GGajewski18 Posted July 17, 2014 Share Posted July 17, 2014 Just heard on SportsCenter that Kemp either wants to play, or wants to get traded. First, are any of you interested in Kemp if the Dodgers pick up most of his deal and what would you give up? Second, if they are not willing to eat any money, he's probably worth Chris Curley with that contract. Thoughts on Kemp? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cabiness42 Posted July 17, 2014 Share Posted July 17, 2014 Kemp is owed $107M from 2015-19. I have a hard time justifying taking on even half of that to take him off the Dodgers hands, so I guess from the Dodgers standpoint is it worth giving him up to save only $40-50M. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
witesoxfan Posted July 17, 2014 Share Posted July 17, 2014 Matt Kemp has put up a .269/.329/.414/.743 line over the past 2 years, has played poor defense, has become an injury prone player, and he's due $107 million from 2015 through 2019. There's virtually no difference between Matt Kemp and Dayan Viciedo except that Viciedo has youth on his side. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted July 17, 2014 Share Posted July 17, 2014 QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Jul 17, 2014 -> 09:37 AM) Matt Kemp has put up a .269/.329/.414/.743 line over the past 2 years, has played poor defense, has become an injury prone player, and he's due $107 million from 2015 through 2019. There's virtually no difference between Matt Kemp and Dayan Viciedo except that Viciedo has youth on his side. And that extra $100 million you noted? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Ultimate Champion Posted July 17, 2014 Share Posted July 17, 2014 Is the ankle still an issue? That's a lot of money. The Dodgers will have to eat a ton to move him to anyone. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
witesoxfan Posted July 17, 2014 Share Posted July 17, 2014 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jul 17, 2014 -> 08:48 AM) And that extra $100 million you noted? I meant as players, but yes, the $100 million too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glangon Posted July 17, 2014 Share Posted July 17, 2014 I'd rather have Joc Pederson Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2nd_city_saint787 Posted July 17, 2014 Share Posted July 17, 2014 MAYBE if he were left handed..but he's not, so no. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eminor3rd Posted July 17, 2014 Share Posted July 17, 2014 QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Jul 17, 2014 -> 07:37 AM) Matt Kemp has put up a .269/.329/.414/.743 line over the past 2 years, has played poor defense, has become an injury prone player, and he's due $107 million from 2015 through 2019. There's virtually no difference between Matt Kemp and Dayan Viciedo except that Viciedo has youth on his side. Well, and that he's two years removed from an MVP-level campaign. Dayan's "platform" season, on the other hand, was the one where he hit 25 homers and still somehow managed not to touch 100 wRC+. I'm not saying we should get him, but if a couple plausible conditions were met, it might be worth considering because it is indeed an upside play: (1) we believe that he is fully healthy (or soon to be) for the first time since his success, and (2) the Dodgers are willing to make him into a $50m investment (instead of $107m) and only ask for a few "interesting flyer" types of prospects. Something like Snodgress, Wendelken, and a random. Ideally, this would correspond with a "change of scenery" trade that got rid of Viciedo and/or De Aza. You'd stick him in LF from day one and enjoy a rather nice defensive upgrade from those two guys (he's miscast in CF, but we have Eaton), and if he has trouble staying healthy, it's the perfect opportunity to shift into the A's-style rotating DH model (with the departures of both Dunn and Konerko) where we essentially carry 4 starting OFers and give them all plenty of rest. Now, it would be a tremendous risk that I'm not even sure I'd take, but it does make some sense to consider given that we have few high payroll commitments and don't seem to be great fits with any big free agents coming soon. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kyyle23 Posted July 17, 2014 Share Posted July 17, 2014 I like how everytime the Dodgers are mentioned as a trade partner for anything, inevitably people post "I just want Joc Pederson". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
