scoop:
C-R Jason Kendall to Oakland
LHP Arthur Rhodes, LHP Mark Redman to Pittsburgh
Kendall, 30, is a California boy who wanted to get closer to home anyway.
As to the financials… it depends on what you read. Redman has about $8m on his contract for 2005-2006, while Rhodes due about $6m over the same two years. Kendall, supposedly, has about $34m over three years. So it would seem to be
2005: A’s take on ~+3m
2006: A’s take on ~+3m
2007: A’s take on some huge chunk of money ($17m?)
I’ve heard the Pirates are taking on money, and also that they’re only on the hook for a big chunk of 2007. I’ve also read that the A’s actually pay the Pirates for 2005-2006. At some point, the particulars will emerge.
It’s a huge deal for the A’s, and I think it demonstrates again that Beane’s willing to think sideways in a way we haven’t seen in Seattle. Last year, he (as I did) thought Rhodes would rebound and again become a top-flight reliever, and possibly could be used as a closer and then converted into something shiny. He was also part of an attempt by Oakland to corner the market on servicable lefties to (I guess) trade to contenders or… I’m not sure, and this part wasn’t a particularly well-thought-out idea. What’s important to note is that the A’s were stuck with this contract, and were going to pay Rhodes to stink or swim for the next couple of years, when they’re chock full of potential relievers who could do that job for much less.
And Redman… he’s enjoyed some success, and I’ll leave the detailed scouting reports to others, but he just doesn’t get the Ks. At 30, looking at the possibilities to take a rotation slot for the A’s, Beane probably figured Redman wasn’t a good enough bet to enjoy continued success compared to the others and felt he could move him. He was the least valuable of the five guys that took regular turns last year.
At this point, stop for a second. The A’s just traded one of their big starters. What happens now? If Beane doesn’t make any more moves, their rotation will run Hudson-Mulder-Harden-Zito-scrub, where Scrub will actually be pretty good.
In the meantime, Damian Miller signed a three-year, $8.75m deal. Jason Varitek’s asking for $200m/20y last I heard a Boras quote.
Last year’s VORP for these guys:
Jason Kendall, 47.5
Jason Varitek, 46.0
Damian Miller, 16.8
As others have noted in the Miller thread, the bulk of catchers out there are 31 and up and not at all exciting. I’m sure there’s a lot of difference in the skill sets between Blanco and Bako, but in the end, there’s not a lot of performance difference.
Billy Beane, for $3m/year, acquired a 30 year old, top-5 catcher for the next three years without significantly degrading his team.
The Pirates get a starter, a reliever they still might be able to find a home for, and now they’re out of excuses.
As Pittsburgh GM Dave Littlefield said, “the formula of one player eating up a significant portion of the payroll just doesn’t work. The easiest example and most recent is A-Rod in Texas. When one player makes up a significant portion of payroll, it’s not a formula for long-term success.”
That’s not true, obviously, because Alex earned his money in Texas, and those problems weren’t caused by him. But it’s an easy line to advance. Beyond being wrong, though, it’s just not cool to blame players in situations like this. It’s the team’s fault they offered Kendall so much money, if it turns out he wasn’t worth it. For years now they’ve pointed at Kendall and said “here’s the source of our problems” and that stinks.
The new problem is that now where they had a well-paid (perhaps too well-paid, sure) premier player and an excuse, now they have Arthur Rhodes and Mark Redman, and if they don’t improve, what are they going to point to then? The Pirates are now without a catcher, and they’re probably going to spend what the A’s took on in salary to get someone far inferior to Kendall. What good is that?
As for the Mariners angle, there are two:
The A’s again demonstrated that, given an opportunity anywhere in baseball with a team that will pick up a phone, they’ll try and get themselves in on the deal. Especially in a situation like this, where a team’s determined to get rid of a player or improve in some particular area, the A’s will be there with four different ways to solve the other team’s problem, and being to wear them down until a deal’s made.
Does anyone really believe that the Mariners couldn’t have made this deal, with their huge available cash reserves and array of even-cheaper options to trade to the Pirates? They have no catcher now — wouldn’t they want Olivo? And a left-handed reliever? We’ve got Guardado, for one, on a cheaper deal than Rhodes. A starter? There’s a couple of options, though none with Redman’s pedigree — but what about Moyer and his expiring contract? Or one of our crop of young Tacoma/Seattle starters from last year?
If the team’s pursuing old, expensive upgrades, why not this younger, less-expensive upgrade at a premium position where he wouldn’t be blocking any young, cheap options? Sure, we’re not California, but it’s a heck of a lot faster to fly down there, and you don’t have to connect anywhere.
Tip of the cap to the A’s for this one.
Comments
59 Responses to “The Kendall trade”
Two disagreements with your post.
#1 I am amazed you thought that Rhodes could ever succeed as a closer, even if he had gotten back to how good he used to be, he just doesn’t have that “closer’s mindset”, great in short relief or at getting out situational leftys, but by no means a closer.
#2 Why is everybody giving up on Olivo already? I won’t agrue that Kendall is a good catcher, but he too has had problems living up to expectations (particularly with his overpriced contract). I strongly believe that Olivo’s offense will continue to improve (ignoring his hideous strikeout spell at the end of this last season). He did look pretty scary behind the plate, but that too will improve, and his power potential is far better than Kendalls. I’d rather have a good hitting catcher with power that is inconsistent behind the plate than a streaky singles hitter with better defense.
There is no closer mindset. Every year, pitchers who had never been closers become closers, and “proven closers” fall apart. Closer is a recent invention, a historical abberation, and a mis-allocation of resources. It evolved around the save stat, and not a player type or a actual in-game requirement (like pinch-hitter or defensive sub).
And I’m not giving up on Olivo — see my other posts on this if you’re looking for proof — my point is that Kendall would be a huge upgrade on Olivo.
I swear that Billy Beane is satan.
We need to have some kind of advertising campaign for the other poor 29 teams that have to deal with this.
“Just say no! It may sound cool now, maybe some of your friends are doing it, but dealing with Billy Beane will destroy your team, your family, and your internal organs”
Jesus, the guy could sell ice to eskimos…then steal all of it! Then take their clothes and charge them $10 each for the trouble!
Kendall is real good, but he’s being overcompensated for how good he is.
