witesoxfan Posted July 18, 2014 Share Posted July 18, 2014 QUOTE (Eminor3rd @ Jul 17, 2014 -> 07:23 PM) As if on cue: http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/matt-kemps-...affs-nightmare/ This doesn't really seem like a good defense of Kemp being a good fielder. It basically says that he doesn't read the ball well and has a slow first step. Any defensive value he's really accrued in his career has come from his athleticism and a good arm. The arm might not fade, but the athleticism surely will. He's basically the anti-Jim Edmonds. Either way, there's way, way too much risk involved with Matt Kemp to even be thinking about this. The only way I'd consider it is some sort of 1 for 1 swap with John Danks with the Dodgers picking up money in years 4 and 5 of the deal, and even then I'd be hesitant. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eminor3rd Posted July 18, 2014 Share Posted July 18, 2014 QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Jul 18, 2014 -> 07:50 AM) This doesn't really seem like a good defense of Kemp being a good fielder. It basically says that he doesn't read the ball well and has a slow first step. Any defensive value he's really accrued in his career has come from his athleticism and a good arm. The arm might not fade, but the athleticism surely will. He's basically the anti-Jim Edmonds. Either way, there's way, way too much risk involved with Matt Kemp to even be thinking about this. The only way I'd consider it is some sort of 1 for 1 swap with John Danks with the Dodgers picking up money in years 4 and 5 of the deal, and even then I'd be hesitant. Lol, I know. It says he's awful. Sorry, I should have been clear that I was posting this link to corroborate Feeky's claim that I was wrong. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
witesoxfan Posted July 18, 2014 Share Posted July 18, 2014 QUOTE (Eminor3rd @ Jul 18, 2014 -> 08:56 AM) Lol, I know. It says he's awful. Sorry, I should have been clear that I was posting this link to corroborate Feeky's claim that I was wrong. Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhh now I understand. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iamshack Posted July 18, 2014 Share Posted July 18, 2014 I'd do it if I could get them to pick up about $60 million. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chisoxfn Posted July 18, 2014 Share Posted July 18, 2014 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jul 17, 2014 -> 06:04 PM) Well Gage in this case I will defer to you as the expert, guess I was mistaken. I figure in a week or so, something will come out and I'll be the one with egg on my face, haha. It will turn out whatever it was, wasn't material enough to warrant inclusion in the financial statements or something cause TWC are just ballas. I did find it interesting that this morning I got in my car, turned on the radio, and there was a long add from TWC slamming DirectTV for not negotiating, etc. At this point, I would think TWC has almost zero leverage. When DirectTV has something...they have so much more power then a cable provider because 90+% of the population can get a sattelite signal from where they live. However, even if I wanted TWC, if I don't live in an area that has it (or one of the other companies it owns), I am completely out of luck. I get a kick when people in the media on local radio keep talking about how fans should just switch. Its like...hello, yes that works if you have DirectTv and live in an area with TWC owned cable but if you aren't, you are out of luck. And I don't know how much of LA has TWC as an option but where I live in South Orange County I don't think anyone can get TWC (maybe some small pocket) but everything here is pretty much Cox controlled and they have no reason to negotiate with TWC and pay big money (nor do the other cable providers) until an alternative like DirectTV or DishNetwork has the service, cause only then, will they be at threat of losing customers. Note: The alternative is TWC, if they really wanted to stick it to Direct, could put some pressure by making it widely available on cable providers networks at beneficial pricing and thus put the pressure on Direct. However, I don't know if that is a good move cause they'd likely be locking in some mega losses (although I can't see how they could possibly recoup as it is, having lost 6 months of the season). I think I heard (and haven't fact checked this so I might be wrong) that there were similar problems with the Yes network in its original year as well (where it took almost a full season until all of the major carriers had picked it up). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldsox Posted July 19, 2014 Share Posted July 19, 2014 Back to Kemp. Hitless in first game after All Star break; not playing in second game. The Dodgers situation is almost comical with Kemp, Crawford and Ethier all struggling and all with enormous contracts. A tribute to GeneralManagerhood. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve9347 Posted July 21, 2014 Share Posted July 21, 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. I don't get how a human mind could ever instruct it's body's fingers to type something like the above. 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.