As I've said before, if the FO lets him go, they're dead to me. There is absolutely no reason why he shouldn't be resigned.
I'm cool if they let him go and get say Chapman, but they obviously know they need a bullpen ace who isn't Hatcher
The best thing about condensed games is Jocs verbals after he strikes out FUCK! SHIT! Haha you can hear them all.
I can't imagine that scenario...but I couldn't imagine the Greinke thing either. If that were to happen, I wonder if there would be the usual contingent defending the FO behind it...and what the excuses would be? As a skeptic presently to the degree of the FO committment to winning a championship, I always have a measure of "things are just not working so well right now...they will eventually" in my head. Basically...hope. But if they let Kenley go, there's no way I would/could believe they gave a shit. I think it would also mean that CK would go elsewhere, feeling disgust with the non-committment, imo.
I get letting Greinke leave, but Kenley is still relatively young, dominant as anyone in BB, with little to no injury history.
IDK if we should be wishing he starts hitting with power, it will come in time. Remember he plays against all pitchers regardless of what arm they throw with while Joc sits.
Imagine this. Imagine they bring Urias up and while he's here he excels in the pen. At the same time Kenley goes down with...I dunno...a staph infection. Urias steps up and deals like Kenley for two weeks without skipping a beat. Now knowing Kenley is going to get a multi-year deal at say $12M per, would you re-sign him, or would you give him a QO and rake the draft pick while controlling Urias for 6 years on the cheap? (Of course this scenario relies on Urias being a closer and the Dodgers having a full complement of reliable starters...I know, I know). But it isn't impossible that something like that could happen. And the nerds are well versed in not overpaying for an overhyped position.
If money is the most important factor, then the FO wouldn't give up on Urias as a starter that easily. Passing on Kenley at $12 million/year only to spend $16 million/year for a starter would be a bad financial decision. So I don't see that scenario playing out so early in Urias' career even if he was a stud bullpen arm for us this year.
And AF and FZ aren't FO types that cling to the outdated closer label anyway, they just want great relievers. They didn't say " well, Chapman's a closer and we're gonna have to pay him, so he doesn't fit with Kenley " Same deal with their interest in signing/trading for Andrew Miller and their willingness to fork over the $ for O'Day. Kenley will get paid by LAD
I was going to say something similar to this. If we have another stud in the bullpen emerge (Urias or somebody else), it doesn't negate the need to keep Kenley. As far as Chapman/Miller/O'Day interest being proof that our FO will go strongly after multiple top arms... well, none of those fckers are actually on our team, so I don't know if that "interest" holds much weight.
I think we all know what the circumstances were regarding LAD and Chapman/Miller/O'Day, we only discuss them whenever the current LAD pen blows a lead, so I don't feel they have to be on the team for the message to come in clear here...perhaps that was just frustration bubbling up at the end there on your behalf. One obviously had the domestic violence stigma attached and made them bail ( a move in which many here have backed), and the other 2 relievers just preferred to stay on the east coast. Contrary to popular belief, LAD is not looking to go cheap, their goal is just to commit the right amount of years/$ to the right guys aka spend wisely, the Maeda/Kazmir contracts are an indicator that they no longer want to take on big losses as with Crawford/etc...which I think most can agree is a pretty reasonable goal in regards to the on-field product of a franchise that hasn't been run correctly for a long time. Now, they've failed some in this regard, but they've also won some. However, the team's current standing a month in pushes the failures to the forefront, again the frustration. Now, I could see if Kenley were 34 or 35 yrs old and showing signs of decline, but he's not. He'll be a young 29 ( in terms of his arm and relatively new non-catching role) when he hits the market and he's well-built for the long haul. Kenley fits the profile of the caliber reliever they've been trying to add and so ultimately logic will likely win out here.
Some of it is frustration on my part. I'm generally pro-FO, but I've said it before: when the bullpen is performing poorly I can't defend the fact that nothing was done in the offseason to improve it. I can make a case individually of why we didn't get each guy, and it makes sense, but collectively nothing was done and that's a problem in the end. I absolutely agree, and I'm constantly dumbfounded at the argument that the team is being "cheap" when we are sitting here with the highest payroll in MLB, and it's not even close. Complaining about how we spend money is OK, but calling the team cheap doesn't make sense. I'd actually be surprised if Kenley is on another team next season, and I agree with all this. He's not going to get $200 million offers as a FA... his contract size and length will fit with what the FO has been dishing out. Of course, they could sign him to an extension right now if they really wanted to, so until he's inked anything is possible.
