I seriously doubt a deal gets done. I think the Red Sox will offer something like Dempster in return for Kemp and the Dodgers eating $30 million and the Dodgers will respond with Kemp and $30 million in cash for Cecchini and Bradley and neither team will come to a middle ground. The most I could see the Red Sox giving up for Kemp would be Dempster/Peavy, Workman/Ranaudo and Betts and the Dodgers would need to kick in over $30 million. Between Kemp's injuries issues and contract, he probably has negative value right now. I doubt a team would take him if he was placed on waivers.
Let's Talk About Matt Kemp.
- Thread starter RedOctober3829
- Start date
- Status
This really is an interesting case. When healthy, he's a great offense producer. If you consider 2011 as a fluke or statistical outlier, hes still sits about a 3 war. Is that 15 million subsidized worth it? He is terribly overpaid, but I have doubts that he can play a full season decently anymore.
Red(s)HawksFan said:
Thanks. I must truly be living under a rock if I missed the news of a Nick Punto signing.
If we start the evaluation of any potential deal with your question, a deal seems improbable. The success of the microfracture surgery can't fully be understood at this time. I'd also wonder if enough time has elapsed to fully heal from the labrum surgery. For me, setting fair value would almost have to have a player, or players to be named later. Maybe one of Dempster or Peavy, with Package A for a healthy start to the season, package B for a delayed addition to the lineup, and package C for a significantly delayed return to playing.Savin Hillbilly said:
I think the only way to answer is to first ask the question, what would you sign him for as a FA right now? I just can't see going more than $90m. It's reckless to me to take a multi-year $20 million gamble on an injured player. Maybe he comes back a 5 WAR player. The downside is just too great. At that number, the conversation ends, I think, because I don't see the Dodgers giving a $38m subsidy. To give up something to boot? No thanks. Maybe if it's Dempster, since he is not a key piece and is overpaid. I figure we would have to eat about $5 million to trade Dempster right now. So maybe Dempster for Kemp plus $33m is what I would consider. The Dodgers won't do that. Better to hope he plays well this year and keep him or move him next year.Savin Hillbilly said:
Savin Hillbilly said:
Well, honestly I meant "buy low" in the abstract, as in "someone would be able to buy low." I'm not positive the Sox have the pieces to make a deal work, but I'm willing to throw something out there.
For someone like Kemp, assuming the Dodgers are throwing in $20-$30 million to offset the salaries, I think the Sox would still have to give up quite a bit. Not as much as he'd command after '11 (jesus - maybe XB, JBJ, Owens, Betts?). Would probably have to include a ML SP, throw in 1-2 top 10s and high ceiling piece or two. Maybe something like Lackey/Barnes/Betts or Peavy/Ranaudo/Kalish?
Not saying those get it done, but they might be a good starting point. I know it sounds like a lot, but for a guy with Kemp's talent (when healthy), might still be a buy-low.
Savin Hillbilly said:
Nothing?
Obviously, I'm opposed to a deal here, but it's worth noting that the Dodgers don't really have a lot to gain by just dumping Kemp at this point. I suppose the Red Sox could put together a deal centered around a couple of their pitchers in the upper minors, but I'm fond of the idea that you can't have too much pitching, simply because of attrition more than anything else.
Devizier said:
The Dodgers may not have a lot to gain by dumping Kemp specifically. But they do have a real interest in getting rid of a veteran outfielder.
Crawford: signed through 2017 at over 20M/year
Kemp: signed through 2019 at over 20M/year
Ethier: signed through 2017 at about 17M/year
None of those guys is likely a CF option long term. Then they have Puig, and their top prospect Pederson (maybe the only actual CF candidate?). So you've got those 3 veteran guys for potentially 1 position (2 at most). No DH in the NL, Gonzalez is at 1B, so no one can move there.
They really need to trade someone. I don't think it has to be Kemp, but it probably has to be someone. All 3 should be on the market, and they should choose the best deal, which probably means the deal that will require the least painful subsidy since I doubt they will get much talent in return for any of them given the contracts.
They have the budget to deal with the redundancy, but I'm sure they would still prefer to spend their money in more efficient ways.