Beane is the only GM in baseball who could make this deal only because he had 2 guys who were overcompensated almost as much (in toto).
So Beane gets credit for making those 2 bad contracts last year? And then kicking the can down the road by raising his total payroll by $5M/year that he doesn’t have?
So now he lets Dotel (and maybe Durazo) walk. What will that do to yhe As? And he still has to trade one of his $5-6M pitchers for prospects. Let’s see if he can do as well as Olivo, Reed, and Morse.
To reinforce what DMZ said, I ask this of #1; what, precisely, is the ‘closer’s mindset’ and how can we see its results statistically?
Digger–
Not at all. Every GM’s going to make mistakes. Beane has to take risks to remain competitive on his payroll. This is a case where he took two gambles and they didn’t work out, and then still managed to take those failed bets and turn them into Jason Kendall.
That’s pretty impressive.
And to say
That’s obviously wrong. You want $10m in overcompensation? I could find that on almost any team in baseball. Anyone could, without much trouble.
I’m happy and unhappy about this deal. I went to college in Pittsburgh, and watched the Pirates decline in the 90’s. Jason Kendall (and later Brian Giles) was one of the few reasons my friends and I still ever went to Pirates games. Yes, people argue he’s primarily a singles hitter, doesn’t have much power, but so what? He’s a great fielding catcher and an above-average hitting catcher. On the other hand, being a righty, he’d probably get killed by Safeco if the M’s took him.
Anyway, I’m unhappy to see him go to Oakland because I hate the A’s, but I’m happy to see him come to the AL West because it means I’ll have more chances to see him play.
As an aside, I went to the Pirates team store at PNC Park earlier this week while I was back in Pittsburgh for Thanksgiving, and they no longer sell any Pirates player name-number t-shirts, explaining that they lose too much money on them all, even on ones like Kendall (and he sells the best of the recent players). I was somewhat astounded, since here in Seattle we seem to print shirts for everyone. Even like, Bucky Jacobsen, or Willie Bloomquist. You can, of course, get Willie Stargell number t-shirts, for whatever reason, but not recent players.
Either way, if you see a girl in a Kendall Pirates shirt at a Mariners-A’s game next year, it’s probably me.
On another note, did anyone here comment about the A’s acquiring Hiram Bocachica? I admit I’ve been mostly offline for a week, so maybe I missed that.
Re Littlefield’s comments on A-Rod: at some purely VORPal level, I agree. Want to tag the Rangers’ failures on one player? Try the immensely overpaid Chan Ho Park, clearly one of the worst free agent signings in the majors. (See also, Cincinnati and Griffey, Jr. What is it about ex-Mariner superstars who go on to other teams?) But … well… something about A-Rod just prevents me from liking him. Ever. That sissy slap in the ALDS just crystallized my belief.
If you check out any A’s blog you will notice that they trust Billy Beane to do a good to excellent job of making his team competitive with the $ he has available. Does anyone trust Bavisi to do the same? If Finnigan is correct, and the M’s go for Delgado, Sexton, Koskie, and Pavano they will suck for many many years to come. What would it take to get Billy Beane as the M’s GM….sorry I just woke up from a nap…..that is not going to happen.
And, were Rhodes and Redman all that horrible? In today’s stat-inflated game, 11-12 with a 4.71 ERA wasn’t all that bad. A little less than what the team could reasonably have expected — I dunno, maybe 15-9, 3.85 with a bit of luck. The A’s usually have good defenders by philosophical priority, so a low K rate isn’t quite as horrible in Oakland as it is on other teams. And yet, Pittsburg’s infield defense isn’t as good as Oakland’s (at least as it stands now), and the drop in Redman’s K rate was SO dramatic that it’s entirely possible the league could turn him into Jimmy Haynes or somebody. But Redman posted Ks in 2004 at the same rate as he did with Detroit in 2002, so it seems more likely, barring something unforeseen, that we’re looking at another 190 innings of league-average pitching — I’d guess 10-15, 4.58 ERA, 62 walks, 106 Ks. I’ll be interested to see what PECOTA’s take is.
Rhodes got beat up in concentrated stretches, but he was also real, real good at times, with his unhittable stuff working at optimum efficiency. Sometimes it’s just a matter of something easy like being retrained to work down in the zone, which should be a big priority given how his HR rate blew up in ‘04 in what’s not a particularly hitter-friendly park. Then again, baseball isn’t that easy, usually.
Derek’s rationale is one I largely agree with, but don’t discount the possibility this deal could go south on Beane. Kendall’s at the age where a catcher’s body — particularly the back and knees — start to break down, and the team may sooner than later have to do what was done for Biggio or Hatteberg and find him a new position. He’s caught 1,177 games in his career, and there’s very little precedent for a catcher handling 130-plus games at this stage without problems. I would think he’s a big injury risk for ‘05.
They tried to interview him and didn’t get permission. They could have hired DePodesta instead of Bavasi but didn’t. It was right there in front of them, and they didn’t do it.
He played in the outfield a bunch (not particularly well, though) in 2001. It’s not entirely out of the question.
I actually disagree with Derek on this. I don’t see how Beane should get that much credit for consolidating two bad contracts into one larger bad contract. Jason Kendall has 6,103 innings of major league catching on his knees. Describing him as a 30-year-old catcher doesn’t really do justice to the amount of time he’s spent crouching behind the dish in Pittsburgh. He’s caught 143, 146, and 146 games the past three seasons, all remarkably high numbers.
Redman and Rhodes are overpaid, though I don’t agree that Rhodes is certainly toast as an effective reliever. If Beane felt the need to move their salaries, he could have found a way to do so without taking back a large financial obligation to someone who is reaching the point where breakdown should be expected.
I’d imagine the A’s will be looking to dump Kendall on someone else next offseason, and they’re going to have a tough time doing it. Pittsburgh, on the other hand, only needs Redman and Rhodes to string together a good month and they’ll have few problems finding a contender willing to take their contracts and throw them a prospect to boot. Lefties are always valuable; especially those with some track record of success.
Beane bought high on Kendall and sold low on Rhodes. I don’t think this was a good use of the A’s limited resources.
An Oakland rotation next year of Hudson-Mulder-Zito-Harden-Blanton is scary. 3 Aces and 2 Future aces….
