Main Sections:
Main Site
Discussion Forum
    All Topics
    New Messages
    Search
    Last Day
    Last Week
    Tree View
    Edit Profile
    Create Login
    Guidelines
    Help
Game Chat
Fund Raiser:
Order Merchandise!

Suggested Reading:
(click cover for info)

cover

Jason Kendall

OAFC BBS - All Topics: Archive: Jason Kendall
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By bigthree17 on Saturday, December 18, 2004 - 07:15 pm:

Well, he was undoubtedly lied to, or at least misled. The guy is so excited to leave the Pirates to come to a perennial contender, and now this happens. We basically are the Pirates now.

If not for the fact that he's got a gi-normous paycheck I may actually feel sorry for him.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By sactofan on Saturday, December 18, 2004 - 07:48 pm:

what is his contract status?

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By lazyslob on Saturday, December 18, 2004 - 08:03 pm:

Kendall's financial impact:

05 - 11M (10mil salary + 1mil paid to PIT)
06 - 12M (11mil salary + 1mil paid to PIT)
07 - 8M (13mil salary - 5mil paid by PIT)

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By rocket on Saturday, December 18, 2004 - 08:59 pm:

If the big trade with the Dodgers goes thru,
Beane needs to trade Kendall to the Dodgers. They
will have a lot of room in their budget, and do
not have a starting catcher.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By deajay on Saturday, December 18, 2004 - 10:58 pm:

Rocket, just who do you propose would be the A's catcher? Certainly not Melhuse. Barton, even if he makes it to the majors, will never catch either. He'll probably be a DH, maybe 1b candidate. The rest of our prospects are at least one and probably two years away. Chances are good, though that Kendall could be dealt next year, assuming one of the youngsters moves quickly. That would probably be Suzuki, at least from a defensive standpoint.

Also, as part of the Dodger deal, Yankees are sending their top prospect, catcher Dionar Navarro (spelling?); they may throw him in there right away. Maybe the A's would send Baker as part of a pkg., though.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By asch on Saturday, December 18, 2004 - 11:14 pm:

I talked to warren tonight about all of this.

I too think Kendall will be dealt, after this season or latest, after the next - there is NO way we have him for 3 years. It's not necessary with the 490 catching prospects we have. One of them HAS to be ready within 1, 2 years max.

BUT, here is the big question: deajay, you can probably help me on this one.

With Kendall's contract; we get that 5 mil in 2007. Does that money go to us regardless of if we have kendall - or does it go to whatever team has kendall in that year? I think back to what the wording was when the deal was announced - and it was like "money to be sent to Oakland" or something. I know we are paying a couple mil this year and next year to pitt - so do we get that money even if we trade kendall in two years? If so, it's almost guaranteed, we move him.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By deajay on Saturday, December 18, 2004 - 11:19 pm:

Good question, Adam; I don't know the answer. I would guess that we SHOULD at least get (be able to pocket) the $2mil back and the rest would go to the receiving team, probably via the A's, who would likely receive it, or they could direct the Pirates to forward it to the receiving team. Without that money, I can't see him being easy to deal.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By asch on Saturday, December 18, 2004 - 11:24 pm:

that's the same point warren made (re: kendall not being easy to move w/o the dough). But, I would be interested to see what the rules are.

Why do you think we would get 2 mil back...what 2 mill are you refering to? The 2 mill per year we send to pit in the first 2 years? Or are we only giving 1 mil per year?

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By deajay on Saturday, December 18, 2004 - 11:40 pm:

Well, my understanding of the deal was that the A's would send $1mil each of the first two years, which would go into the pot Pittsburgh would give to them in the third year. It was kind of a crazy deal. But that was what I understood, sort of like a savings account to be pooled with what Pirates would put in.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By bigthree17 on Sunday, December 19, 2004 - 01:09 am:

I think the money stays with whatever team is due to get it. The money isn't tied to Kendall, it was just another element of the trade. Now, if we deal Kendall, it's likely another team will want us to help with the contract, in which case we'd have to send some of the dough along. But I'm pretty sure the money was totally separate, like another player.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By lazyslob on Sunday, December 19, 2004 - 10:01 am:

I think bigthree17 is right. The money is separate from the player. The money we send to Pittsburgh, stays with Pittsburgh even though they have since traded Rhodes to the Indians.

