While not the largest deal of the day, Ian Kennedy signed a sizable five-year, $70MM contract to pitch for the Royals. The deal includes an opt out after the 2017 season. The social media reaction has been largely negative, but there’s usually another layer to the onion. Here are some of the reactions from around the web.
- Kennedy was a replacement level pitcher in two of the last three seasons, writes August Fagerstrom of FanGraphs. While it’s fair to expect Kennedy to be slightly above average, it’s hard to overlook those two ugly campaigns. Based on the assumption that Kennedy is slightly better than a two win player now, Fagerstrom estimates a $51MM contract as “fair” over a five-year term. That’s not including the qualifying offer. Fagerstrom also cautions to consider the complete picture. The 24th overall pick may not have held much value to a club with a two-year window. The Royals were also in desperate need of a reliable starting pitcher. Kennedy should offer more certainty than cheaper options on the market like Doug Fister.
- The Royals are betting they signed the good version of Kennedy, writes Jerry Crasnick of ESPN.com. GM Dayton Moore and agent Scott Boras have worked together on such players as Eric Hosmer, Mike Moustakas, Luke Hochevar, and Kendrys Morales. All four players are controlled through 2017 – either through arbitration, contract, or club option. Boras could point to that window of contention as a reason to sign Kennedy.
- Mark Townsend of Yahoo also highlights the club’s short term window. While he agrees with the general sentiment that the Royals overpaid for Kennedy, he also notes that the two-year opt out is a good fit for the Royals. With several core players hitting free agency after 2017, the team will find it difficult to continue contending. If Kennedy pitches well, he can secure another multi-year deal with a different team. If he pitches poorly, the Royals can rebuild around his bad contract. It’s a risky gamble, but one that makes sense for Kansas City.
- The Royals outfield defense should be of immense help to Kennedy, suggests CBS. His former club, the Padres, featured one of the worst outfield defenses in baseball while the Royals will return one of the very best units. The swing in value should allow Kennedy to cut down on extra base hits. He may also improve his lofty 17% HR/FB ratio in his new home park (although Petco Park is also homer suppressant)
Excellent signing. He’ll be what James Shields was for the Royals. And what’s this talk about overpay? It’s not like the Royals broke the bank. And it’s not like it even matters – they’re the defending champs.
Defending champs or not, 5/70M for a small market team for a backend starter isn’t a good investment.
I’m sorry you don’t understand how this was a good move for the Royals. They won’t be competitive after 2017 anyway so it doesn’t matter. This won’t cripple them. It’s not being able to afford all the other free agents that are going to walk in a few years.
I’m sorry you don’t understand how this is NOT a good move for the Royals! Yes their window may only be 2 years. However this all but closes the door on the ability for them to extend that window. With players like Hosmer, Cain, Moustakas, and Escobar becoming FA soon they needed to be able to lock some of those guys up. If Kennedy does not opt out after 2017 the Royals are stuck paying him 14 M a year that could have been used to secure one of those other MORE valuable pieces to extensions. Paying 14M a year for a 5th starter has to be a hard pill to swallow for Royals fans.
What he is saying, is that every contract like Kennedy’s will be that reason they won’t be able to afford to keep one more of their players, and they will end up walking. Can’t afford Hosmer. They gave his money to Kennedy.
Your logic is not logic. 🙂
Plus how can a teams 2nd largest contract EVER NOT be crippling? The Royals just gave Gordon 4 years 72 M and now give Kennedy 5 years 70 M? Yet you think this is a good signing and not crippling……
I’m sorry you guys don’t understand how this all works. Maybe after the Royals win another World Series in 2016 you will be able to see things clearly like I do.
Great signing.
Winning another WS in 2016 and 2017 still doesn’t suggest this is a good signing. With Ventura, Volquez, Medlen, Duffy, and Young there is a chance Kennedy is their 6th best starter. With this contract they HAVE to put him in the rotation meaning they take someone BETTER out of their rotation.
So winning a WS or even 2 more does not mean this is a good signing at all. It means their core is still great which they will have to begin parting with because of this signing. 14M could have gone to an extension for Hosmer or one of their other guys.