Oakland is kind of creepy… I mean, with a lineup of
C Kendall
1B Hatteberg
2B Ellis/Scutaro
SS Crosby
3B Chavez
LF Byrnes/Free Agent
CF Kotsay
RF Swisher
DH Durazo
That’s some serious OBP there…
Joe Blanton is as much a future ace as I am.
I also think he bough Kendall high and sold Rhodes low; but then again, at 34, he may be toast. Redman is a wash, and if you can trade a 5th starter to fill a hole in your lineup, I say get ‘er done. Considering the A’s were second in the AL in pitching, and down near the bottom in offense last year, Kendall was the type of deal they needed to make — a fairly low-risk deal that immediately upgrades their offense. If injuries become a concern, there’s always the DH, a luxury the Pirates didn’t have. As long as the Pirates were taking on some of Kendall’s salary, it was a pretty smart deal for the A’s, as the Pirates continue to accumulate ex-Mariner relievers.
How can you say that, Dave?
The guy has AWESOME potential. In Kane County in ‘03, we saw 144 K’s to 16 walks, and last year in Sacramento… 143 Ks to 34 walks… The K/BB ratio is too astounding to ignore. 13 HRs in 176.1 innings is a pretty darned good number. Look at Mark Mulders AA and AAA numbers. Blanton’s are better. Look at Pedro Martinez’s AA and AAA numbers. Look at Ben Sheets’s. Blanton has a future as an Ace. I am calling it now.
Credit for turning two bad contracts into one bad contract — I think he clearly should credit for this. The A’s had two bad contracts that delivered little value for them, and they were going to pay those anyway. In trading those for Kendall, they essentially swapped contract-for-contract while dramatically upgrading the production they’d be getting from that chunk of their payroll.
I know Kendall remains overpaid, and he’s a risk to fall apart and explode. But this trade should make the A’s much better, and even if it fails, they’ll be about as well off as they were with the Rhodes/Redman contracts.
David,
I don’t mean to be rude, but why should we care what you’re calling? I realize that ESPN has made it fashionable to pass predictions off as analysis (Fact or Fiction: Sportscenter now insults the intelligence of the average human being every 8.4 seconds?), but there are many more factors that go into prospect projection than walk-strikeout ratio that you’re completely ignoring.
Blanton was 22 when he spent the spring of 2003 beating up on the Midwest League, the lowest level of full-season ball, comprised of mostly inexperienced hitters playing in freezing cold weather. His performance was a classic case of a polished player dominating inferior competition. Remember Craig Anderson? At the age of 20, he pasted the Cal League (a higher level of competition and much more hitter friendly), posting a 39/178 BB/K.
Now, I’m not comparing Blanton to Anderson. I’m simply trying to remind you that you cannot look at a players statline, especially out of any kind of context, and decide that you know a stud when you see one.
My problems with Blanton, specifically, mostly relate to his stuff. He simply doesn’t have an outpitch of any kind. He throws 89-93 with average movement on his fastball. His slider is inconsistent and he doesn’t command it well in the strike zone. Disciplined hitters won’t chase it out of the zone often enough for it to be a useful strikeout tool. His curve is mediocre, and he’s not going to get the development time needed to make it into a viable third option. He doesn’t have a change to speak of.
Best case scenario? He’s Joel Pineiro, who still doesn’t classify as an ace of anyone’s staff. More likely? He’s a 3rd or 4th starter, a contact pitcher who can get you innings. He’s a nice arm to have in your system, but like the rest of the Moneyball draft class, he’s gotten far more ink than he deserves.
I know Kendall remains overpaid, and he’s a risk to fall apart and explode. But this trade should make the A’s much better, and even if it fails, they’ll be about as well off as they were with the Rhodes/Redman contracts.
Come on D. Even after you subtract the Rhodes and Redman contracts, the A’s are offering up an additional commitment of $15 million for the next three years to Kendall. The worst case scenario isn’t being “about as well off”. It’s flushing an additional eight to ten percent of the total payroll down the drain, in addition to the already sunk costs that the mistakes of last offseason brought.
The risk is real and has a significant downside that can’t be passed off so easily.
Dave – A scouting question. When you watch a minor league game, how do you avoid “grading on a curve”? Often after watching a few games, I’ll find myself thinking that some shortstop is the next A-Rod, only to look up his stats, and the two teams stats, and find that no, he’s just Jose Lopez playing against (and with) a bunch of Willie Bloomquists and Ryan Franklins. Obviously this can be overcome by watching more, and more games involving that player, but I know that this always isn’t possible for scouts / curious fans.
I mention this question now for your comments regarding Blanton – when you say he has lackluster stuff, I tend to believe you…but how do you do your best to make sure your scouting jibes with reality? Comparisons to stats is helpful, what else?
#14-
Agreed that’s a nice tam, but the cited lineup is 10-20% over Billy’s budget even without Dotel. Which parts do you want to sacrifice to reduce it by $5-10M?
How Beane finesses that will determine how the As fare next season. And when they’re paying Kendall and Chavez half of their total budget in 2007, it’s time for the new book, titled “Spiraling In.”
Derek,
I think the As are better for the next two years than if the trade is not made. Having Rhodes and Redmond on your roster was not going to be productive, particularly given their value. The present value of Kendall, especially if it moves them into the playoffs the next two years is huge. Suzuki or Powell or both will be ready to replace Kendall in ‘07 anyway.
I do think that Kendall is an upgrade at C for Oak-town, but I can’t justify paying him what he’s getting, especially if I have a budget like the A’s do. I know dumping Redman and Rhodes helps you there, but they’ve still increased payroll (and hurt flexibility) significantly. I also remember there was a lot of Cirillo for Kendall talk last year, and the blog community basically shot it down because of the assumed salary…
So I’m not going to set up a Billy Beane shrine any time soon. Come on; it’s not an awful move but it’s not the Garcia–Reed, Olivo, Morse swap that our ‘doltish’ GM spun not that long ago. The bottom line is that the A’s could have spun Rhodes and Redman for spare parts or middling prospects–saving all that cash to invest in someone really worh it–and scanned the waiver wires for a backstop or two. Instead they have a catcher who will get old and expensive (for them) very quickly.
