Jake Posted July 17, 2014 Share Posted July 17, 2014 I'd be a lot more open to it if I didn't have to play him in CF, which is apparently the demand that's causing him to want to be traded Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 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". The only way the Sox get a return like that is by picking up a ton of Kemp's money. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted July 17, 2014 Share Posted July 17, 2014 QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jul 17, 2014 -> 10:45 AM) The only way the Sox get a return like that is by picking up a ton of Kemp's money. Worth noting is that the dodgers are actually potentially in a place where they're out of salary flexibility, they're facing what is now appearing to be a losing legal case that would cost them a whole lot of money in terms of the cable contract they were looking for. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted July 17, 2014 Share Posted July 17, 2014 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jul 17, 2014 -> 09:46 AM) Worth noting is that the dodgers are actually potentially in a place where they're out of salary flexibility, they're facing what is now appearing to be a losing legal case that would cost them a whole lot of money in terms of the cable contract they were looking for. I don't even know, what are the Dodgers looking for? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caulfield12 Posted July 17, 2014 Share Posted July 17, 2014 Ryan Howard's another interesting name, depending on how much the Phillies eat...and it would have to be around $35 of the remaining $60 million on his contract. What that would cost the White Sox, no idea...but he's been terrible this year. To the point where he's better against lefties than righties bad. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
harfman77 Posted July 17, 2014 Share Posted July 17, 2014 QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jul 17, 2014 -> 09:57 AM) I don't even know, what are the Dodgers looking for? Starting pitching. This is a trade that Bowden proposed on ESPN: Philadelphia Phillies-Los Angeles Dodgers Phillies receive: CF Joc Pederson, LHP Julio Urias and INF Alex Guerrero Dodgers receive: LHP Cole Hamels His quote at the end of his rationalization - "This would certainly be an unpopular deal for the Phillies to make, but the rebuilding process needs to begin sooner rather than later." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted July 17, 2014 Share Posted July 17, 2014 QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Jul 17, 2014 -> 09:59 AM) Ryan Howard's another interesting name, depending on how much the Phillies eat...and it would have to be around $35 of the remaining $60 million on his contract. What that would cost the White Sox, no idea...but he's been terrible this year. To the point where he's better against lefties than righties bad. He's pretty much Adam Dunn with a much bigger contract. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted July 17, 2014 Share Posted July 17, 2014 QUOTE (IowaSoxFan @ Jul 17, 2014 -> 10:04 AM) Starting pitching. This is a trade that Bowden proposed on ESPN: Philadelphia Phillies-Los Angeles Dodgers Phillies receive: CF Joc Pederson, LHP Julio Urias and INF Alex Guerrero Dodgers receive: LHP Cole Hamels His quote at the end of his rationalization - "This would certainly be an unpopular deal for the Phillies to make, but the rebuilding process needs to begin sooner rather than later." So something like Danks for Kemp and Peterson? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
witesoxfan Posted July 17, 2014 Share Posted July 17, 2014 QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Jul 17, 2014 -> 09:59 AM) Ryan Howard's another interesting name, depending on how much the Phillies eat...and it would have to be around $35 of the remaining $60 million on his contract. What that would cost the White Sox, no idea...but he's been terrible this year. To the point where he's better against lefties than righties bad. Ryan Howard is not an interesting name at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shysocks Posted July 17, 2014 Share Posted July 17, 2014 QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Jul 17, 2014 -> 09:59 AM) Ryan Howard's another interesting name, depending on how much the Phillies eat...and it would have to be around $35 of the remaining $60 million on his contract. What that would cost the White Sox, no idea...but he's been terrible this year. To the point where he's better against lefties than righties bad. Oof, no thank you. They'd have to eat way more than $35M. He has been legitimately terrible three years running now. He's worse than Adam Dunn, who everyone hates rabidly. 2012-2014 wRC+ Howard: 95 Dunn: 113 I left out 2011 because Dunn's season was an absurd outlier, but if you throw it in, Howard wins 106-100. Not enough to outweigh that contract. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dick Allen Posted July 17, 2014 Share Posted July 17, 2014 QUOTE (shysocks @ Jul 17, 2014 -> 10:15 AM) Oof, no thank you. They'd have to eat way more than $35M. He has been legitimately terrible three years running now. He's worse than Adam Dunn, who everyone hates rabidly. 2012-2014 wRC+ Howard: 95 Dunn: 113 I left out 2011 because Dunn's season was an absurd outlier, but if you throw it in, Howard wins 106-100. Not enough to outweigh that contract. He's been so bad, he doesn't even do Subway commercials anymore. