Matt Kemp traded to SD for Yasmani Grandal

[knightni]

http://espn.go.com/mlb/story?storyId=12014...uot;%7D&wjb

[Chisoxfn]

Wow. Nice move for Padres. $32M cash and I think they got maximum value for Grandal. I don't like what the Dodgers were doing.

[Eminor3rd]

Wow. Nice move for Padres. $32M cash and I think they got maximum value for Grandal. I don't like what the Dodgers were doing.

 

I think the exact opposite. Kemp belongs somewhere that he can DH. Grandal actually graded out as one of the best framers in the league last year, Wieland is good but hasn't been able to stay healthy. Given the logjam the Dodgers had in the OF and the pressure they are assumed to be under to reduce payroll, clearing $7m and improving your C situation AND adding quality pitching depth AND some other prospect seems like a coup.

 

The Padres spent $77m to maybe not get much better, especially if Kemp's defense doesn't improve.

[Chisoxfn]

I think the exact opposite. Kemp belongs somewhere that he can DH. Grandal actually graded out as one of the best framers in the league last year, Wieland is good but hasn't been able to stay healthy. Given the logjam the Dodgers had in the OF and the pressure they are assumed to be under to reduce payroll, clearing $7m and improving your C situation AND adding quality pitching depth AND some other prospect seems like a coup.

 

The Padres spent $77m to maybe not get much better, especially if Kemp's defense doesn't improve.

Kemp at 77M has a chance to be a legit value and the Padres needed to make a splash. I really don't quite grasp what the Dodgers are doing. I think they are no better today than they were at the end of last year, possibly slightly worse. And on top of that, while getting rid of Kemp's contract, they also have put themselves in a position where they have a couple guys that will be walking a year / getting big contract (Rollins / Kendrick). Yes, Dodgers have guys in place but I think the Angels did best in that 3 team trade. Getting a young cost controlled power arm that is near to big league ready is a major coup for a club like the Angels. Yes, Kendrick was good but with the Angels payroll that move was fantastic, imo.

 

I will say I think Grandal is a pretty darn good player. I also am not a big buyer of the "pitch" frame concept. I think there are significant flaws in the early statistics behind it but I do agree it is an important concept but IIRC, there is a lot of variability depending on the pitch frame / defensive catching metrics that you look at.

[Eminor3rd]

Kemp at 77M has a chance to be a legit value and the Padres needed to make a splash. I really don't quite grasp what the Dodgers are doing. I think they are no better today than they were at the end of last year, possibly slightly worse. And on top of that, while getting rid of Kemp's contract, they also have put themselves in a position where they have a couple guys that will be walking a year / getting big contract (Rollins / Kendrick). Yes, Dodgers have guys in place but I think the Angels did best in that 3 team trade. Getting a young cost controlled power arm that is near to big league ready is a major coup for a club like the Angels. Yes, Kendrick was good but with the Angels payroll that move was fantastic, imo.

 

I will say I think Grandal is a pretty darn good player. I also am not a big buyer of the "pitch" frame concept. I think there are significant flaws in the early statistics behind it but I do agree it is an important concept but IIRC, there is a lot of variability depending on the pitch frame / defensive catching metrics that you look at.

 

Idk, I'd say the Dodgers are look roughly as good as last year, despite losing Hanley, and they've done it without trading ANY significant prospects and also cutting significant payroll. What they've lost in offense they've gained back in defense.

 

RE: framing. I think the issue is that Baseball Prospectus has WAY overvalued the level of contribution that framing has, but I don't think there's much, if any, criticism in how they collect and analyze the data. In other words, BP overrates the impact, but they give us a good list of who is best and who is worst.

Edited December 11, 2014 by Eminor3rd

[Chisoxfn]

I think the exact opposite. Kemp belongs somewhere that he can DH. Grandal actually graded out as one of the best framers in the league last year, Wieland is good but hasn't been able to stay healthy. Given the logjam the Dodgers had in the OF and the pressure they are assumed to be under to reduce payroll, clearing $7m and improving your C situation AND adding quality pitching depth AND some other prospect seems like a coup.

 

The Padres spent $77m to maybe not get much better, especially if Kemp's defense doesn't improve.

Said another way, I don't really see what strategy the Dodgers are implementing here. I presume they are going to make a major push at Cole Hamels but it seems like they are to some extent, just making moves to make moves. If I were the Dodgers, I'd have been doing what I could to move Ethier and Crawford, not Kemp.

