Ian Kennedy

Angels bid for Diamondbacks’ Ian Kennedy

12 Comments

The Angels aren’t buyers and the Diamondbacks aren’t sellers, but it seems they might be able to help each other out by doing an Ian Kennedy deal.

Both CBS Sports’ Jon Heyman and FOXSports.com’s Ken Rosenthal have mentioned the possibility. The Padres are also in the running, says MLB.com’s Steve Gilbert.

With Brandon McCarthy (shoulder) set to rejoin the rotation next week and Trevor Cahill (hip, shoulder) just a week behind, the Diamondbacks appear flush with starters. They’ve been using Patrick Corbin, Wade Miley, Kennedy, Randall Delgado and Tyler Skaggs of late, though Skaggs has already been demoted to make room for McCarthy. They also have top prospect Archie Bradley making noise with a 2.28 ERA in 15 starts in Double-A.

The problem is that, other than maybe Corbin, there’s not one guy there that seems like a front-line starter for a postseason rotation. It’s why the Diamondbacks have been mentioned in connection with the White Sox’s Jake Peavy and the Cubs’ Jeff Samardzija. If they could move Kennedy and get a couple of prospects in return, it’d make biting the bullet on a Peavy trade a lot easier.

In Kennedy, the Angels would get a guy who has been a disappointment this year, but one who still makes a modest $4.3 million and who is under control through 2015. With few major league-ready arms in the farm system, he’d be a nice to have around, especially since he’ll cost about half as much as a comparable free agent starter next year.

Kennedy, 28, is 3-7 with a 5.22 ERA this year, though he’s still fanned 101 in 119 innings. He went 21-4 with a 2.88 ERA in 2011 and 15-12 with a 4.02 ERA in 2012, striking out 385 batters in 430 1/3 innings between the two seasons.

Great Moments in Not Understanding The Rules

screen-shot-2017-01-17-at-10-02-33-am
Leave a comment

Bill Livingston of the Cleveland Plain Dealer is a Hall of Fame voter. In the past he has voted for players who used PEDs, but he’s never been totally happy with it, seeing the whole PED mess as a dilemma for voters.

On the one hand he doesn’t like voting for users and doesn’t like harming those who were clean by shifting votes away from them, but on the other hand, he doesn’t want to pretend history didn’t happen and that baseball hasn’t been filled with cheaters forever. What to do?

This year he decided to abstain altogether. A fair and noble act if one is as conflicted as Livingston happens to be. Except . . . he didn’t actually abstain:

Major league baseball will confer bronzed immortality on a few players Wednesday when the results of the national baseball writers’ balloting for the Hall of Fame will be announced.

I had a 2017 ballot. I returned it signed, but blank, with an explanatory note.

A blank ballot, signed and submitted, is not an abstention. It’s counted as a vote for no one. Each “no” vote increases the denominator in the calculation of whether or not a candidate has received 75% of the vote and has gained induction. An abstention, however, would not. So, in effect, Livingston has voted against all of the players on the ballot, both PED-tainted and clean, even though it appears that that was not his intention.

This is the second time in three years a Cleveland writer has had . . . issues with his Hall of Fame ballot. In the 2014-15 voting period, Paul Hoynes simply lost his ballot. Now Livingston misunderstood how to abstain.

I worry quite often that Ohio is gonna mess up a major election. I guess I’m just worrying about the wrong election.

Hall of Fame voters are making news, not exercising democratic rights

Cooperstown
Associated Press
4 Comments

Last month the Baseball Writers Association of America voted to make all Hall of Fame ballots public beginning with next year’s vote for the 2018 induction class. In the past 24 hours or so, as this year’s Hall of Fame voting period comes to a close, a lot of folks have been talking about that. Most notably in Jayson Stark’s piece over at ESPN regarding next year’s brave new public world.

Stark is pro-transparency on the ballots, as are the vast majority of BBWAA members who voted on the public ballot measure (it passed 80-9). Not everyone Stark quotes in his article is on board with it, though:

“I’ve already seen a lot of people change their votes from one year to the next,” said one of the strongest dissenters to this decision, USA Today’s Bob Nightengale. “People have changed their votes based on public opinion.”

Two other sources in the story, Scott Miller of Bleacher Report and a voter who asked to remain anonymous equated their Hall of Fame vote with democracy and invoked the sanctity of the secret ballot. “The No. 1 reason I was against this rule is that in this country, it’s a democracy, and everyone has a vote on different things. And I hate to see a blanket rule that forces everyone to go in one direction,” Miller said. Here’s what the anonymous guy said:

“To me, a secret ballot is a fundamental of democracy. You should be able to vote your conscience without having to explain your vote. But once it’s public, you’re open to public pressure. And that’s not what we want in a democracy. We’re not elected representatives. We’re chosen to be part of a voting group.”

This is ridiculous of course. Voting for the Hall of Fame is not exercising democratic rights. It is making news and making history. Hall of Fame voters are making decisions which will fundamentally alter baseball history and which matter greatly to a large number of baseball fans. They are not advancing their own or society’s interests at the ballot box the way citizens do on election day. Despite the fact that the form of their action here is, technically speaking, a ballot, they are making news in the same way a GM makes a news with a trade, the commissioner makes news with a rule change or a team makes news by winning a World Series.

Would any of these voters — who are credentialed members of the media, by the way, and like to style themselves as truth-seeking members of the Fourth Estate — accept silence from the people who make the news on the beat they cover? Would they be content if the newsmakers whose acts they chronicle demanded anonymity the way they themselves do now? Of course they wouldn’t. And if they got the same silent treatment they’d prefer to give, they’d write one of those petulant little columns they love about players who “duck the press” after a game.

Suck it up, journalists. Act the way you expect the newsmakers you cover to act and own your decisions. Don’t pretend for a moment that you’re not the subject of, and not the reporter of, the story when Hall of Fame season comes around.