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted July 17, 2014 Share Posted July 17, 2014 QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jul 17, 2014 -> 10:57 AM) I don't even know, what are the Dodgers looking for? The Dodgers were trying to get every cable subscriber in L.A. to be forced to buy the channel they were starting up. Thus far that hasn't happened and they've been losing court battles as far as I can tell. If that doesn't happen then the Dodgers channel becomes a niche and their revenues will be far, far below those that were projected when they bought the team. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dick Allen Posted July 17, 2014 Share Posted July 17, 2014 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jul 17, 2014 -> 01:02 PM) The Dodgers were trying to get every cable subscriber in L.A. to be forced to buy the channel they were starting up. Thus far that hasn't happened and they've been losing court battles as far as I can tell. If that doesn't happen then the Dodgers channel becomes a niche and their revenues will be far, far below those that were projected when they bought the team. Isn't the Dodgers contract with Time Warner Cable, and thus a Time Warner Cable problem, at least financially, and not the Dodgers? Granted, since only 1/3 of their fans have access to the games, that isn't a good thing, but as far as I can tell, TWC is still paying them the billions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andy the Clown Posted July 17, 2014 Share Posted July 17, 2014 I'd love to have Kemp and would be willing to take on half of his salary. He could be a great LF/DH. He could take Danks' money after we dump him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted July 17, 2014 Share Posted July 17, 2014 QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Jul 17, 2014 -> 02:12 PM) Isn't the Dodgers contract with Time Warner Cable, and thus a Time Warner Cable problem, at least financially, and not the Dodgers? Granted, since only 1/3 of their fans have access to the games, that isn't a good thing, but as far as I can tell, TWC is still paying them the billions. At some point it sure seems like someone is going to take enormous losses on that deal. It might be TWC only but if they got any guarantees from the Dodgers to cover their tails in the deal, it could bite the Dodgers seriously as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlackSox13 Posted July 17, 2014 Share Posted July 17, 2014 The thread killer is the fact Hahn has already stated the Sox won't be trading for high priced players. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chisoxfn Posted July 17, 2014 Share Posted July 17, 2014 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jul 17, 2014 -> 11:29 AM) At some point it sure seems like someone is going to take enormous losses on that deal. It might be TWC only but if they got any guarantees from the Dodgers to cover their tails in the deal, it could bite the Dodgers seriously as well. Why in the heck would the Dodgers provide any sort of guarantee. That would be extremely unique for a mlb franchise to do. I'm sure there are some clauses regarding performance, etc, but this is not a LA Dodger issue and is a TWC issue. They paid for the contract and have been the ones who are finding that maybe they paid too much / misjudged the leverage they'd have in their negotiations with cable providers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chisoxfn Posted July 17, 2014 Share Posted July 17, 2014 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jul 17, 2014 -> 11:29 AM) At some point it sure seems like someone is going to take enormous losses on that deal. It might be TWC only but if they got any guarantees from the Dodgers to cover their tails in the deal, it could bite the Dodgers seriously as well. By the way, that is a horrendous article. The Dodgers should be blamed for TWC paying them too much and should have just taken less? LOL. That is a pathetic crybaby mentality if I ever saw one. It isn't as if the Dodgers lied or put a gun to the head and coerced TWC into doing it. Pathetic that people will read that and somehow blame the Dodgers. Sure, Dodgers could do something like cut a deal from a PR perspective if they truly wanted to, but at some point, TWC is going to want to recoup some money and get the network on other stations (cause every day they don't, they are losing significantly more money then if they had sold the rights, etc, to others). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted July 17, 2014 Share Posted July 17, 2014 QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Jul 17, 2014 -> 06:03 PM) Why in the heck would the Dodgers provide any sort of guarantee. That would be extremely unique for a mlb franchise to do. I'm sure there are some clauses regarding performance, etc, but this is not a LA Dodger issue and is a TWC issue. They paid for the contract and have been the ones who are finding that maybe they paid too much / misjudged the leverage they'd have in their negotiations with cable providers. You don't think that it's plausible for a company like TWC to add in a clause saying "here's this amount, except in this circumstance" in a contract? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldsox Posted July 17, 2014 Share Posted July 17, 2014 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jul 17, 2014 -> 01:29 PM) At some point it sure seems like someone is going to take enormous losses on that deal. It might be TWC only but if they got any guarantees from the Dodgers to cover their tails in the deal, it could bite the Dodgers seriously as well. Interesting article, Balta. Had no idea that Dodgers had all those troubles with Cable. Also, this is first time I have ever seen someone publicly go after Magic Johnson. Thought he was bullet proof. Thanks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Feeky Magee Posted July 17, 2014 Share Posted July 17, 2014 QUOTE (Eminor3rd @ Jul 17, 2014 -> 08:06 AM) 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. No chance is he a better defensive left-fielder than De Aza. He's been in left most of this year and been horrendous. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chisoxfn Posted July 17, 2014 Share Posted July 17, 2014 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jul 17, 2014 -> 04:31 PM) You don't think that it's plausible for a company like TWC to add in a clause saying "here's this amount, except in this circumstance" in a contract? I will tell you right now, that for the Dodgers to do something like that would be ludicrous and they'd have the dumbest attorney's and business people on the planet (given the type of transaction this is). Usually contingent contracts are ones in which you have some semblance of control of the situation or you are giving some beneficial pricing for volume (e.g., we provide you 2B units, we give it to you at X price, however, if you drop below that, the price is going to get more because of scales). It can happen in sales transactions where you are acquiring / selling an actual business and there are questions around certain current / existing conditions and thus you put certain contingencies in place. In something like this, there is no way a franchise's attorney are going to sign off on this as it is so far outside of their powers. Contracts with contingent pricing based on suppliers demands, etc, can happen, but that is to protect the supplier from losing quantities of scale that they can control. Dodgers have zero control in what is impacting Time Warner. I'm sure the only scale back provisions are tied to certain morality clauses, as in, if Dodgers ownership did something completely off-base that pissed the entire fan base off, as well as things that would impact what was negotiated (e.g., moving the franchise to another market). If I sell Apple 5 billion units for an iphone and it is a done deal, am I going to put in a clause where I get less money because Apple wasn't able to sell as many units (even though they made them and utilized my parts)? Hell no. Now if it was a JIT inventory system, then you have a different scenario, where it would be plausible (and then it would go back to the variable pricing, situation, etc) but if the parts have been used, apple is on the hook. If there were major contingencies as part of the contract, they'd show up in their audited financials as well (most likely) as you'd have to come up with a value for any of these so called contingencies you are referring to. Per my perusal of the financials, including the MD&A, they specifically refer to the following: TWC’s business may be adversely affected if it fails to reach distribution agreements providing for carriage of the Company’s RSNs or if such agreements are on unfavorable terms. There is more detail in there about the negotiations and this section is specifically referring to the agreement w/Dodgers and about how the Company will be adversely impacted if they can not reach agreements with other providers for carriage or reach unfavorable terms. Zero mention of any potential outs or shared liability of potential lost income. Bottom Line: Businesses aren't in the business of making deals and then seeing how they would go about things. That would be a partnership; This is not a partnership from the perspective that both teams profit / lose depending on the results; TWC thought they could make money despite the price paid and maybe they won't, but Dodgers have a fixed business. If they wanted an alternative, they would have entered into a joint venture with them or did something similar to what the Chicago Sports teams did with a consolidated network with various hurdles, etc. That was not what the Dodger transaction was. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eminor3rd Posted July 18, 2014 Share Posted July 18, 2014 (edited) QUOTE (Feeky Magee @ Jul 17, 2014 -> 05:55 PM) No chance is he a better defensive left-fielder than De Aza. He's been in left most of this year and been horrendous. As if on cue: http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/matt-kemps-...affs-nightmare/ Edited July 18, 2014 by Eminor3rd Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted July 18, 2014 Share Posted July 18, 2014 Well Gage in this case I will defer to you as the expert, guess I was mistaken. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GreenSox Posted July 18, 2014 Share Posted July 18, 2014 (edited) 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? 5 years $105 million for an OPS in the 700s. And we get send players to the Dodgers for the privilege. Good lord, no. And didn't the Sox abandon the declining veteran philosophy anyway? Edited July 18, 2014 by GreenSox 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.