[Chisoxfn]

Idk, I'd say the Dodgers are look roughly as good as last year, despite losing Hanley, and they've done it without trading ANY significant prospects and also cutting significant payroll. What they've lost in offense they've gained back in defense.

 

RE: framing. I think the issue is that Baseball Prospectus has WAY overvalued the level of contribution that framing has, but I don't think there's much, if any, criticism in how they collect and analyze the data. In other words, BP overrates the impact, but they give us a good list of who is best and who is worse.

So if I look at the Dodgers...they have lost Dee Brown, Hanley Ramirez, Matt Kemp, and Dan Haren (who was actually pretty darn solid last year). They have added Howie Kendrick, Jimmy Rollins, Brandon McCarthy, and Grandal. That is relatively lateral, especially from my perspective that Hanley & Kemp are the best players on that entire list, both of whom are out. Have they cut payroll? I don't know.

 

They sent $42M in cash in the two trades ($32M for Kemp + $10M in the Brown/Haren trade)

They spent 48M on Bmac (12M this year using a straight average)

Jimmy Rollins = +11M

Howie Kendrick = +9.35M

Grandal = +

 

Hanley Ramirez = -16M

Matt Kemp = -21M / -107M Total

 

 

[LDF]

 

i wonder if the Dodgers will still ask the Sox to do a trade,

Crawford or Etheir + prospect for Danks.

[Rowand44]

So if I look at the Dodgers...they have lost Dee Brown,

Dude that played for the Celtics or Illini?

[kwill]

I really dislike this trade but to be fair I do not know much about the prospects the Dodgers received in return. I heard they may take those prospects and flip them in the Rollins deal to include Hamels. Which would be hilarious cause that would screw the Red Sox over.

 

The reasons I dislike it.

1. Not as high on Grandel as everybody seems to be. He is not very good defensively and offensively is just above average.

2. I would think the Dodgers would be able to flip Kemp to have somebody eat the whole salary and get a couple good prospects. 5 years 110 for a right handed power hitter is not bad at all.

3. If there is one place that will mitigate Kemp's value that would be San Diego. He will be exposed defensively.

[Bob Sacamano]

Its kinda funny too that the Dodgers are paying Dee Gordon and Dan Haren's salary in 15 too haha

[BlackSox13]

i wonder if the Dodgers will still ask the Sox to do a trade,

Crawford or Etheir + prospect for Danks.

If the Sox really are close to their payroll " limit ", I'd guess Crawford or Ethier + cash for Danks. The cash would help bring Crawford/Ethier's annual salary down closer to what Danks makes. Pretty much what the Dodgers did for the Padres in the Kemp deal. The Dodgers sent enough money to SD to bring Kemp's annual salary down to 15M.

 

If the Dodgers and Sox pulled off a trade I'm hoping its for Crawford. Crawford is owed about 62M for the next three years so in order for the Sox to take on the remainder of that contract, the Sox would need a good 17M in cash to go along with Crawford.

 

Not sure how the Dodgers would feel about that but its pretty much what would need to happen if the the Sox/Dodgers were to make a trade.

[LDF]

I really dislike this trade but to be fair I do not know much about the prospects the Dodgers received in return. I heard they may take those prospects and flip them in the Rollins deal to include Hamels. Which would be hilarious cause that would screw the Red Sox over.

 

The reasons I dislike it.

1. Not as high on Grandel as everybody seems to be. He is not very good defensively and offensively is just above average.

2. I would think the Dodgers would be able to flip Kemp to have somebody eat the whole salary and get a couple good prospects. 5 years 110 for a right handed power hitter is not bad at all.

3. If there is one place that will mitigate Kemp's value that would be San Diego. He will be exposed defensively.

 

the prospects aside, the Dodgers has quietly fixed their hole that they had.

[Eminor3rd]

So if I look at the Dodgers...they have lost Dee Brown, Hanley Ramirez, Matt Kemp, and Dan Haren (who was actually pretty darn solid last year). They have added Howie Kendrick, Jimmy Rollins, Brandon McCarthy, and Grandal. That is relatively lateral, especially from my perspective that Hanley & Kemp are the best players on that entire list, both of whom are out. Have they cut payroll? I don't know.