MakMan44 said:
I think Ethier and Crawford are more clearly net-negative contracts that will definitely require a significant subsidy to dump. Kemp has by far the most upside of the group, but he also has the most expensive contract that runs 2 more seasons than the other 2. I'd be surprised if someone took on Kemp's deal without any money coming back.
My main point is that all 3 really need to be on the block, and the Dodgers have to hope that there is one team out there in need of outfield help that likes one of those 3 enough to not require a huge subsidy. If Kemp is the guy other organizations value most, and he can be traded away without having too pay much, they should make that move unless they are really convinced he will return to MVP form.
Barring some crazy 50M+ subsidy though, I hope that team isn't the Red Sox.
If LAD are looking for a way to move salary as a means to pursue a top FA (Cano), a creative deal with the Red Sox could be Dempster, Workman/Britton, and $20mm for Kemp. The $20mm is paid '16-19 after the two $4mm payments from the Punto deal.
Dempster is $13mm, so '14 shows a $7mm payroll increase. '15 is $20mm AAV, '16-'19 is $15mm AAV.
The drawback (for me,at least), is Kemp's recovery from surgeries. The first year might not indicate what he will have left; perhaps he is in extended SP, and is brought back slowly, with the idea to ramp up playing time after the ASB. Plus you lose much of his age 29 season.
In '15 the Sox have plenty of payroll space even with extensions for Ortiz and Lester to absorb $20mm. The last four years are 4/60 in terms of AAV.
Kemp doesn't need to be an MVP; he needs to be a 3-3.5 WAR player (Steamer gives him 2.5 in 113 games next year with 20 HR's.), about what Choo would average over a 6 year deal.
Dempster is $13mm, so '14 shows a $7mm payroll increase. '15 is $20mm AAV, '16-'19 is $15mm AAV.
The drawback (for me,at least), is Kemp's recovery from surgeries. The first year might not indicate what he will have left; perhaps he is in extended SP, and is brought back slowly, with the idea to ramp up playing time after the ASB. Plus you lose much of his age 29 season.
In '15 the Sox have plenty of payroll space even with extensions for Ortiz and Lester to absorb $20mm. The last four years are 4/60 in terms of AAV.
Kemp doesn't need to be an MVP; he needs to be a 3-3.5 WAR player (Steamer gives him 2.5 in 113 games next year with 20 HR's.), about what Choo would average over a 6 year deal.
Odds are "very likely" to "probable" the Dodgers will be highly motivated to move one of the big money set of Crawford, Ethier, Kemp. Puig is pretty much your everyday guy especially with his huge upside and temperament( though I think that issue is overblown). Crawford is untradable as we all know. Ethier is a very expensive platoon guy so conceivably they could keep all 4, but Kemp's ankle injury kept the logjam from being a problem. Plus their best prospect (pederson) is probably ready midway through next year. So if your the Sox you operate from the perspective the Dodgers are going to be reasonable with their asking price so they can figure out how much money they have available for the rest of the off- season where they can then be very aggressive with freed up cash and maneuverability.
The Red Sox know Ellsbury had a very valuable season last season. After a slow start to the year ells took off and was a large part towards helping the team win the division and the WS. I don't have the stat but I would say they value ells between 2.5- 4.5 war as the range for the next three years or so. They have made it pretty clear they are not going for him.
Therefore they are searching for an above average to great bat. Kemp fills that hole presuming the medicals check out. I would say the subsidy would have to be at least 25 mill regardless of who is traded. 30- 40 million if no dempster.
Nava, is a valuable trade piece and or
Dempster
1 if you include Nava in this trade (2 if you don't)
Britton/ Middlebrooks/ Webster/ De La Rosa and than perhaps a lower level guy.
I'd think about workman in that first group but I would probably need another 5 million or so to be convinced.
I think its useful to think of a list of younger guys we'd feel alright with them trading in for a more proven if more expensive asset . Our young pitching isn't quite as heralded as the Cardinals, but they could likely be packaged in a deal for something pretty valuable.
Middlebrooks would be more or less a guy I would be shopping aggressively. Cecchini makes him expendable.
The Red Sox know Ellsbury had a very valuable season last season. After a slow start to the year ells took off and was a large part towards helping the team win the division and the WS. I don't have the stat but I would say they value ells between 2.5- 4.5 war as the range for the next three years or so. They have made it pretty clear they are not going for him.