Reilly,
I think the important part is to understand that when you’re “scouting”, you’re grading technique, not performance. The first time I saw a no-name kid with a mediocre statline named Andy Marte play in Greensboro several years ago, I was blown away and wrote him up as one of the great up and coming prospects in the game. I think he went like 1-5 with a single the night I saw him, and he was credited with two errors. But he flashed ridiculous batspeed, power to the opposite field, turned on fastballs in on the plate, and had a great first step in the field. On that particular night, it didn’t translate into success on the field, but those skills are what you want to see, regardless of how the player does when you’re watching.
Overcoming small samples is one of the hardest things to do in scouting. Personally, I have the advantage of having something close to a hundred friends who are qualified to give informed opinions on personal observation and see a lot of baseball. It’s great to be able to run my thoughts by those guys, and I think we all benefit from the sharing of information.
The other thing, honestly, is just see a lot of baseball. I just watch an awful, awful lot of baseball, both major and minor league. The more you see, the more of a base you have to compare against. Obviously, I’m a big proponent of statistical analysis, but there’s still a great deal of value in just watching the game in person.
Speaking of catchers deteriorating in a hurry, the Post-Gazette has some numbers and let’s say it isn’t pretty (there are also some other stats for Kendall there).
http://postgazette.com/pg/04331/417573.stm
I still lived in Pittsburgh when Kendall was signed. The franchise was really stuck in a horrible situation. They were about to open their new stadium that would “save the franchise” (obviously that didn’t work) and were afraid they’d lose all fan support if they signed their one of their only two good players.
And Deanna, the A’s did sign Bocachica to a minor league deal. Also, interesting comments about Pirates merchandise. Though anybody who has lived in Pittsburgh knows that town belongs to the Steelers. Tough competition.
At the moment, I think this looks pretty foolish, taking on that ridiculous amount of extra money in the out year. It could look extra foolish after the next CBA negotiation. I can only assume Beane is crossing his fingers and hoping he’ll be able to Houdini his way out of it by then.
But he’s not taking on a ridiculous amount of money in the out year.
Pittsburgh, by any account I’ve read, is paying a large chunk of that money.
What makes evaluating this one tricky is that we don’t know about the money, and the money could easily swing the evaluation from one column to the other.
Let’s look at expected performance, though. Before 2004, Kendall was coming off a 4.0-win season, and PECOTA predicted him to continue 2.1, 1.6, 1.1. Now he’s coming off a second straight season well above average, at about 4.5; on the other hand, he’s also a year older, and that at baseball’s least forgiving position on the field. I’ll call him for about 2.5, 2.0, and 1.5; that sounds pessimistic, given what he’s done the last two years, but the track record of catchers must be kept in mind. (It may help that Kendall, at 6′0″ and 193 lbs., is fairly light for a catcher; but I’m pretty sure PECOTA accounts for this already.)
Redman, on the other hand, was right on his 2.2-win PECOTA projection this year (VORP 22 runs), a slight decline from the previous two years; so I’ll assume the forecast for 2005-06 stays the same, at 1.4 and 0.9.
Rhodes doesn’t seem to have a PECOTA card for some reason. His VORP for 2004 was only 4 runs, after having been 32, 28, and 12 in the years 2001-03. This trend is not encouraging, unless the injury problem he’s been fighting is all cleared up. I don’t think I’d count on it, and am figuring on about 1.0 and 0.5 wins worth of value from Rhodes in 2005-06.
So, in terms of raw Value Above Replacement, it looks nearly even for the next two years. There could be some additional advantage for Oakland in clearing spots for Blanton (whom I expect to come close to matching Redman’s performance in the #5 spot) and Random Second Bullpen Lefty (maybe John Rheinecker?), who shouldn’t be that much worse than what I’m expecting for Rhodes. On the other hand, if Adam Melhuse could have kept up his 2004 performance, then perhaps they might be losing something (a game or so VORP) by pushing him to the bench.
So anyway, I’m thinking this looks like about a game a year added for Oakland from 2005-07. If no money changes hands, they’ll be paying roughly $20M over three years for the privilege, which isn’t really a good deal . Indeed, assuming that $2M is the going rate for a marginal win, it would take something like $14M to balance the deal, based on the player-valuation assumptions above; and however much net $$ Oakland is getting from Pittsburgh, I’m pretty sure it will be in the seven-figure range rather than eight.
So I think that the deal will only work out from Oakland’s perspective if Kendall can sustain his 2003-04 performance for the next three years (and if Rhodes cannot return to his 2001-02 level). (The possibility of having Powell and/or Suzuki ready by ‘07 doesn’t make it look any better for Oakland; even if they are, the only difference it makes is that it adds the possibility of Kendall roadblocking them in a couple years.)
Subjectively, the deal feels like a good one (speaking as one whose second-favorite team wears the green and gold), given what Kendall’s done the past couple years. (As in: “Wow! Jason Kendall!”) But after the above effort to consider it objectively, I find myself leaning toward the skeptical side, thinking that Beane could probably have found a better use for Steve Schott’s hard-earned cash.
See, this is why it’s cool to have a three-man blog. Derek and Dave disagree. Naturally I have to agree with one of them, and in this case it’s… Derek.
I don’t think the A’s are selling low on Rhodes; I think he’s nearly done. He’s 35, for one, and his strikeout rate has been on the decline the past three years while his walk rate has been on the rise. Then there’s Redman, who just isn’t all that good. A 4.17 ERA the past three years, pitching his games in Detroit-Florida-Oakland, doesn’t excite me. And it’s not like the A’s don’t already have four pretty good starters.
Kendall isn’t the player he was a few years ago, but he’s posted .399 OBPs the last two seasons and is now going to a team who’ll actually appreciate that sort of thing. And really, his salary isn’t so wild when you look at what Miller got and what Varitek is going to get.
jason
Derek,
Your analysis on what this trade will do for Oakland is dead center. Look at the Oakland lineup as put together by David Corcoran in comment 14, and then try to put one together for the M’s as the roster looks today. These A’s will go 14-4 against the M’s next year. Billy Beane plays to win, and he does what he needs to do to get the job done.
Brian Bach
I agree with Dave and disagree with Derek. I don’t find Beane such a genius on this deal either. And #31, I find your comment of A’s 14-4 ridiculous. Your “trying to put togehter” roster is what? Our AAA kids?