 

They sent $42M in cash in the two trades ($32M for Kemp + $10M in the Brown/Haren trade)

They spent 48M on Bmac (12M this year using a straight average)

Jimmy Rollins = +11M

Howie Kendrick = +9.35M

Grandal = +

 

Hanley Ramirez = -16M

Matt Kemp = -21M / -107M Total

 

But Dee Gordon isn't gonna do what he did last year. They essentially had to "replace" that production. And the loss in value for Kemp has to be compared to his replacement, because all those guys can't play at the same time. So they're really not losing all of Kemp's value, they're losing the difference between Kemp's value and Crawford's value, and you can make an argument that the productivity of all the OFs will increase as the logjam lessens.

[Chisoxfn]

But Dee Gordon isn't gonna do what he did last year. They essentially had to "replace" that production. And the loss in value for Kemp has to be compared to his replacement, because all those guys can't play at the same time. So they're really not losing all of Kemp's value, they're losing the difference between Kemp's value and Crawford's value, and you can make an argument that the productivity of all the OFs will increase as the logjam lessens.

And you know that how? Dee Gordon made major strides forward last year and while he struggled the year previously when coming up through the Dodgers system he was widely regarded as a top 100 prospect. He was a much different player a year ago and when you combine his speed and value on the paths, he brings a very unique skill-set. Like I said, I would trade Dee Gordon for Howie Kendrick when you consider contracts, etc. Kendrick is a better player but Gordon is on a superior contract.

[Y2Jimmy0]

And you know that how? Dee Gordon made major strides forward last year and while he struggled the year previously when coming up through the Dodgers system he was widely regarded as a top 100 prospect. He was a much different player a year ago and when you combine his speed and value on the paths, he brings a very unique skill-set. Like I said, I would trade Dee Gordon for Howie Kendrick when you consider contracts, etc. Kendrick is a better player but Gordon is on a superior contract.

 

 

Dee Gordon doesn't get on base though. .324 .OBP last year.

[Dick Allen]

Dee Gordon doesn't get on base though. .324 .OBP last year.

It seems low, but it is above average, and when he gets on base, things happen that don't happen with most.

 

I do think the Dodgers don't think a .324 OBP is sustainable for him.

[Eminor3rd]

And you know that how? Dee Gordon made major strides forward last year and while he struggled the year previously when coming up through the Dodgers system he was widely regarded as a top 100 prospect. He was a much different player a year ago and when you combine his speed and value on the paths, he brings a very unique skill-set. Like I said, I would trade Dee Gordon for Howie Kendrick when you consider contracts, etc. Kendrick is a better player but Gordon is on a superior contract.

 

I'm just telling you what's likely based on precedent. He may be awesome despite everything we know about his type of player, certainly, but that's the less likely outcome.

 

Here's a good breakdown from Jeff Sullivan:

 

He played better defense at second than short. It’s plainly obvious that Gordon’s a good runner. He managed a 101 wRC+. But, Gordon seldom walks. Pitchers pound him with fastballs and pitches in the zone. Gordon also strikes out a little too often. He owns four career big-league home runs. Gordon’s offensive success last year was almost entirely a function of a .346 BABIP. You want to believe he can stay a BABIP threat, because of his legs, but recent history isn’t real encouraging.

 

Gordon’s home-runs-per-fly-ball rate for his career stands at 2.1%. Since 2002, there are 24 players who have batted at least 2,500 times, with a HR/FB no greater than 4%. Not a single one of those players has a wRC+ of 100 or better. The highest BABIP in the group is .331. The average wRC+ is 80. The average BABIP is .300. Among the most successful hitters, Chone Figgins, Luis Castillo, and Dave Roberts made more contact than Gordon, with more walks. Gordon, even last year, walked 31 times, with 107 whiffs.

 

As is my usual MO, I just have a hard time expecting any specific guy to defy all of baseball history, no matter how big or small a paradigm we're talking about. It does happen, of course, but not very often.

[GreenSox]

Idk, I'd say the Dodgers are look roughly as good as last year, despite losing Hanley, and they've done it without trading ANY significant prospects and also cutting significant payroll. What they've lost in offense they've gained back in defense.

And that's why they brought in this 10 mill front office....they want that payroll down without sacrificing on the field. Friedman is good at that.

