Tie Kemp to top prospect, Lester on the move?

[southsider2k5]

Buster Olney ‏@Buster_ESPN 55m

 

Some rival officials feel that the Dodgers' best chance to move Kemp is to tie him to one of their elite prospects in a deal.

To assess Matt Kemp's current value, asked 2 execs what they'd give him as a free agent today. 1st response:2 years, $16m; 2nd: 2 yrs, $15m.

 

There's a growing expectation from rival execs that Jon Lester is going to be traded before Jdeadline; LAD viewed as likely landing spot.

[Dunt]

If you can tie him to Urias, Pederson, or Seager, sure, but I highly doubt they are looking to get rid of any of the 3. My preference would be Urias.

[brian310]

Buster Olney ‏@Buster_ESPN 55m

 

Some rival officials feel that the Dodgers' best chance to move Kemp is to tie him to one of their elite prospects in a deal.

To assess Matt Kemp's current value, asked 2 execs what they'd give him as a free agent today. 1st response:2 years, $16m; 2nd: 2 yrs, $15m.

 

There's a growing expectation from rival execs that Jon Lester is going to be traded before Jdeadline; LAD viewed as likely landing spot.

 

Is this a thread suggesting that we should try to bring him in under these circumstances?

[GreenSox]

That's one reason Boston always has a stocked farm and they win. They aren't sentimental about every player who came up on their org. and aren't afraid to make moves.

[Eminor3rd]

If it happened, it would be the first time. It won't be any of the big three, though.

[caulfield12]

They would have to eat half that contract.

 

Doesn't make any sense when you can go after Nelson Cruz, Y. Tomas, Melky Cabrera, Rasmus, Markakis...maybe Michael Morse or Victor Martinez.

[2nd_city_saint787]

If it happened, it would be the first time. It won't be any of the big three, though.

 

Then no thanks. If they could get Pederson or Seagar, that would make things interesting. Depending on what they wanted back I think I'd do it if they gave up one of those 2.

[witesoxfan]

Then no thanks. If they could get Pederson or Seagar, that would make things interesting. Depending on what they wanted back I think I'd do it if they gave up one of those 2.

 

The Sox would be insane to even be involved with this in the first place. It goes against anything Hahn has tried to create.

[2nd_city_saint787]

The Sox would be insane to even be involved with this in the first place. It goes against anything Hahn has tried to create.

 

Meh, I'm not even sure what that means.

 

 

[witesoxfan]

Meh, I'm not even sure what that means.

 

Hahn has been bringing in good, young, cost controlled players into the franchise. Kemp is not good (-0.5 WAR the past two years combined), he's not young (will be 30 on September 23rd), and he's not cheap ($107 million over the next 5 years, which is just over $21 mill per season). The idea of bringing a prospect along with that is not nearly attractive enough, even if it were Pederson, Urias, or Seager (which the Dodgers wouldn't do anyways).

[harfman77]

The Sox would be insane to even be involved with this in the first place. It goes against anything Hahn has tried to create.

 

Hasn't been Hahn been clearing payroll to build to this exact type of move? I thought he has even mentioned explicitly that they have given themselves the ability to take back a bad contract. If you can tie one of their top 3 prospects as part of taking on Kemp, that seems like that would fit right into what Hahn has been trying to do. I am not a fan of giving up anything of value for Kemp, but taking on one of those prospects would make me want to really look at evaluating the cost-benefit analysis of such a move. It all depends on what you would need to give up, if it is a spare part, than yes, if it is a core piece than you probably won'd consider it.

[2nd_city_saint787]

Hahn has been bringing in good, young, cost controlled players into the franchise. Kemp is not good (-0.5 WAR the past two years combined), he's not young (will be 30 on September 23rd), and he's not cheap ($107 million over the next 5 years, which is just over $21 mill per season). The idea of bringing a prospect along with that is not nearly attractive enough, even if it were Pederson, Urias, or Seager (which the Dodgers wouldn't do anyways).

 

Then it's moot point anyway.

 

If they were to be included I'd have to really think about it. At some point they're going to add some payroll and if they believe Pederson or Seager live up to that top 20 prospect hype IMO that's a worthy investment. I think the moves Hahn previously made make a move like this possible.

 

But I don't even think about it unless one of those big 3 players are involved(Mainly Pederson or Seager)......That's what this thread/the tweet in the OP is about though.

 

 

 

[Big Hurtin]

The Sox would be insane to even be involved with this in the first place. It goes against anything Hahn has tried to create.

The only reason there is talks of trading him (Lester) is because they know someone will give him more money (years, not necessarily per annum). Obviously, the White Sox won't be that team.

[BlackSox13]

Kemp will be 30 in September with over 100M left on his contract. He is exactly the type of player the Sox DONT need. I doubt the dodgers would be willing to kick in enough money to get the Sox interested anyway.