I think it's a given that Kendall is gone before 2007. That way Schott gets his $5mil payoff from the Pirates without having to pay that pesky salary.

And I'll bet that two years from now, when we have a $5mil payment coming for a catcher we don't have to pay, that money does not get factored into the owners' self-imposed salary cap.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By rocket on Sunday, December 19, 2004 - 04:47 pm:

DJ,
You answered your own question rather well.

I too think Kendall will be long gone, and the
A's will pocket the 5 million and not boost the
payroll budget in 2007.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By diamond_lil on Sunday, December 19, 2004 - 05:24 pm:

I don't know for sure, but in a rough estimate, the A's payroll should be at about 50 mil or close to that...
does anybody have another estimate?

I know I'm being just lazy to look it up but do they have the 40 man roster filled up with all these prospects they got?

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By yc2578 on Sunday, December 19, 2004 - 05:34 pm:

From the A's website the current 40-man roster is this:

Pitchers B/T Ht Wt DOB
64 Joe Blanton R/R 6-3 225 12/11/80
54 Chad Bradford R/R 6-5 205 09/14/74
-- Kiko Calero R/R 6-1 185 01/09/75
-- Juan Cruz R/R 6-2 165 10/15/78
28 Octavio Dotel R/R 6-0 210 11/25/73
58 Justin Duchscherer R/R 6-3 190 11/19/77
-- Seth Etherton R/R 6-1 200 10/17/76
46 Jairo Garcia R/R 6-0 165 03/07/83
40 Rich Harden L/R 6-1 180 11/30/81
-- Danny Haren R/R 6-5 220 09/17/80
-- Tim Harikkala R/R 6-2 185 07/15/71
-- Tyler Johnson S/L 6-2 180 06/07/81
-- Chris Mabeus R/R 6-3 210 02/11/79
-- Dan Meyer R/L 6-3 210 07/03/81
36 John Rheinecker L/L 6-2 215 05/29/79
73 Ricardo Rincon L/L 5-9 190 04/13/70
75 Barry Zito L/L 6-4 215 05/13/78

Catchers B/T Ht Wt DOB
-- John Baker L/R 6-1 215 01/20/81
5 Jeremy Brown R/R 5-10 210 10/25/79
-- Jason Kendall R/R 6-0 195 06/26/74
17 Adam Melhuse S/R 6-2 200 03/27/72

Infielders B/T Ht Wt DOB
2 Freddie Bynum L/R 6-1 180 02/15/80
3 Eric Chavez L/R 6-1 205 12/07/77
7 Bobby Crosby R/R 6-3 195 01/12/80
14 Mark Ellis R/R 5-11 180 06/06/77
-- Keith Ginter R/R 5-10 195 05/05/76
10 Scott Hatteberg L/R 6-1 210 12/14/69
37 Dan Johnson L/R 6-2 220 08/10/79
47 Adam Morrissey R/R 5-11 170 06/08/81
8 Mike Rouse L/R 5-11 185 04/25/80
49 Marco Scutaro R/R 5-10 170 10/30/75

Outfielders B/T Ht Wt DOB
22 Eric Byrnes R/R 6-2 210 02/16/76
23 Bobby Kielty S/R 6-1 225 08/05/76
21 Mark Kotsay L/L 6-0 200 12/02/75
-- Jason Perry L/R 6-0 200 08/18/80
33 Nick Swisher S/L 6-0 195 01/25/80
-- Charles Thomas L/L 6-0 190 12/26/78
12 Matt Watson L/R 5-11 200 11/05/78