Unless all of their guys took discounts, there would be no way the Royals would be able to lock up more than two of those guys. Hosmer, Moustakas, Cain and Escobar are going to command at least $15 million AAV assuming they don’t suffer a massive dropoff in production. Davis and Herrera are going to cost probably $10 million AAV. I’m sure the Royals know their window is two years, so it makes the most sense to look to win now. Holding out and waiting two years to try to resign their guys isn’t going to do any good. Unless they find an internal replacement to put up similar production, resigning them won’t do any good unless you resign all of them.
I agree. Kennedy’s peripherals last year were very close to when he came in 4th in the NL Cy Young and rocked a 137 ERA+. He can be very very good. He’s miles better than Gallardo and in that park with that outfield, could be a 15-18 game winner. No, I’m not kidding.
Braves25, I’m sorry you don’t understand that Kennedy is better than Medlen, Duffy and Young. Maybe one day you’ll grow to learn this simple fact that is so obvious.
No, you are delusional. The ONLY area in which Kennedy was not FAR below league average or even replacement level last season was K/9. He was near the bottom in nearly every other pitching category including ERA, FIP, HR/9, BB/9, LOB%, ERA+ and WAR. His FIP and BABIP show clearly that defense was not a problem in his case. What exactly are these “peripherals” you are talking about?
You don’t bring much facts to the table do you? You can criticize others all you want but doesn’t make you look much smarter without numbers and facts to back your statement up.
Duffy is a better reliever than starter, which he showcased late in the season. The Royals need starter that will give their deadly defense some work and be somewhat consistent throughout the year. Duffy finished the season 7-8 with a 4.08 ERA
@ Brixton, You hit that nail right on the head. In all of the past 5 seasons Kennedy has had an ERA+ below league average and in 3 of those seasons, he was below replacement level. Last season not only did he have a 4.28 ERA, but his 4.51 FIP and .301 BABIP shows that defense was not his problem. There was no defensible reason to give up a draft pick and pay $14 million AAV for the privilege of signing a #4 or #5 starter.
Utterly baffling that you think this is a good signing. He’s a #4 starter at best and has been worth a grand total of 1.8 over the last FOUR seasons. There were and still are many cheaper options who could toss an 85 ERA+ out there.
They gave him the second highest contract they’ve ever given out AND gave up a pick to do so. Everyone downplays Fister but he was better than Kennedy last year and has a far greater track record and would have cost far less, both in years and dollars. This is one of the worst signings I’ve ever seen.
I should say 1.8 WAR.
I agree, really don’t understand Kennedy over Fister. 3 out of the past 4 seasons Kennedy has a FIP over 4. Meanwhile, Fister has been never had a FIP over 4 except for last season (fluke?) and his rookie year. Also, Fister has a much better history of preventing home runs.
James Shields was a top of the rotation starter for the Royals. A guy that gave you 3.15 and 3.21 ERA seasons. Kennedy in no way resembles Shields. He has produced at a below replacement level for 3 of the last 4 seasons. He threw up a 4.28 ERA with a 4.51 FIP last year. He was THE worst starter in baseball in terms of HR/9, 70th of 77 in FIP, 63rd out of 77 in ERA and 73rd of 77 in WAR. In other words, he was one of the very worst starters overall.
You must not have seen Kennedy pitch in recent years. There is a reason NL West fans did not want him on their team. That is a terrible signing.
This is the environment the Player’s Union and Owners have established. A guy who’s borderline even a #5 gets 70 million. Glad it’s not my money being used to pay these guys.
There are maybe 5 teams in baseball for which Ian Kennedy wouldn’t be at least a #4, and that’s pushing it. For most he’d be #3 or better. For the (World Champion) Royals, he’s #2 or #3. I hope all of you nay-sayers are fans of AL Central teams. You’ll discover soon enough how wrong you are.
On which teams would he be a ‘#3 or better’ (he’d be a #2 on some teams?)? There’s a few teams, the Mets for example, where he wouldn’t even be in the rotation. He’s a 4 at best. He’s sub-replacement level.