harfman77 Posted July 17, 2014 Share Posted July 17, 2014 QUOTE (SoxPride18 @ Jul 17, 2014 -> 08:31 AM) Just heard on SportsCenter that Kemp either wants to play, or wants to get traded. First, are any of you interested in Kemp if the Dodgers pick up most of his deal and what would you give up? Second, if they are not willing to eat any money, he's probably worth Chris Curley with that contract. Thoughts on Kemp? I would give up Erik Johnson for him if the Dodgers kicked in $50M and Joc Pederson. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted July 17, 2014 Share Posted July 17, 2014 QUOTE (Eminor3rd @ Jul 17, 2014 -> 10:06 AM) Well, and that he's two years removed from an MVP-level campaign. Dayan's "platform" season, on the other hand, was the one where he hit 25 homers and still somehow managed not to touch 100 wRC+. I'm not saying we should get him, but if a couple plausible conditions were met, it might be worth considering because it is indeed an upside play: (1) we believe that he is fully healthy (or soon to be) for the first time since his success, and (2) the Dodgers are willing to make him into a $50m investment (instead of $107m) and only ask for a few "interesting flyer" types of prospects. Something like Snodgress, Wendelken, and a random. Ideally, this would correspond with a "change of scenery" trade that got rid of Viciedo and/or De Aza. You'd stick him in LF from day one and enjoy a rather nice defensive upgrade from those two guys (he's miscast in CF, but we have Eaton), and if he has trouble staying healthy, it's the perfect opportunity to shift into the A's-style rotating DH model (with the departures of both Dunn and Konerko) where we essentially carry 4 starting OFers and give them all plenty of rest. Now, it would be a tremendous risk that I'm not even sure I'd take, but it does make some sense to consider given that we have few high payroll commitments and don't seem to be great fits with any big free agents coming soon. You've made a very poor case here. If given the choice between Kemp and giving up Viciedo or having $50 million to spend on generic FA to fill positional needs I'm clearly leaning the latter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
harfman77 Posted July 17, 2014 Share Posted July 17, 2014 QUOTE (Eminor3rd @ Jul 17, 2014 -> 09:06 AM) Well, and that he's two years removed from an MVP-level campaign. Dayan's "platform" season, on the other hand, was the one where he hit 25 homers and still somehow managed not to touch 100 wRC+. I'm not saying we should get him, but if a couple plausible conditions were met, it might be worth considering because it is indeed an upside play: (1) we believe that he is fully healthy (or soon to be) for the first time since his success, and (2) the Dodgers are willing to make him into a $50m investment (instead of $107m) and only ask for a few "interesting flyer" types of prospects. Something like Snodgress, Wendelken, and a random. Ideally, this would correspond with a "change of scenery" trade that got rid of Viciedo and/or De Aza. You'd stick him in LF from day one and enjoy a rather nice defensive upgrade from those two guys (he's miscast in CF, but we have Eaton), and if he has trouble staying healthy, it's the perfect opportunity to shift into the A's-style rotating DH model (with the departures of both Dunn and Konerko) where we essentially carry 4 starting OFers and give them all plenty of rest. Now, it would be a tremendous risk that I'm not even sure I'd take, but it does make some sense to consider given that we have few high payroll commitments and don't seem to be great fits with any big free agents coming soon. He has been playing LF since Crawford was hurt and hasn't performed much better. At this point it appears the biggest obstacle he has is between his ears. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eminor3rd Posted July 17, 2014 Share Posted July 17, 2014 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jul 17, 2014 -> 08:08 AM) You've made a very poor case here. If given the choice between Kemp and giving up Viciedo or having $50 million to spend on generic FA to fill positional needs I'm clearly leaning the latter. That's fair. Like I said, I'm not sure I'd like it either, I just think there's enough there to think about it. Again, predicated on the fact that there's a decent chance Kemp could actually "return to form" if healthy. But if it came down to us spending $50m on this or, say, Russell Martin, I'll take Martin every time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
harfman77 Posted July 17, 2014 Share Posted July 17, 2014 QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Jul 17, 2014 -> 09:07 AM) I like how everytime the Dodgers are mentioned as a trade partner for anything, inevitably people post "I just want Joc Pederson". Because he would fit a need perfectly. An OF of Pederson, Eaton, and Garcia is cheap and has a ton of upside to contribute to the offensive core for the next 5 years. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LittleHurt05 Posted July 17, 2014 Share Posted July 17, 2014 QUOTE (glangon @ Jul 17, 2014 -> 08:55 AM) I'd rather have Joc Pederson So would the Dodgers, but they can't just cut Matt Kemp Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eminor3rd Posted July 17, 2014 Share Posted July 17, 2014 QUOTE (IowaSoxFan @ Jul 17, 2014 -> 08:11 AM) Because he would fit a need perfectly. An OF of Pederson, Eaton, and Garcia is cheap and has a ton of upside to contribute to the offensive core for the next 5 years. Right but why would the Dodgers ever trade him? There's been no indication of him being available at all, and most of the reason Dodger OF trades come up in the first place is because they want to move someone expensive to make ROOM for Pederson. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