 

Boston trading for Kemp makes more sense.

[iamshack]

Kemp will be 30 in September with over 100M left on his contract. He is exactly the type of player the Sox DONT need. I doubt the dodgers would be willing to kick in enough money to get the Sox interested anyway.

 

Boston trading for Kemp makes more sense.

Why?

[BlackSox13]

Why?

Boston has Lester to offer and Boston has more flexibility in their payroll which is significantly higher than the White Sox. Also, I think Boston having such a dismal season the following year after winning the world series makes them more desperate.

[witesoxfan]

Hasn't been Hahn been clearing payroll to build to this exact type of move? I thought he has even mentioned explicitly that they have given themselves the ability to take back a bad contract. If you can tie one of their top 3 prospects as part of taking on Kemp, that seems like that would fit right into what Hahn has been trying to do. I am not a fan of giving up anything of value for Kemp, but taking on one of those prospects would make me want to really look at evaluating the cost-benefit analysis of such a move. It all depends on what you would need to give up, if it is a spare part, than yes, if it is a core piece than you probably won'd consider it.

 

To me, I'm assuming Matt Kemp's contract is like Vernon Wells' contract when he was traded to LAA. Yes, there is some chance he regains the form he once had, but he's been absolutely terrible defensively to the point where Adam Dunn is a similar fielder in the outfield. There is virtually no chance you even get half value right there.

 

Then it's moot point anyway.

 

If they were to be included I'd have to really think about it. At some point they're going to add some payroll and if they believe Pederson or Seager live up to that top 20 prospect hype IMO that's a worthy investment. I think the moves Hahn previously made make a move like this possible.

 

But I don't even think about it unless one of those big 3 players are involved(Mainly Pederson or Seager)......That's what this thread/the tweet in the OP is about though.

 

So, are Seager or Pederson going to be worth $70-80 million over the next 6 years? Perhaps, but that's an incredibly risky proposition. I think that's probably what you'd hope their peak value to be in the first 6 years. If they completely bust, then you're left with an albatross of a contract and a busted prospect and lost service time for other prospects too.

 

Best case scenario, you get a decent hitter in Kemp, a really good hitter in Pederson/Seager, and you are still paying $21 mill a year for the combo. Worst case, Kemp continues being a mediocre hitter, the prospect busts, and you're looking at $21 mill per year for 0 production. And people are upset about Dunn because he can't really play the field and he strikes out a lot. That would put Dunn to shame.

 

I think if it were BJ Upton we were talking about instead of Matt Kemp (4 years, $60 million or so left), it'd be worthwhile to have this discussion, but I can't imagine it being anywhere close to worth it with Kemp.

 

The only reason there is talks of trading him (Lester) is because they know someone will give him more money (years, not necessarily per annum). Obviously, the White Sox won't be that team.

 

I don't think Lester makes a lot of sense, at least at the moment, and given his likely cost, I don't think he'd be worth it either way.

[Lemon_44]

If you match up money, I'd rather have Kemp, Semien/Sanchez/Johnson/whoever, Wilkins, and one of their top prospects on the roster than Dunn, Konerko, and Beckham who are all 3 gone next year.

 

I know he makes way too much money and is having a somewhat down year but his OBP, OPS, and OWAR would still be 5TH, 4th, and 5th on the Sox. That doesn't justify $20 mill/year but he can do much more, overall, than what Dunn/Konerko bring at 20+ mill combined. Plus, he's still young enough to have a couple bounce back productive years.

 

I'm not saying it's the right move, it's just not a crippling move either.

[witesoxfan]

If you match up money, I'd rather have Kemp, Semien/Sanchez/Johnson/whoever, Wilkins, and one of their top prospects on the roster than Dunn, Konerko, and Beckham who are all 3 gone next year.

 

I know he makes way too much money and is having a somewhat down year but his OBP, OPS, and OWAR would still be 5TH, 4th, and 5th on the Sox. That doesn't justify $20 mill/year but he can do much more, overall, than what Dunn/Konerko bring at 20+ mill combined. Plus, he's still young enough to have a couple bounce back productive years.

 

I'm not saying it's the right move, it's just not a crippling move either.

 

Dunn and Konerko are making like $16 million this year, and they aren't here for 5 more years. Matt Kemp is very bad defensively with rapidly decreasing athleticism who doesn't have much of a bat.

 

"It's not a crippling move" is not a good justification to bring a player in. The Sox could easily trade for Ryan Howard and survive and possibly even compete with him as a part time DH, but it'd be an absolutely terrible move to make.

 

For how much we hype Joc Pederson, he's still struck out 110 times in 407 plate appearances this year. He walks and hits for power and does a lot of other things well, but a 27% K rate is nothing to simply just scoff at. He's also in one of the best hitters' leagues in the minors. In AA, he put up .278/.381/.497/.878. Those aren't bad numbers, but you should also expect a drop off from those numbers too.