Therefore they are searching for an above average to great bat. Kemp fills that hole presuming the medicals check out. I would say the subsidy would have to be at least 25 mill regardless of who is traded. 30- 40 million if no dempster.
Nava, is a valuable trade piece and or
Dempster
1 if you include Nava in this trade (2 if you don't)
Britton/ Middlebrooks/ Webster/ De La Rosa and than perhaps a lower level guy.
I'd think about workman in that first group but I would probably need another 5 million or so to be convinced.
I think its useful to think of a list of younger guys we'd feel alright with them trading in for a more proven if more expensive asset . Our young pitching isn't quite as heralded as the Cardinals, but they could likely be packaged in a deal for something pretty valuable.
Middlebrooks would be more or less a guy I would be shopping aggressively. Cecchini makes him expendable.
If the Dodgers are looking to break an outfield log jam, why would they take back another outfielder (Nava)?
This is the kind of move the Sox should be looking into. The price of free agents is escalating rapidly, so improving the team is expensive through that route. Ellsbury is going to get overpaid... but we have Bradley to step in -- and you have to let the young guys step in sometime, even if you take a bit of a hit short-term. We aren't set at catcher or first base and could possibly look to improve at LF, even though the platoon we have is perfectly acceptable. The Sox being who they are, they can't have TOO MANY young guys step in at once (their variance is too high)... so it's reasonable to move some upper level talent. Kemp, if he rebounds, would offer a major improvement in LF... but there's some risk involved. If the Dodger aren't willing to defray that risk, then we can kick other tires in the lot.
On the other hand... Joe Mauer as 1b/C? Hmmmm.... he's expensive and the Twins aren't even going nowhere fast.
On the other hand... Joe Mauer as 1b/C? Hmmmm.... he's expensive and the Twins aren't even going nowhere fast.
Haven't the Twins said repeatedly that they have zero intention of trading Mauer, like, ever? He's like their Dustin Pedroia, if Pedroia was an Irish kid who went to BC High.
Savin Hillbilly said:
Yes. They also have said they're moving him to 1B full-time to preserve him for the long haul. That's not the kind of thing you'd do if you were hoping to unload him. With his contract, he's far more valuable if he's still viewed as a full-time catcher than as a 1B.
Mauer is the face of the franchise who happens still to be a great hitter, with latent power that they hope will more fully reemerge once he is unburdened by the tools of ignorance. Which is not to say never, but a Mauer trade would lose all of the pink hats here and a fair number of other exceedingly parochial but dedicated fans who love the hometown boy. Best for us to wishcast in another direction.
I agree with you. Living in northern Minnesota, I know the twins make an incredibly larger amount off of Mauer than what they are paying him for. There is no possible way he will ever play for another team. None.
It's the amount of cash LAD would have to include, not the players. If the Dodgers wanted to move (save) more cash for a big FA signing that would trump having Kemp, this was a way to get some value for $13mm, an end of the rotation pitcher who is gone after ''14, and one to replace Beckett/Dempster in '15, rather than hand $13m cash over. Most teams would expect a lot more money back to trade a good prospect or young MLB player.
Kemp is a risk, but one with high upside.the Red Sox have the payroll space and the platoon depth to take the risk.
Kemp is a risk, but one with high upside.the Red Sox have the payroll space and the platoon depth to take the risk.
It's always nice to dream, though!
I live in Minneapolis and have season tickets to this dreadful team. Mauer has lost considerable fan support over the past couple years. Him moving to 1B made things slightly worse. Heard lots of complaints about how he is a great athlete, yet he is going to a position that requires the least amount of athleticism in 1B.
I can certainly foresee a scenario where he is traded. The team is struggling to fill seats right now. The allure of the new stadium has worn off, and two years of terrible baseball has taken its toll. Sure, they would lose a bit more support if Mauer were to go, but every fan knows they are at east 2 years out from attempting to compete.
But it is highly unlikely that 1) anyone would offer up much that would help the team considering his contract, or 2) Terry Ryan would recognize a good deal if it placed in front of him
I can certainly foresee a scenario where he is traded. The team is struggling to fill seats right now. The allure of the new stadium has worn off, and two years of terrible baseball has taken its toll. Sure, they would lose a bit more support if Mauer were to go, but every fan knows they are at east 2 years out from attempting to compete.
