Posted by Jason Wojciechowski on November 1, 2014 at 10:36 AM
On the other hand, he's got just one year left on his contract, at just shy of $10 million, so a trade for him would not require a major financial commitment, and in particular would not require the multiyear commitment that the A's seem so incapable of/unwilling to put on their books.
It's no secret that second base was a weak spot for the A's, especially offensively: by True Average, the .228 mark Oakland second basemen posted was the worst by 23 points, with shortstop's .251 the second-worst. More relevantly, the only teams with worse production from second base were Baltimore (Jonathan Schoop), the White Sox (Gordon Beckham), and Colorado (DJ LeMahieu). There is, in other words, room for an upgrade.
The questions are whether (a) the A's should spend whatever resources they have upgrading second base as opposed to other positions (shortstop, notably, assuming Lowrie doesn't come back via accepting the qualifying offer, or assuming Lowrie does come back but plays second base) and (b) whether the A's even have enough to get Kendrick. Not every team needs Kendrick, but a potential deal with the Dodgers last season was going to revolve around Zach Lee, as pointed out in the link, and Lee was ranked by Baseball Prospectus as their no. 84 prospect before the season. If the A's have anyone that good, it's Daniel Robertson, who MLB.com ranked no. 85 in its most recent list, but are the A's willing to trade the last really good prospect they have for one year of Howie Kendrick? Do the Angels even want a shortstop when other teams will be offering pitching?
In short: it would be neat, but don't expect anything to happen.