[Ozzie Ball]

And you know that how? Dee Gordon made major strides forward last year and while he struggled the year previously when coming up through the Dodgers system he was widely regarded as a top 100 prospect. He was a much different player a year ago and when you combine his speed and value on the paths, he brings a very unique skill-set. Like I said, I would trade Dee Gordon for Howie Kendrick when you consider contracts, etc. Kendrick is a better player but Gordon is on a superior contract.

How exactly? I think you're focusing on the result rather than the process. He didn't really do anything better this year. He made a bit more contact, and doubled his HR output (from 1 to 2!), but the walk rate halved, to a pretty awful 4.8%, which is a major negative for a player whose value is tied to his ability reach base and utilise his speed. The big difference is that his average increased 50 points thanks to a rather high BABIP (.346). While you would expect a player with Gordon's skill-set (e.g. his bunt hit ability) to be able to register higher than average BABIP marks, this was still significantly above his career BABIP (.326).

 

The problem with someone like Gordon is that, due to the fact that he doesn't walk, hit for power or make elite level contact, so much of his offensive value is tied to his BABIP. If he has a good year with balls in play, such as in 2014, then you can buy him as a league average hitter and a valuable player, but in the years when he will have bad or even neutral luck on balls in play, he's going to go back to being the awful Dee Gordon of 2012 and 2013. He's below average in the field too.

 

The Dodgers sold high and got a nice return.

[Eminor3rd]

How exactly? I think you're focusing on the result rather than the process. He didn't really do anything better this year. He made a bit more contact, and doubled his HR output (from 1 to 2!), but the walk rate halved, to a pretty awful 4.8%, which is a major negative for a player whose value is tied to his ability reach base and utilise his speed. The big difference is that his average increased 50 points thanks to a rather high BABIP (.346). While you would expect a player with Gordon's skill-set (e.g. his bunt hit ability) to be able to register higher than average BABIP marks, this was still significantly above his career BABIP (.326).

 

The problem with someone like Gordon is that, due to the fact that he doesn't walk, hit for power or make elite level contact, so much of his offensive value is tied to his BABIP. If he has a good year with balls in play, such as in 2014, then you can buy him as a league average hitter and a valuable player, but in the years when he will have bad or even neutral luck on balls in play, he's going to go back to being the awful Dee Gordon of 2012 and 2013. He's below average in the field too.

 

The Dodgers sold high and got a nice return.

 

Precisely

[Steve9347]

I would have loved to see Kemp land on the South Side.

[Chisoxfn]

How exactly? I think you're focusing on the result rather than the process. He didn't really do anything better this year. He made a bit more contact, and doubled his HR output (from 1 to 2!), but the walk rate halved, to a pretty awful 4.8%, which is a major negative for a player whose value is tied to his ability reach base and utilise his speed. The big difference is that his average increased 50 points thanks to a rather high BABIP (.346). While you would expect a player with Gordon's skill-set (e.g. his bunt hit ability) to be able to register higher than average BABIP marks, this was still significantly above his career BABIP (.326).

 

The problem with someone like Gordon is that, due to the fact that he doesn't walk, hit for power or make elite level contact, so much of his offensive value is tied to his BABIP. If he has a good year with balls in play, such as in 2014, then you can buy him as a league average hitter and a valuable player, but in the years when he will have bad or even neutral luck on balls in play, he's going to go back to being the awful Dee Gordon of 2012 and 2013. He's below average in the field too.

 

The Dodgers sold high and got a nice return.

I'm not saying that the Dodgers didn't rob the Marlins...they did. I thought it was a horrible trade for the Marlins, however, I don't understand doing all that to end up with Kendrick. That is all. I think the team that won the trade is the Angels. Marlins were stupid cause they weren't a Dee Gordon away from the playoffs.

[Eminor3rd]

I would have loved to see Kemp land on the South Side.

 

It would have been fun, for sure, but my god at some point this team has to stop getting worse defensively, right? It's really looking difficult to make that type of an upgrade right now.

[Chisoxfn]

It would have been fun, for sure, but my god at some point this team has to stop getting worse defensively, right? It's really looking difficult to make that type of an upgrade right now.

I'm still waiting for them to figure it out. It was our biggest flaw and we've done ZERO to fix it. Its pathetic. Without doing that, I'd rank this offseason as bad, with context of we made win now moves without being capable of winning now. That said, there is still plenty of time.