 

 

[2nd_city_saint787]

So, are Seager or Pederson going to be worth $70-80 million over the next 6 years? Perhaps, but that's an incredibly risky proposition. I think that's probably what you'd hope their peak value to be in the first 6 years. If they completely bust, then you're left with an albatross of a contract and a busted prospect and lost service time for other prospects too.

 

Best case scenario, you get a decent hitter in Kemp, a really good hitter in Pederson/Seager, and you are still paying $21 mill a year for the combo. Worst case, Kemp continues being a mediocre hitter, the prospect busts, and you're looking at $21 mill per year for 0 production. And people are upset about Dunn because he can't really play the field and he strikes out a lot. That would put Dunn to shame.

 

I think if it were BJ Upton we were talking about instead of Matt Kemp (4 years, $60 million or so left), it'd be worthwhile to have this discussion, but I can't imagine it being anywhere close to worth it with Kemp.

 

That's where the "If the Sox think they live up to their top 20 ranking" part comes in.....If they are fairly confident that Pederson or Seagaer is the LH bat to pair with Abreu for the future then I'd make that move. Still a risk even if they are "confident" but nevertheless, with their contractual obligations, and the incredibly team friendly deals given to Sale/Q, I believe it could be a risk worth taking.

 

I'm sure I'm wrong somehow, but looking at the payroll for next year, even adding Kemps 21M puts the sox at 64M. Nate Jones is really the only guy they have to pick in arbitration. They could realistically add a SP, a catcher, and some bullpen pieces and still be around a realistic 95M.

 

But again it's moot if they don't give up Pederson/Seager.

[Chisoxfn]

That's where the "If the Sox think they live up to their top 20 ranking" part comes in.....If they are fairly confident that Pederson or Seagaer is the LH bat to pair with Abreu for the future then I'd make that move. Still a risk even if they are "confident" but nevertheless, with their contractual obligations, and the incredibly team friendly deals given to Sale/Q, I believe it could be a risk worth taking.

 

I'm sure I'm wrong somehow, but looking at the payroll for next year, even adding Kemps 21M puts the sox at 64M. Nate Jones is really the only guy they have to pick in arbitration. They could realistically add a SP, a catcher, and some bullpen pieces and still be around a realistic 95M.

 

But again it's moot if they don't give up Pederson/Seager.

Pretty sure they are going to have to give a prospect and eat a good chunk of the contract, which is where things might get interesting. I just don't know that the Dodgers will make that type of decision (to eat money and give up a prospect like that...vs. just eating more money) given that they don't really have any major payroll restrictions (or don't appear to).

[caulfield12]

To me, I'm assuming Matt Kemp's contract is like Vernon Wells' contract when he was traded to LAA. Yes, there is some chance he regains the form he once had, but he's been absolutely terrible defensively to the point where Adam Dunn is a similar fielder in the outfield. There is virtually no chance you even get half value right there.

 

 

 

So, are Seager or Pederson going to be worth $70-80 million over the next 6 years? Perhaps, but that's an incredibly risky proposition. I think that's probably what you'd hope their peak value to be in the first 6 years. If they completely bust, then you're left with an albatross of a contract and a busted prospect and lost service time for other prospects too.

 

Best case scenario, you get a decent hitter in Kemp, a really good hitter in Pederson/Seager, and you are still paying $21 mill a year for the combo. Worst case, Kemp continues being a mediocre hitter, the prospect busts, and you're looking at $21 mill per year for 0 production. And people are upset about Dunn because he can't really play the field and he strikes out a lot. That would put Dunn to shame.

 

I think if it were BJ Upton we were talking about instead of Matt Kemp (4 years, $60 million or so left), it'd be worthwhile to have this discussion, but I can't imagine it being anywhere close to worth it with Kemp.

 

 

 

I don't think Lester makes a lot of sense, at least at the moment, and given his likely cost, I don't think he'd be worth it either way.

 

 

Lester's headed for $135-160 million free agency, according to Lou Merloni. Wonders why they (Red Sox) haven't even offered the "hometown discount" $110-125 million deal before he leaves via trade?

 

Greinke at $147 million gives you a good idea that avoiding that Lester deal in his 30's might be a pretty good idea.

Edited July 28, 2014 by caulfield12

[BlackSox13]

I don't doubt the Dodgers are interested in Lester but I think part of this rumor is the Dodgers using interest in Lester to possibly get Tampa to lower their expected return for Price.

[southsider2k5]

Jeff Passan ‏@JeffPassan 1h

 

Sources: Pirates emerging as Lester darkhorse. Deal could possibly center around Josh Bell. News with @TBrownYahoo: http://yhoo.it/1nZxxaj