@RCT Seamaholic seems to thinks that facts don’t matter when it comes to his arguments. Not worth arguing with him. Telling him things like 73rd in WAR out of 77 pitchers = a #2 starter in his eyes.
That’s rich coming from a guy who has been dead wrong all winter. I mean, you were only off by 1000% on this one.
Teams he’d be a 3 or better: Tampa, Boston, Baltimore, Toronto, Philadelphia, Atlanta, Miami, chi sox, twins, Royals, Brewers, Rockies, Cincinnati, Yankees, Seattle, Arizona, Oakland, San diego
Bizarre deal and a huge overpay by a small market team that’s been in two straight World Series. Moore also paid more than he had to for Rios, Morales, and Volquez. The only positive is that it didn’t get in the way of resigning Gordon, though I can’t see why they didn’t just sign Fister, who is just as questionable.
So Rios, Morales and Volquez said they would have signed for less money to play in KC? Didn’t realize that. I think Moore has earned a bit of a benefit of the doubt, he’s done a pretty good job putting together a roster and the next two seasons should be pretty strong as well.
I agree that it appears to be an overpay…gross overpay? No. I also agree that Moore overpayed for Rios last season, but, in the case of both Volquez
So glad they overpaid for this bum lmao
As a Padres fan, so am I. We get a draft pick we probably shouldn’t be getting. I highly doubt Kennedy had any other suitors willing to give up a draft pick to get a #4 or #5 starter. Boras strikes again. Now that guy is a genius. If I was a player today, that is the only guy I would want representing me.
“If he pitches poorly,they can rebuild around his bad contract.” Wonderful, just what every team wants to build around. The Reds are rebuilding, but I doubt they would take Ricky Nolasco’s contract “to build around.” It’s like saying the Phillies extending Ryan Howard isn’t a problem. Makes no sense whatsoever.
Why didn’t the royals just give this contract to Shields last year?
i think the Royals got desperate into the situation and had to overpay because they let the bigger fish – Chen, who is a far superior piitcher, get away probably due to low balling the deal with him.
Ian Kennedy is a 30 year old below MLB average pitcher that can eat innings.
Mike Pelfrey is a 31 year old below MLB average pitcher that can eat innings and he had a better year than Kennedy last year.
They have an almost identical number of innings pitched in their career.
Why one guy got $70MM for 5 years and the other guy got $18MM for 2 years is incomprehensible. When you factor in the 1st round draft pick lost for Kennedy, its laughable.
As a Tigers fan, I will looking forward to facing Kennedy. I should not be that happy about a $70MM pitcher facing my team, should I?
Sorry. Actually Pelfrey got $16MM, not $18MM. I remember thinking at the time that $8MM/year was an overpay for Pelfrey’s age 31 and age 32 season.
If Pelfrey is an overpay, what is Kennedy?
A huge, maybe even colossal, blunder.
Kennedy is better than Pelfrey over the long term but they are both overpaid.
Perhaps Kennedy is what 5% better… perhaps 10% better? In the end they are both back of a good rotation pitchers.
But, look at the difference in contracts!
No, Pelfrey is just bad. He gives up a ton of hits (10.8 h/9), K’s practically nobody (4.7 k/9) and taxes the bullpen ( avg. 5.5 innings per start, 8 of his 30 starts went 4 innings or less) and benefited greatly from playing in Minnesota (home ERA 2.61, Away 5.93). Sure Pelfrey and Kennedy had similar innings and ERA last year but there are plenty of reasons to expect improvement from Kennedy and very little for Pelfrey.
How? Can you name more than one area? They had the same amount of starts, pretty much the same amount of innings, Kennedy had more strikeouts, but 27% more walks. Kennedy had the highest HR/9 in baseball while Pelfrey had one of the lowest. Pelfrey had a slightly better ERA and a substantially better FIP all while having a BABIP 33 points higher. So please tell me how Kennedy was better overall?
Horrible contract for a below average pitcher.
Bingo.
Kennedy does not seem all too different from Samardzija, yet the reaction to Kennedy’s deal seems to be far more negative. Relative to Samardzija’s 5 year $90 million deal, Kennedy for 5-70 does not seem that bad. I think Kennedy is likely to put up better numbers with the Royals than his full season numbers this past year.