Consider this: if Kendall preforms well in ‘05 and ‘06 and Powell/Suzuki are actually ready in ‘07 I’ll give you 100-1 odds that Kendall won’t be in Oakland anyway. Beane just takes the money the Pirates were going to send to Oakland and sends it with Kendall to the next team looking for a catcher. In the end, the A’s will have either spent very little money for two top notch seasons or they will have a bruned out 33 year old catcher. Ultimately, I think that getting Rhodes and Redman out of Oakland (who, for what little it’s worth, seem to be clubhouse cancers) is plenty enough.
Fact: After suffering a career-threatening ankle injury Kendall has returned to being one of the better catchers in the game.
Fact: Kendall has played regularly at a demanding position.
Fact: Kendall is a workout “nut”
Fact: Kendall has an enormous chip on his shoulder against the Mark Maddens of the world who declare Kendall is “not a winner”, a “crybaby”, and “incapable of leading a team to a title”. Mark Madden is the local radio sports talk jock in Pittsburgh who rode Kendall like a broken down mule.
Kendall is motivated. Kendall is in fantastic shape. Kendall is desperate to contribute to a winning team. Kendall is a good ballplayer.
Billy Beane grasps this whole risk/reward thing.
I also think folks need to take a step back and consider why so many older catchers are playing ok. Improved fitness regimens have done more than just help players hit home runs. Maybe the 1200 games ceiling does not apply anymore?
More importantly — we have a three-man blog again! Woooooooooooo!!
#32 Ring the bell when the Ms do something. They’ve been scooped again. If rumors were players, the Ms would be loaded with first baseman. Loading up on first baseman and spending the amount they’re contemplating spending for Delgado and Sexson needs to be measured against what Beane has actually done.
The Mariners can not actually execute a deal or deals that are meaningful. Not for years. No farm system, not a thing. From CF to SS to 2b to catcher, they’re the worst team in the division, offensively and especially defensively and their solution is to sign first basemen. They sign those guys and Koskie and they’ll still be a sub-500 team.
I cannot imagine the “Sexson/Delgado” rumors as being more than a (clumsy, bizarre) marketing ploy to drive their collective price down. OK, in fact, I *can* imagine it, but try not to.
There’s a lot of talk about how the A’s will come out ahead in this trade because they won’t miss Redman’s slightly-below-league-average 190 innings, but I for one think there’s a case to be made that the A’s 1-4 starters in ‘05 may not be as good as their reputations.
Exhibit A is Barry Zito. Yes, that 12-6 hook still rocks the casbah on occasion, but he was frequently flaccid last season. His hits-per-innings-pitched ratio and HR ratio took a scary hike upward, essentially negating his improved K-to-W and K-to-IP ratios. I think his days as a great pitcher are over, and the A’s should try to deal him now while the perception that he’s still an ace hovers tenuously above his reality.
And Mark Mulder stunk in large stretches last year, and was as responsible as anyone for the A’s fade from first in ‘04. Is he over it? I sure wouldn’t count on it.
Tim Hudson was less than Hudsonesque for most of last year, but I actually think he’s an excellent candidate to rebound. He can be my ace any day, and I love Rich Harden. I also agree that the A’s can come up with a league-average No. 5 for the league-minumum salary out of nowhere.
But a solid rotation in ‘05? I don’t think that can be said right now. I’d count on that just like I’d count on Scott Hatteberg and Marco Scutaro to repeat their ’04s … which I wouldn’t. And I bet PECOTA doesn’t, either.
(Of course, that being said … they probably wiil.)
re: #38
Unless Mulder and Hudson have the same injuries/fatigue that they suffered last year, I can’t possibly envision a scenario in which these two don’t improve (vastly, in Mulder’s case) next year.
And if Zito can stop leaving his changeup over the plate, he’s more likely to return to the dominant pitcher of 2000-2003 than the less the average 2004 version. Of course, if he can’t, it could spell trouble.
And when you factor in Harden’s improvement, the Oakland rotation is going to be scary, once again (injuries notwithstanding).
apparently the dollars on the deal are about $1 million from Oakland ot Pittsburgh in 2005 and 2006, and $5 million from Pittsburgh to Oakland in 2007.
So, marrying that with Derek’s original figures that leaves Oakland out $4m each of the next two years, and on the hook for $12m in 2007. I don’t think they’re going to miss Rhodes or Redmand at all, but that’s a lot of dough for any team, much less the Oakland Paupers.
Still, I doubt if it makes any sense for the Pirates either; giving up an overpaid good player for two overpaid bad ones will not make them better.
I suppose it comes down to what the Pirates plan to do with the $17-$20 million that they’ll save over the next three years.
#33. Even with the $5 million from Pittsburgh, won’t Kendall be a 33 year old catcher with around 1500 games caught? Who will want an $8 million ($13 million contract minus $5 million) catcher with that much mileage on him? By the time Beane gets his odometer up that high, he owns him for good.
James T:
The Brewers signed Damian Miller to a 3-yr deal. Miller is 35 years old. And he’s a career .264 hitter who averages a .750 OPS.
If a catcher can play good defense and hit above .200 in the bigs some team will want him. Henry Blanco was the nominal regular for a team that won 92 games for cryin’ out loud and if you want a chuckle check out his stat line.
Stupid? Foolish? Nuts? Maybe. But if Kendall is still hitting .270 plus with the glove in tact my guess Beane will find a buyer if he wants to. The general market would have to turn incredibly bearish for 8 mil to look like a lot of money for a team with a self-perceived need.
Take Dan Wilson, as well. My father, who is a very conservative baseball thinker, seems to believe that Dan Wilson should AUTOMATICALLY get the starting job next year, and Olivo has to fight for it. He thinks the reason we haven’t signed Wilson yet is because other teams want to sign Wilson to start, as he is a good starting catcher. My father thinks he is a good hitter for a catcher. Unfortunately, he thinks like many GMs… so who knows, could Dan Wilson be a starter? If Henry flippin’ Blanco can start, why not Wilson?
(He also thinks we should sign Barry Larkin and move Lopez to third, as Larkin would be the “bat” we need….)
