Baseball Musings
Baseball Musings
November 27, 2004
Athletic Catcher

The Pirates and Athletics have completed the deal that sends catcher Jason Kendall to Oakland. I was very surprised by this trade. It's not that the A's didn't make a good deal; Kendall has a career .387 OBA and hit .399 in both 2003 and 2004. He'll be someone the A's sluggers can drive in. It's that Kendall is an old catcher. According to the book Moneyball, Beane was going to replace Varitek with Mark Johnson once he took the Boston GM job. That was based on Varitek's age as a catcher, the same age Kendall is now. Of course the Varitek for Johnson move would have been terrible, so maybe Beane learned something.

The Athletics get the NL leader in win shares at catcher to replace Damian Miller. If you look at the deal as losing Miller, Rhodes and Redman, then the A's gave up 25 win shares among three players to recieve 25 win shares in one plyaer. If you assume the A's can find two other pitchers to generate 10 win shares, then Oakland has picked up 3 wins. That's a lot, considering they lost the west by 1 game in 2004.

I don't think Arthur Rhodes is a useful player anymore; I'm sure the A's just wanted to get rid of him. Redman was a disappointment. After a very good 2003 season with Florida, his strikeouts fell off and his HR went way up. He's an okay back of the rotation pitcher, but I don't see him making the Pirates a whole lot better. Any improvement in that team will come from spending the money they save on Kendall wisely.

Maybe they can obtain Prentice to go along with Tike and Mark and corner the market on Redman! (Although you'd think the Braves and Indians would be trading for these players. :-))


Posted by David Pinto at 03:22 PM | Trades | TrackBack (0)
Comments

According to BR, Kendall will be 31 next season. Varitek will be 33. 1

Posted by: petitio at November 27, 2004 04:47 PM

Er, x that. Posted before I figured out the syntax of the comment.

Posted by: petitio at November 27, 2004 04:47 PM

I could also see Beane viewing Kendall full time catcher in 2005, then playing the position part time in 2006/2007, when he might log innings as a DH/1B/LF

Posted by: tom at November 27, 2004 09:59 PM

I think the age issue is somewhat overrated. Teams are now scampering for 23-year old kids who have little-to-no future, instead of an established 30-year old veteren who will produce for perhaps a decade but is still considered old.

Posted by: Ryan at November 27, 2004 11:10 PM

about the age thing -

there have been a lot of articles written about how after so many games caught (around age 32, usually) a catcher's hitting goes rapidly downhill. there have been a few exceptions like gary carter and pudge fisk, but i guess most baseball people are likeing the age thing as a pretty hard and fast rule.

personally, i think billy got a good deal cuz he needed a good leadoff guy and kendall is a good leadoff guy, even if his position is "wrong" for leadoff. and there aren't a lot of catchers who hit a lot of HR anyway, which as far as i can tell seems to be the big complaint about kendall. i'd bet that he stays with the As until his contract expires

Posted by: lisa gray at November 28, 2004 03:01 PM

The trick is to find the 23-year-olds with futures, since they cost a lot less than the 30-year-old "proven veteran" who may have been good last year and may even be good this year, but who you'll be kicking yourself for singing to a 4-year deal 2 years from now. Hello, Todd Hundley.

Posted by: Adam Villani at November 29, 2004 03:27 AM

And Kendall's season lost to an injury reduces his years catching by one, so that could be a factor as well, his knees got a yeaf off from catching, so he may not quite compare to other catchers of his age. On the other hand, it's hard to understand why Oakland would take on his salary.

Posted by: John in Austin at November 29, 2004 10:56 AM

Kendall is a tough catcher with the knack for getting on base. He hits for a high average and walks often (although he is more of a slap hitter than a slugger). While playing half his games in Oakland will drive down his batting average some (and his slugging percentage even more), he's a good catcher to have - especially when you need one.

What's interesting here is the moves which lead to the need for Kendall. The A's had a catcher, Ramon Hernandez, and they traded him to the Padres for CF Mark Kotsay before the 2004 season. Kotsay was a great player for the A's in 2004. But, the trade for a CF seemed somewhat odd considering that two year prior the A's selected two "CF-type" NCAA players in the much hyped "Moneyball" draft - Nick Swisher and Steve Stanley - at the cost of two 1st round draft picks and about $2 million dollars in combined bonus money. Swisher looks like he might be a big league player - but, not a CF. And, Stanley's been a bust.

It should also be added that A's GM Billy Beane traded for OFers Terrernce Long and Jermaine Dye, and signed them to bad deals, causing the need for picking up an OF like Kotsay.

What's also interesting is that Redman and Rhodes are the players that Oakland is moving in this deal.

A's GM Billy Beane just signed Rhodes last winter to a three year deal for $9.2 million. It was a deal that worked out so well that just months later Beane traded prospects Mark Teahen and Mike Wood to pick up Octavio Dotel (to do the job that Rhodes was supposed to do).

Beane also picked up Redman last winter (for a $500,000 signing bonus and a contract of $1.75 million for 2004 and $4.25 million for 2005). The trade for Redman also cost the A's pitching prospect Bill Murphy.

Redman was needed for the A's rotation because Beane had traded Ted Lilly to the Blue Jays for OF Bobby Kielty. By the way, Lilly was an All-Star in 2004 and Kielty was a total bust in Oakland.

Because of all this background information, when I see Kendall play for Oakland in 2005, I'll think of waste of the Steve Stanley 1st round draft pick (creating the need for the trade of Hernandez, in some ways, along with the Dye and Long deals), the waste of the money spent on Rhodes (leading to the cost of Teahen and Wood), and the waste of giving up Lilly and Murphy (for one year of Redman - who was average, at best, in 2004).

Maybe Mom was wrong? Maybe two (or more) wrongs do make a right?

Posted by: NetShrine at November 29, 2004 01:49 PM

With regards to NetShrine, Beane did have a sort of diastrous offseason last year, and it is unfortunate that more people have not pointed it out. At the same time, had the Big 3 pitched even within 10% of their previous level, they would have made the playoffs again. This past season is both proof that Beane is not perfect and proof of how good he is that the team he created failed to make the playoffs only because of poor performance by 3 top pitchers in their prime.

Posted by: Man of Leisure at November 29, 2004 08:30 PM

Ok, it is true

Posted by: Tmobile at December 5, 2004 10:39 AM

how wrong that comment ended.

the only player worth a crap in that whole dialoge about the trades leading up to Kendall, is Teahen. Frankly, Teahen is still unproven, he's had one blockbuster year in 2006. in return, the a's have been back to the playoffs in 2006, nearly missing in 2005. Teahen's KC is nowhere near the playoffs.
The only guy that recieved a winning trade was Dye, who went to the White Sox and helped them win the WS.

Posted by: J. at April 9, 2007 02:28 PM
Post a comment









Remember personal info?