harfman77 Posted July 17, 2014 Share Posted July 17, 2014 QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Jul 17, 2014 -> 09:11 AM) So would the Dodgers, but they can't just cut Matt Kemp Even if they dump Kemp they still have to clear out one of Ethier, Crawford or Puig to find playing time for Pederson. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dick Allen Posted July 17, 2014 Share Posted July 17, 2014 QUOTE (IowaSoxFan @ Jul 17, 2014 -> 09:11 AM) Because he would fit a need perfectly. An OF of Pederson, Eaton, and Garcia is cheap and has a ton of upside to contribute to the offensive core for the next 5 years. Yes, but it isn't realistic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
harfman77 Posted July 17, 2014 Share Posted July 17, 2014 QUOTE (Eminor3rd @ Jul 17, 2014 -> 09:12 AM) Right but why would the Dodgers ever trade him? There's been no indication of him being available at all, and most of the reason Dodger OF trades come up in the first place is because they want to move someone expensive to make ROOM for Pederson. No idea why they would. He was mentioned as a piece in a trade for Price, and considering what the A's gave up, you would definitely have to think he is in play. Again, moving an OF doesn't open up space for Pederson, they have to move two, and outside of moving Puig, I don't see any way that their front office can move two of those contracts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
harfman77 Posted July 17, 2014 Share Posted July 17, 2014 QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Jul 17, 2014 -> 09:13 AM) Yes, but it isn't realistic. Depends what the deal is for, but you're right probably not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kyyle23 Posted July 17, 2014 Share Posted July 17, 2014 QUOTE (IowaSoxFan @ Jul 17, 2014 -> 09:11 AM) Because he would fit a need perfectly. An OF of Pederson, Eaton, and Garcia is cheap and has a ton of upside to contribute to the offensive core for the next 5 years. anytime a trade partner is mentioned, finding one of their top prospects and saying "I just want this guy" is funny. Of course that OF would have a bunch of upside, but in a thread where we are talking about the Dodgers wanting to unload a highly paid poorly performing outfielder, why would you mention that you want their affordable up and coming prospect. It is just silly Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glangon Posted July 17, 2014 Share Posted July 17, 2014 QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Jul 17, 2014 -> 03:07 PM) I like how everytime the Dodgers are mentioned as a trade partner for anything, inevitably people post "I just want Joc Pederson". The original poster is saying that we pick up an overpriced declining injury prone veteren for the outfield. I'm simply maki ng the point that a young up and coming hot hitting outfield star who is MLB ready and blocked would be a better answer than Matt Kemp. If the original poster has said that we should go for Josh Beckett, then I would respond with "I'd rather have Zach Lee". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Butter Parque Posted July 17, 2014 Share Posted July 17, 2014 (edited) QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Jul 17, 2014 -> 02:13 PM) Yes, but it isn't realistic. We should be figuring out why we aren't drafting players like Pederson, Corey Dickerson, etc. Why can't we develop players like this? Edited July 17, 2014 by Butter Parque Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
harfman77 Posted July 17, 2014 Share Posted July 17, 2014 QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Jul 17, 2014 -> 09:18 AM) anytime a trade partner is mentioned, finding one of their top prospects and saying "I just want this guy" is funny. Of course that OF would have a bunch of upside, but in a thread where we are talking about the Dodgers wanting to unload a highly paid poorly performing outfielder, why would you mention that you want their affordable up and coming prospect. It is just silly I said I would take on half of Kemps contract if they threw in Pederson, because taking on Kemp is a huge financial risk and I would want that balanced with something else. The Erik Johnson thing was a joke. The Dodgers are going to have a bunch of money come due to re-up Greinke and Ramirez so maybe getting Kemp off their books is worth that much to them. Realistically, taking on Kemp at all is a terrible idea. Why would the Sox take on a headcase that is owed $107M and underperforming? That is a less silly idea than targeting someone that may actually contribute to the long term success of the franchise? So blowing up the payroll to take on a bad player is good, and we should not entertain the idea of targeting excess prospects of a team that is trying to go all into win a WS. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.