Jim– “Exhibit A is Barry Zito. Yes, that 12-6 hook still rocks the casbah on occasion, but he was frequently flaccid last season.”
love the clash reference. and then “flaccid” ?!? lol. interesting.. uhm… imagery.
reasons number 5487 and 5488 why the USSM is required daily reading… all the fascinating thoughts and writing by both the big three and all of us!
Hmmm, didn’t Billy Beane get a C with a reputation for looking at a lot of pitches (Hatteberg) and turn him into a 1B once before?
I’d warrant that happens pretty soon- by next year, in fact
What would it take to get Billy Beane as the M’s GM? They tried to interview him and didn’t get permission. They could have hired DePodesta instead of Bavasi but didn’t. It was right there in front of them, and they didn’t do it.
Guys, do you think the M’s ownership even remotely regrets this decision yet?
Argh, sorry for the bold face throughout. My question is the last sentence.
N.Jenkin. Sure, but there’s a difference between finding a player to be acceptable and being willing to take on his net $8 million contract.
re #48
Nah, Mariner ownership doesn’t even remotely regrets hiring Bavasi; they have no stinking clue on how to run a baseball team (and were too arrogant until this year to even admit it).
(don’t get me started on Cam Bonifay)
FWIW, ‘they say’ that P’burgh is going to try to turn Rhodes around (poss. to LA) for more offence…
In regards to a portion of the #7 post. I agree regarding Kendall being a singles hitter and having good BA while having little power. People put him down for it. However, there are few, if any cathers who routinely hit over .300, much less very few who hit over .300 and hit a lot of dingers. But, then the M’s are stuck with a guy who only seems to hit singles, with little power, and everyone loves him. Ichiro. So, if a guy gets hits, keeps an inning going, starts a rally, moves a runner from first to third with that single or double, then I’d rather have him than a guy who hits .245, 20 hrs, and drives in 60 runs. The .320 hitter, with 35 doubles, 75 ribi’s plus catching makes more sense. Plus, they can “rest” Kendall now at DH and not lose him like the Pirates did when they had to sit him to rest.
“Sure, we’re not California, but it’s a heck of a lot faster to fly down there, and you don’t have to connect anywhere.”
Um…. I should point one thing out. U.S. Airways and United have direct flights from Pittsburgh to San Fran, and U.S. Airways has a direct flight from Pittsburgh to L.A.
He’s from San Diego, dude. I looked up Pitt-SD and couldn’t find any nonstop flights.
The Kendall trade is a fascinating one to watch, and it again illustrates that B. Beane is, really, two entirely different GMs. Beane the Trader is, well, as close to a genius as we’ve had in a baseball FO in recent times. I just really enjoy his moves, in this capacity, regardless how they play out. Beane the Signer is a chump who bets his ass and loses, nearly every time. It’s just that the Good Billy covers the debt on the Bad Billy every time so he never has to punk. —And here, he’s done it again.
Rhodes was such a terrible, terrible sign. If I hadn’t seen the Bad Billy in action before I wouldn’t have believe Beane could blunder so totally. Arthur Lee has never, ever succeeded as a closer. Why, you guess; I don’t know. He could not do this in Baltimore, period; he was Heathcliffe Slocumb in the role. On the few occasions this was tried in Seattle for short spaces of need, Rhodes imploded, most notably in June, ‘03 (where were you for that Billy, on vacation?). Arthur Lee takes forever to warm up. He pitches poorly on consecutive days. He most always loses effectiveness after 4-5 batters. In ‘03, Rhodes lost a lot of velocity and most of his effectiveness in the second half of the season; he totally looked like a guy with a dead arm or worse. His slider was flat, and he rarely topped 90. He was not-young, and had a major arm injury in the past: everyone who’s ragged on Meche and touted Rhodes please hold a conference with yourself and agree on a story so we’ll all know where you stand, keeping in mind that Gil is much younger than the lefty was when Beane signed him. I was extremely relieved that the Ms let Rhodes go. Rhodes was outstanding as a guy to nail 2-3 batters, primarily lefties, and a tremendous asset when he had velocity. Without the pace, he was a liability. I thought Rhodes was a certainty to fail as the As closer. It is quite possible that he will never pitch effectively again, although given the up-and-down nature of relief pitching he could well knock out another prime season as a situational reliever somewhere. For $4M per no matter what, though, that’s damned expensive.
Redman, on the other hand, I had high hopes for. Redman and Glendon Rusch were the two pitchers in the majors I had highest on my list to graduate for lefty junk dealers to Sneaky Veterans on the order of Reuter and the pre-Price Jamie Moyer. Instead, Rusch took the major step forward while Redman was majorly minor of result. Oh, well. Beane NEVER stands pat, and he has acquired a guy only to shop him after an average season inumerable times. It makes for a certain amount of roster churn, but that keeps guys edgy and hungry too, which is a definite positive, and accordingly a secret strength in the level of play that the As typically have generated in my view.
On Kendall, yes he gets on base, and yes his VORP shows he is a good deal more valuable as an offensive player than is commonly credited by anyone other than Billy the Good. Question: can he catch? Not, Can he stay healthy enough to catch, but, When he is on the field is he even adequate as a _catcher_?? My clear recollection is that he is a very, very poor fielder and play caller, physical condition notwithstanding. —Which makes him the perfect Beane counter: good OBP, limited power, mediocre defender. Billy Bad/Good collects these guys, which is part of why: a) B. Beane’s As always stay in games and win late when you think they won’t [cause they get on and score when you think they won't], and b) lose faster and harder in the post-season then you think they will [cause they don't catch-and-throw when they damn well should]. Question: was Billy Bean a good on-base guy _as a player_ relative to his known low batting average? ‘Cause if so, he collects players who are, well, just chips off the old block.
Overall, I see this deal as nothing but a positive for the As, as they traded a horrible reliever (at present) and a barely visible fifth starter for a guy who can actually hit who himself might well be packaged and moved again _before_ his take-a-lump sum payment is due. Bear that in mind. Just because Kendall will play for the As in ‘05 does not in any way imply his presence on their roster in any subsequent season.