But it is highly unlikely that 1) anyone would offer up much that would help the team considering his contract, or 2) Terry Ryan would recognize a good deal if it placed in front of him
Is this how people in Minnesota feel about Terry Ryan?swingin val said:
I don't know much about his tenure, but wasn't this the same guy who was at the helm when the cash-strapped Twins ran off 6 consecutive winning seasons ('01 to '06)? And didn't he turn AJ Pierzynski into Joe Nathan and Liriano?
He definitely made some errors (letting David Ortiz walk, for instance), but I'd place him in the top half of MLB GMs, right?
As a fellow Twins STH, I agree, to a limited extent, but Mauer represents at worst a love/hate relationship. And there are a ton of fans, particularly families with kids looking for "role models," who simply love him. You have to distinguish the talk show hosts and radio groupies from the average Twins fans who hold partial STH plans or go to just few family outing games a year. This past season, they went to see Mauer. There was no other reason to watch the team. (I'd add Perkins, but Gardenhire only played him once every three weeks, when the team had an actual late inning lead to protect.)
So that's the problem. If the team were to trade him, despite his no trade clause, they'd have to get clear and substantial value back. The only way to get that is to massively subsidize the deal. The Twins are far too cheap to do that, and the same fans complaining about how much "we're" paying him would go bonkers if we paid the Red Sox to take him.
So that's the problem. If the team were to trade him, despite his no trade clause, they'd have to get clear and substantial value back. The only way to get that is to massively subsidize the deal. The Twins are far too cheap to do that, and the same fans complaining about how much "we're" paying him would go bonkers if we paid the Red Sox to take him.
Ryan has a mixed record of success, and his big problem is that he is both very low key (to the point of appearing unconcerned if not comatose) and an unabashed apologist for ownership. Fans think ownership is being too cheap with payroll, despite a beautiful, revenue-generating, heavily publicly subsidized ballpark. We've been forced to endure horrendous pitching staffs stuffed with lousy, inexpensive, non-strike-throwing veterans pulled off the scrap heap. His recent trades of both CFs might yet prove successful but haven't to date (particularly with "Opening Day starter" Vance Worley getting demoted to AAA two months into the season). The shine has worn off, to say the least.
Even as a first baseman, you can make the case that Mauer is easily worth the 5/115 remaining on his contract. His hitting this year puts him as roughly equal to Edwin Encarnacion, and he's probably going to be a plus defender at the position.
I want nothing to do with Matt Kemp at any price, ever. Didn't we already learn this lesson?
Hell, didn't we just TEACH this lesson?
Hell, didn't we just TEACH this lesson?
FWIW (probably zero), they were taking all the Kemp t shirts off the shelf at ESPN zone in Disneyland last night.
It is possible that the were just refolding them all as they were a bit unKemp (sorry).
It is possible that the were just refolding them all as they were a bit unKemp (sorry).
Even though I know it's not logical, there's a small part of me that wants the Red Sox to trade for Kemp because it would greatly overshadow the Yankees signing of McCann
koufax32 said:
Containing risk by acquiring skilled role players with limited term contracts who can take a pitch. I love Kemp's upside, but the downside risks are just too great. Choo, Beltran, or to a lesser extent, Kelly Johnson or Nate McLouth seem like more prudent options in the OF.
Edit: Obviously, signing Choo would require a longer term deal, and he'd be more than a role player, but he's been very consistent in terms of health and production 4 of the last 5 years.
staz said:
Nate McLouth isn't a prudent anything if you are looking for a starting OF. He is basically a really third-world poor man's Jonny Gomes.
BosRedSox5 said:
That would be your dick. Put it back in your pants and remember how the WORLD CHAMPIONSHIP BOSTON RED SOX were constructed last off season.
By sporting the highest BABIP since 1930? It's great they won the series but our team hitting was putrid in the playoffs sans Ortiz. You think maybe the front office realizes we had a great deal of luck this season, and they're looking into options that might hedge against that?YTF said:
CaskNFappin said:
Did you read the post I responded to and the highlighted sections of it? Signing Kemp or anyone to overshadow the McCann signing is foolish. Remember those "sexy" signings that the Sox miraculously unloaded in the Punto deal? I'm not saying that the Sox lineup couldn't use some punch, but let it be at the right price and for the right reason.