Designated Hitters B/T Ht Wt DOB
44 Erubiel Durazo L/L 6-3 240 01/23/75

By my count there is 39 players so one spot to fill but obviously still moves to be made. I think it's sorta a given Bradford will be non-tendered.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By diamond_lil on Sunday, December 19, 2004 - 05:53 pm:

thanks

I read in SS's article today that the payroll was up in the 70s with Kendall's signing and is now down in the 60s after the trades...

but I'm guessin that is too high and I read, but can't remember where that the payroll is now down in the 50s/

I wonder how low they are aiming to make the team more attractive for a sale.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By oakchick on Sunday, December 19, 2004 - 06:23 pm:

Beane might deal Kendall - it looks like Schott is twisting his arm right here.

I think that trading for Kendall basically set off an avalanche, leading to the departure of 2 of the Big Three. I know the Dodgers are looking for a catcher, and Dioner may not be Major League ready.

Misery loves company, and so I thought I would share the Dodger's pain with you, from DodgerBlues.com. They lost Beltre to the Mariners.

http://dodgerblues.com/content/news.html

Once upon a time, guy meets girl. Guy thinks girl is kind of cute, but a bit chubby. Guy gets into relationship with girl, hoping girl will shed a few pounds. Guy sticks with girl for five friggin' years. Girl loses a pound here, gains a pound there. Still, guy knows deep down that girl could be really hot. Finally one day, girl stops eating chili cheeseburgers, starts doing sit-ups, and loses 30 pounds. Girl is sexy. Girl learns how to hit with power to right field. Girl hits 48 home runs. Girl is a piece of ass. So what does guy do? Guy tells girl to kiss his ass and then watches girl hook up with a dude who lives somewhere very overcast. And they all lived happily ever after... well, all except for Dodger fans.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By bloggsy on Sunday, December 19, 2004 - 06:51 pm:

Any comments on this Ratto?

Schott, we know, is a profoundly energetic, even Yorkian, money-minder. He has maintained the laughable fiction that he and Ken Hofmann bought the A's for $85 million, a figure which is at least a third too high, and that they just barely scrape by every year, which is monumentally false. They do swell, year in and year out.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By diamond_lil on Sunday, December 19, 2004 - 07:24 pm:

Ratboy is correct.

When all was said and done, Schott only invested $68 million.

And he broke a ten year lease as setlement of a 48 million lawsuit against the city.

He also played rent free until last year and he gained full revenue control of food and parking concessionaires.

As part of the suit settlement he agreed to put the team on the market to local owners for 120 mil but it was a fake sale offer because he knew Selig would not approve it. The man is so arrogant that he admitted to a newspaper interview that he never intended to sell and did that just to break the lease.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By deajay on Sunday, December 19, 2004 - 11:19 pm:

Think I'm going to check with Susan on that. I'm of the opinion somebody entered a "6" in lieu of a "5". I'm thinking the payroll should be around $51.5.

Doing some quick math on Kendall, Chavy, Kotsay, Zito, Hattey, Rincon ... the "big" salaried guys, it comes to $45mil. Crosby, Duke, Ellis, Harden, Melhuse, Scutaro, Swisher, Kielty, Street, Blanton,Calero, Meyer, Haren, Thomas were all around minimum and some will get a minimal raise of probably little more than $50K. The aggregate for those guys probably checks in somewhere around $6mil. Then Ellis, Byrnes, Dotel, Durazo are all arb-eligible; and I may have missed a couple ... I deliberately left off Bradford. But Dotel and Durazo will probably check in somewhere around a combined $7-8mil. So, maybe Susan's figures were pretty close at $61.5, if she was estimating all the others, as I did.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By deajay on Sunday, December 19, 2004 - 11:22 pm:

Oh, and I didn't include all 39 guys on the roster, just based my estimates on what looks to be the final 25 man roster up here. So, it looks like it is every bit what Susan's figures show.


Posting is currently disabled in this topic. Contact your discussion moderator for more information.


 

Questions? Comments? Corrections? Please contact info@oaklandfans.com.