As far as what Kendall’s departure means for the Pirates—wait, just what does it mean? McClendon is an honest dud. The team has half a pitching staff maybe. The team has a very poor record of developing what pitching it collects. Bay and Wilson can play: anyone else there??? That team was a mess with Kendall, and given that they will be paying and hence playing Redman and Rhodes neither of whom figure to have any significant value _unlike_ Kendall it’s hard to see how Pittsburgh’s talent base is in any way improved. The owner and the media in that town have long wanted Kendall gone; he’s gone; that’s called progress. Which rhymes with egress and regress, and likely projects along similar trajectories. *Sigh* To think, I grew up a Pirates fan; yes, really.
There is actually a third Beane, the Drafter. And that’s exactly what I think he is there, a drafter. Some pretty mid-minors numbers from skillsy guys with college time make a shiny name for Billy the Kid, but his watch as GM has come up with really quite few superior players; as is well known, the All-Star caliber guys to come out of the As system were drafed and signed before he arrived because the team finished last in the majors of nearly and had high picks. Does anyone think that Woody Woor[head]ward is a development genius because he similarly ‘inherited’ Ken, Jr. and A-Rod were? Billy the Good does very interesting things with _analysis_ at any and all levels. He was the first to use unusual methods for the times in his drafting approach. He’s paid close attention to player development. But he has _not_ made any breakthough as far as the results show. Harden is by far the best player drafed and developed within his system for same, such as it is. Now, Crosby and Swisher both may well turn into fine major league players; at the moment, however, they don’t project as stars.
Re: Zito, he looked great when guys kept swinging at that curve that seldom finishes in the strike zone. Once coaches did their film study and told guys to lay off it, Barry has been in trouble ever since, as his other pitches are a big step down. Despite Beane’s stated opinions this offseason about being unwilling to break up the Big Three, it’s Hudson-Mulder-Harden he’s actually thinking about, sez me, letting everyone else think otherwise while he pumps up Zito’s perceived value. If Billy the Good is the man I’ve watched for some years, don’t be surprised if the Beane pulls a multi-team deal in which the Yankees come up with Zito. This is how Good Billy operates. He moves mistakes to a greater fool before they drag him down, regardless of what others see as the value of the guys he gets back. Chavez, Kotsay, Crosby, Swisher, Kendall, Durazo figures to be a solid set of levers, with Hudson, Mulder, Harden as the fulcrum. I suspect Beane will get a few shillings from Schott to sign Hudson if Hudson’s signable, he’s the keeper there.
He most always loses effectiveness after 4-5 batters
That’s not true. Rhodes has through his career been an effective multi-inning reliever. The last time he pitched a lot of whole innings (that is, before Melvin) he was deadly to the first five or so, then okay — .274 OBP — for the next five or so.
My clear recollection is that he is a very, very poor fielder and play caller, physical condition notwithstanding. —Which makes him the perfect Beane counter: good OBP, limited power, mediocre defender
Two things — no, defensively Kendall’s no slouch. His defense has been affected a great deal by his injuries — he was really good 1997-99, and then 2001-2002 he was bad, and this year he started to look really good again.
And this perception of Oakland as a bad defensive team… it’s just not true. They were the third-best team in the AL by ball in play-into-outs, and if Mark Ellis hadn’t been injured they’d have played an all-defense infield (Hatteberg-Ellis-Crosby-Chavez). Even they, they played great defense.
was Billy Bean a good on-base guy _as a player_ relative to his known low batting average?
Beane actively collects guys unlike him, feeling that his own failure as a toolsy ballplayer says something about the value of toolsy ballplayers.
his watch as GM has come up with really quite few superior players; as is well known, the All-Star caliber guys to come out of the As system were drafed and signed before he arrived because the team finished last in the majors of nearly and had high picks
This is absolutely not true. Beane owes a great deal to Grady Fuson, but he was there and part of the picks. He joined the team in 1990, and was promoted to assistant GM in 1993, then GM in late 1997.
Most of those guys you think he deserves no credit for, he was involved with:
Assistant GM: Hudson
GM: Mulder, Zito, Crosby
And some other guys (Gerald Laird, for instance, or Bonderman) that didn’t end up with the team.
Jason Giambi, drafted in 1992, and Eric Chavez, 1996, could you say Beane doesn’t deserve at least partial credit.
I look at other clubs in our division and I admit it – I have GM envy.
So Derek,
Thanks for the point by point rebuttal, and here’s a few follow-ons.
Is Kendall throwing out a decent number of runners?? Overall, I recall Kendall in relation to his bad period; if the stats show his D as coming around since his leg finally healed, then this is an outright steal for Billy Beane.
Rhodes: yes, I recall a big drop off after the first five or so, and yes, earlier in his career he held up better, no question. That BAA of .274 . . . take another look at that. For a late inning power reliever, and a lefty to boot that’s a high number to me, very high. It may just mean that he faces enough guys at 6+ batters that the righties knock him around a bit—except I recall him being burned by lefties as well when he wasn’t fresh. It would be interesting to see a break down by at-bat as well, to see if the guys at 6+ batters hit him for more power; I don’t have a distinct recollection there. My point isn’t that Rhodes _had been_ a bad reliever. On the contrary, I have seen him as a great example for maximum effectiveness in a reliever through situational deployment. If used for <5 batters with proper rest, he was dominating historically, and a major part of the Mariner bullpen. I suspect Billy Beane had visions of him as a ninth inning 3-4 batter guy. Except Rhodes had lost much of his effectiveness in ‘03, and had a demonstrated history of getting torched as a closer. Why in either case this is the case I can’t tell you, but I have seen this over the course of his career. His signing to close was a slap in the face of the facts on Rhodes career, it should have been expected to go bad, and went bad. Rhodes may very well come back to have a good year or two as a late inning, limited deployment lefty, even a power lefty if he gets that power back. Beane’s decision to dump him reflects Good Billy’s accurate devaluation of Bad Billy’s mistaken evaluation, that’s all.
Thanks for the follow up on Beane as a player, Derek; I’d completely forgotten he was a toolsy guy. All I remembered was that he was a high draft pick. So he has perhaps learned from hims own experience there, too, which seems to me much more like his nature: Good Billy does seem to learn by doing.