At ANY price? You'd say no if it were $14 mil per? I agree that the whole contract as presently constructed is too much risk. Surely though you would agree that not all 6 year contracts carry the same risk, right? If LA were willing to send a decent subsidy I think a comparison the the Crawford contract isn't close.staz said:
Even if 6/84 had a snowball's chance, I still wouldn't do it. Look, there's admittedly some serious skills there, and he might be fine in the clubhouse, but seems to be a ridiculously slow healer: there's the July sprained ankle that was keeping out of some very big games in September, two consecutive years of hamstring problems, and nobody knows if he ever fully recovered from that shoulder surgery. That's too many questions over the past two seasons to justify a long term commitment.koufax32 said:
Crawford and Gonzalez were bad deals because they were paid to be 5-win players and were much less (Crawford is essentially average, and the Sox recognized that A-Gon changed into a 3-win player before the rest of the league did). But an actual 5-win player making $20-21M a year is a pretty good deal, and might be even better going forward.
No one isn't wary of taking on a megacontract, but if the price of a win on the open market is now more like $7M than $5M -- and with the amount of money in the game it doesn't look like that'll change -- then some of these already-signed megadeals are worth considering.
Just as an exercise: If the Dodgers ate $17M of Kemp's contract, we'd have him for 6/$111, or $18.5M a year. For that contact to be "worth it," he'd have to be about a 3-win player annually through 2020.
I'm still not sure Kemp can sustain even that level of production, but it's a lower bar than we think it is. Ellsbury's probably the safest bet, but if you can get a 4- or 5-win bat as a subsidized salary dump for $17-18 a year and collect a pick for Ells, you probably do it.
No one isn't wary of taking on a megacontract, but if the price of a win on the open market is now more like $7M than $5M -- and with the amount of money in the game it doesn't look like that'll change -- then some of these already-signed megadeals are worth considering.
Just as an exercise: If the Dodgers ate $17M of Kemp's contract, we'd have him for 6/$111, or $18.5M a year. For that contact to be "worth it," he'd have to be about a 3-win player annually through 2020.
I'm still not sure Kemp can sustain even that level of production, but it's a lower bar than we think it is. Ellsbury's probably the safest bet, but if you can get a 4- or 5-win bat as a subsidized salary dump for $17-18 a year and collect a pick for Ells, you probably do it.
chawson said:
I don't think Ellsbury is actually the safest bet; a good deal of his value is tied up in his defense and you're not comparing apples when most of his playing time was in CF. If you're talking about adding an impact bat, you're probably not looking for a player that you can expect an OPS above .800 out of.
chawson said:
In fairness, the Padres were probably the first to recognize the permanent power-sapping effects of Turtle's shoulder injury. The Dodgers might be the last, but they might also just not care.
Proposition 1 -- avoid the publicity halo: Assume that any California players are overvalued because of the Hollywood effect. If you're looking for undervalued assets, look at players on the low-prestige backwater teams, like Milwaukee, Arizona, and Kansas City.
Agreed. Unless(!) you buy into the "can't-handle-Boston" schematic of player analysis, which is likely a fallacy but seems to gain traction every time a player like Crawford (or before him, Coco) spits the bit.Sprowl said:
I like Alex Gordon as a target, but he wouldn't be available until after 2014, when the James Shields-as-hero experiment fully fails.
This is one of the funniest things I've read in weeks.Sprowl said:
Quick name the top 5 all-time overvalued players due to the "Hollywood effect"?
I'd have to think Steve Garvey, with that toothy smile and 'Mr. Clean' image, may be on that list. Though years later he was discovered to be a complete womanizing predator.
Sounds very "Hollywood-ish" to me
OCD SS said:
Not that his opinions should be taken as Gospel, but Dave Cameron had a rather interesting article last week discussing the aging / regression of players of Ellsbury's skill set as they entered their thirties. All in all the players who were defined as having skills similar to Ells aged rather well.
http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/the-slow-decline-of-speedy-outfielders/
- Status