That’s what I was thinking. Samardzija is coming off a season with a 5 ERA, but everyone loves his deal, at $18 million a year. Kennedy signs on for $14 million, and everyone flips.
Today I learned – there are going to be a LOT of baseball fans that are surprised when Kennedy posts around a 3.75 ERA over 200 innings this year.
There will be lots more that are not surprised when he posts a 4.00 or higher ERA with 160-170 IP.
Only 22 pitchers had an ERA under 3.75 with 200 innings. Out of 30 teams.
Yes, many people will be surprised.
And Kennedy has done it twice in the last 5 years.
You guys obviously haven’t watched him pitch.
Ah, that is wishful thinking at its worst. Kennedy is not a good pitcher. 5 years for 70 mil is just stupid.
Yeah because that is never going to happen and we all must have hit some alternate universe portal.
Same old same old, last year we heard Morales signing big mistake, Medlin signing bad, Volquez too much money should have resigned Shields, Madson washed up bum same thing every year. It’s no wonder none of ” the experts” have gm jobs and most fans and posters just parrot what they hear and say. I like the signing, sure I wish he would have come cheaper but when you look at the other contracts it’s not shocking. It’s not just a two year window because of the core players it also is very important to keep a competitive team over the next few years because we have one of the worst tv contracts in MLB.. They must keep ratings high to negotiate a more lucrative contract. Even if they lose money in the short term it will behoove them long term.
That said Kennedy still possesses a live arm and will be reunited with pitching coach Eiland who has gotten the most out of Volquez, Vargas, etc.I would much rather roll the dice on Kennedy with this contract than the money thrown at Cueto, Samardzija, and please don’t throw Pelfrey out there he probably won’t be starting by June.
I agree
A 2 win player? He hasn’t done that in 4 years. In fact his net WAR over the last 4 years is negative. Good luck anyone convincing themselves that this was a good signing.
Trust Dave Eiland
One word comes to mind for this move….eh.
Actually this wasn’t as bad of signing as people are thinking. Now yes he is over paid but 99.9 percent of the time almost all free agents are over paid. Normally Kennedy eats a lot of innings and he did have a bad year in San Diego last year, but what about that team went right at all? He probably had his worse season of his career last season and still average about 5.18 (5.6) innings per start and career wise he normally get 6 innings per start. Royals need the 4 era, 200 inning guy at the end of the rotation. Royals have a very good bullpen with a solid group of position players who have had good defensive markers for the most part. He was brought in to eat innings since if Soria is healthy, Soria-Herrera-Davis, 7-8-9 should be very good. They also have an adequate offense, with Infante and Rios not having a good year. If those two can get it back on track, they will be in the playoffs again. Now that division will be rough so we shall see.
The Royals were doubted with some of their questionable signings last year, and I challenge anyone to say they didn’t work out. Knowing KC’s management, this will probably work out, even if it seems like a bad deal on the surface.
I honestly thought Kennedy would get no more than 3/30 or 2/25 deal.
I understand both arguments about this signing. 70 mil is a gamble. Let’s not forget that some talent evaluators for the Royals know what they are doing, examples include Chris Young signing, Keep Gorgon when he didn’t cut the mustard at 3rd base, sticking with Moose through his rough years, letting Billy Butler walk, Medlen, Wade Davis, LoCain, Morales. Someone there has a good eye for takent. Outside of the Omar Infante Rios signing, I say the rest are aces. What as I see as a formr evaluator is a pitcher who had a crappy outfield. Kansas City has a top 5 defensive outfield and enough speed to make up for a fly ball pitcher such as Kennedy. Am I in love with this deal? No. Do I see upside? Yes. I have to assume that Cliff Lee and Tim Lincecum would not entertain prove-it deals. Otherwise, I see that as a vetter option with the remaining money going to an outfielder such as Cespedes or Upton. The Royals are counting on a Dyson – Orlando platoon that I don’t see working out for them. Maybe the money would have been vetter off in an outfielders pocket, but hey there is a reason the Royals are good and I am merely another commenter on a blog site!