Regarding the As defense . . . how can I say this. It’s more than just numbers; I guess that does it. Now, I actually think that Beane is quite aware of the value of defense, and furthermore it is manifest that he has tried to improve the overall quality of his team’s defense in the last 2-3 years, in large part I think because he has learned from bitter experience that poor D kills you in the postseason. Beane had been trying for years to get better outfield defense. He acquired both Damon and Dye with an eye very much to what they did in the field at the time; that neither trade worked out long-term is as much bad luck as anything. He acquired Chris Singleton and Bobby Kielty for their D, only to find out that the bat was too weak in both cases to keep the guy in the lineup. He was very interested in Cameron until the signing price went wonky on him, then gambled Kotsay was healthy and came up three cherries there. One could say that Beane’s been building outfield defense for years before he actually had one he could keep. Crosby is clearly an outstanding defender, and that was a known part of his package from draft day on. Ellis was clearly on the team for what he could do with the glove. Yet having said all this, it’s more than the numbers: Down the years, that team in Oakland has had an uncanny knack for making the bonehead error in pressure games. I used to see this from Tejada and in the outfield more than anywhere, but even last year I recall watching Chavez kick a ball away in a close game with the Ms early in the season when the matchup still mattered a bit. Now, this _perception_ isn’t something that can be quantified in a statistical way, so I know that in the context of this blog I’m supposed to pretend that I don’t see it—but I’m a terrible liar, and I see it. I think, in the end, this has been less a matter of talent, but more a matter of lack of managerial and organizational demand—but that, in particular, reflects back on Beane, if you catch my drift. The As have had guys with good gloves, and over time have become, as you point out here, a team with overall good defensive numbers. Part of this is through the subtraction for various reasons of guys like Giambi, who couldn’t field (either of them), Terence Long, and even Miggy the Lad who while having great range was particularly prone to kickin’ it at the key point. But a lot of it is slack managing in the past in my view (Art Howe), and a lack of direct pressure from the FO. Beane is not the kind of guy to go ballistic on an error that jeopardized or lost a game, perhaps particularly because he _was_ a player himself one suspects. But the As could more than likely have used a blow-up on this five years ago. Now, Beane has simply acquired guys who are (more) reliable as well as good, although I think the team tradition of the costly error is alive and well, still. Statistically, this doesn’t show, but sitting in the stands it does. I seem to recall this in several key September games this last year when the As were fading and had to win, although frankly I can’t recall a specific example to bolster my point. Yes, yes, all teams make errors, and it is easy to say “selective memory” on this one. But the As have done it time and again. It’s more than a perception, to me; it’s a part of the team’s reality. Just like Billy is part of their reality. Perhaps he’s not ‘responsible;’ who is, then?? If he gets the credit for acquiring the guys—and universally he does—then he gets the discredit for a team quirk that costs the organization wins—which I persist in thinking does exist. I want to see the As use that ‘great D’ to steal a couple key wins like the Ms routinely did in ‘01-’03. That is the difference, to me, between a team which has great defensive numbers and a team which plays great defense. Gillick builds teams which play great defense; he has done so everywhere he has been the GM. To this point, Billy Beane has only built a team with better numbers in my view.
In considering Beane’s record as a draft-and-develop guy, I was definitely remembering Bonderman, one of the best players, if not _the_ best, drafted during his involvement with the As. And of course a high school power pitcher totally outside the bounds of the whole supposed Moneyball concept, as is well known also. On the other hand, I had thought that Mulder was acquired before Beane became the decision guy, so I definitely wasn’t giving him credit there. By your own statement above as well as my recollection, Fuson was the key individual in most of these acquisitions, but yes, that doesn’t mean that B. Beane should be alloted zero (0) credit for what went right.
My own view on Beane as a drafter, is more complex than I stated above: I don’t think he has a central drafting philosophy beyond doing the analyticals and getting a guy with certifiably good numbers across the board; if two guys are otherwise equal he leans toward the skill guy rather than the tools guy, that’s all. I think Beane is and always has been far more flexible in his actual approach than outside views would have us see it, and that this is in fact to Billy’s credit. Much of his college sign approach was situational in my view, reflecting the As lack of money for expensive signings and need for an immediate inflow of talent in the mid to late 90s. In other words, if Beane had gone to Boston and gotten a prime development budget, I think he might well have gone on to sign expensive guys with optimal physiques as well as optimal analyticals which in his present capacity he simply cannot waste time dreaming about. Fuson and/or others in that organization may have a ‘philosophy,’ but frankly I doubt Billy really does. The seed of his genius to the extent that he has it is adaptability, and I think that this is revealed in the guys he _trades_ for: Beane is willing to take an incomplete package if he can find a minimum number of the positives he happens to need out of the role-and-roster slot the guy is being acquired for. This is why Beane drafting Bonderman never seemed like a surprise to me; Jeremy was the best guy available in many ways, fit Beane’s preference for front of the rotation starters, and at that particular time Billy could afford him. Where most GMs actually fail is that, unlike Beane, they DO have a philosophy, so instead of actually doing the analyticals and considering the organization’s needs in detail they take the guy that best fits their _image_ of who they want to acquire; that’s another way of saying that most organizations draft image rather than actuality. Sometimes the two prove to coincide down the road; sometimes not. I think Beane drafts for an intended actuality more than anyone in the game.
Now, this may actually _hurt_ his ability to draft truly superior players, as I was opining less directly in my earlier post. Sometimes, one really has to sign a player on (+++) potential but meagre actuals to actually get a +++ player. Guys who are a sure thing like A-Rod or Prior are going No. 1 or 2 for mega $$$, and are off the Athletics can-do list accordingly. I don’t think Beane bets on (+++) potential, well, ever, and so he never has that chance to dig a diamond from the dirt. He’ll take Crosby for what he can most probably do rather than gamble on Jose Lopez, for example. Now this take on Beane, my own, can be taken as a strength or as a weakness. I don’t think it makes Beane a sub-par GM regardless; he’s clearly extremely able. —If he could just lock Bad Billy in a closet for November and December, he would be absolutely the best GM of his time rather than a finalist for such status. A final aspect of Beane which I, personally, find fascinating is his ability to let people see what they want to see in his approach while actually moving on his own, clearly formulated design case-by-case. This isn’t so much blowing smoke as simply making a clear and specific decision every time he actually makes a decision—but not telling anyone what he’s really doing. People then read global designs they want to see into the image of Beane’s doing, while he himself sublty adapts case by case to very specific goals. It’s called knowing what you want, and Good Billy and Bad Billy both have that kind of moxie by the jeroboam. He’s a fun one to follow.