Let's Talk About Matt Kemp.

Status
Not open for further replies.

Corsi

isn't shy about blowing his wad early
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 3, 2010
12,955
Boston, MA

MakMan44

stole corsi's dream
SoSH Member
Aug 22, 2009
19,363
Can someone split out this Kemp thing? If it's something the Sox are actually thinking about exploring (and it sounds like they are) I think it's worth it's own thread. 
 

foulkehampshire

hillbilly suburbanite
SoSH Member
Feb 25, 2007
5,099
Wesport, MA
MakMan44 said:
Can someone split out this Kemp thing? If it's something the Sox are actually thinking about exploring (and it sounds like they are) I think it's worth it's own thread. 
 
If Kemp is truly available, I offer anybody not named Boegarts for him. Tremendous pull power, good fielder (though I would imagine he'd play LF), a player that can impact the game in multiple ways. 
 
And he's only signed until 34, so theoretically the Sox would avoid paying him during his decline phase. 
 

Tyrone Biggums

nfl meets tri-annually at a secret country mansion
SoSH Member
Aug 15, 2006
6,424
foulkehampshire said:
 
If Kemp is truly available, I offer anybody not named Boegarts for him. Tremendous pull power, good fielder (though I would imagine he'd play LF), a player that can impact the game in multiple ways. 
 
And he's only signed until 34, so theoretically the Sox would avoid paying him during his decline phase. 
Unless his decline phase has already started. This is a better route than Ellsbury but I still wouldn't be crazy about giving up on JBJ.
 

E5 Yaz

Transcends message boarding
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 25, 2002
90,032
Oregon
Tyrone Biggums said:
Unless his decline phase has already started. This is a better route than Ellsbury but I still wouldn't be crazy about giving up on JBJ.
 
Kemp-JBJ-Victorino ... Gomes as a platoon option in left, moving kemp or Victorino to center against lefties. Who's giving up on JBJ?
 

foulkehampshire

hillbilly suburbanite
SoSH Member
Feb 25, 2007
5,099
Wesport, MA
Tyrone Biggums said:
Unless his decline phase has already started. This is a better route than Ellsbury but I still wouldn't be crazy about giving up on JBJ.
 
Who says it would be the end of JBJ? 
 

DennyDoyle'sBoil

Found no thrill on Blueberry Hill
SoSH Member
Sep 9, 2008
42,297
AZ
If the idea with Kemp is to put him in left field, why not kick the tires on Curtis Granderson?  3/45 or whatever it will take sure seems a lot more palatable than 6/124 on Matt Kemp, plus giving up whatever we need to trade for him.  
 
Granderson got a QO so he costs a pick, but the Dodgers would have to send an awful lot of money the other way, wouldn't they?
 

BosRedSox5

what's an original thought?
Sep 6, 2006
1,471
Colorado Springs, Colorado
Kemp is a tremendous talent. He's a strong outfielder (though he'd likely move to CF) and he's a big power hitter. Since he's only signed through age 34, I think he's a strong bet.
 

Devizier

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 3, 2000
19,472
Somewhere
I'm not fond of this idea, but can we put to rest the idea that the Red Sox are "giving up" on Bradley if they trade for Kemp (or re-sign Ellsbury?) Victorino is only signed for two more years, and may fall off a cliff/get permanently injured at any time. There will be plenty of games missed due to injury and other reasons. Bradley will get his chances.
 

Morgan's Magic Snowplow

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 2, 2006
22,345
Philadelphia
I'm not sure where people are getting the "good fielder" comments. His UZR in CF has been mediocre-to-awful the last 4-5 years. Playing him in LF might be our best option if we acquired him, but his ability to play CF if JBJ stumbled badly (or RF if Victorino got hurt) would be a big plus.

As always, the devil is in the details, both in terms of the prospect price and how much the Dodgers would be willing to eat of the contract. But I can definitely imagine scenarios where this makes more sense than resigning Ellsbury.

I also wouldn't mind if the Dodgers followed up this kind of salary dump move by getting back into the Cano sweepstakes and/or blowing the lid off the Tanaka bidding.
 

Devizier

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 3, 2000
19,472
Somewhere
Kemp has been hurt so often that it's hard to get a read on where his defensive (or, to be honest, offensive) ability really is at this stage of his career. This is a case where the scouts should be given an extended hearing. However, for me, the fact that Kemp hasn't been reliably healthy since his breakout season, combined with the fact that the Dodgers (who presumably have the best scouting on him) are trying to trade him, is a good reason to stay very far away.
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
34,464
it would give a ton of positional flexibility, he can play any of the 3 outfield positions, though I think they would prefer not to play him in CF. LF would be his primary spot if they are going with JBJ in CF, if that isn't working out (or just when JBJ gets an off day) they can either put him in CF, or slide him to RF, Victorino to CF, and Nava/Gomes in LF. It would be really nice to have 3 guys who can all play CF at least somewhat and hit (well hopefully hit in JBJ's case) as cover for performance and injury issues.
 

foulkehampshire

hillbilly suburbanite
SoSH Member
Feb 25, 2007
5,099
Wesport, MA
Devizier said:
Kemp has been hurt so often that it's hard to get a read on where his defensive (or, to be honest, offensive) ability really is at this stage of his career. This is a case where the scouts should be given an extended hearing. However, for me, the fact that Kemp hasn't been reliably healthy since his breakout season, combined with the fact that the Dodgers (who presumably have the best scouting on him) are trying to trade him, is a good reason to stay very far away.
 
You mean the guy who averaged 149 games a year from 2008-2012? (159 a year from 2008-2011)
 

nattysez

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 30, 2010
8,436
foulkehampshire said:
 
You mean the guy who averaged 149 games a year from 2008-2012? (159 a year from 2008-2011)
 
No, he means the guy who's played 189 games the past two years, just had microfracture surgery on this ankle, is not expected to be 100% in time for the start of the regular season, and has never been the same since he injured his shoulder two years ago.
 
When Kemp was declared out for the playoffs, Dr. Neal ElAttrache said the injury was to a major weight-bearing bone, and a complete fracture could put Kemp's career in jeopardy.
[SIZE=13.63636302947998px]***[/SIZE]
[SIZE=13.63636302947998px]The arthroscopic operation included the removal of several spurs and a loose body.[/SIZE][SIZE=13.63636302947998px]The arthroscopic operation included the removal of several spurs and a loose body.[/SIZE]
More importantly, it involved microfracture of the talus bone, a procedure of punching numerous holes in the bone to stimulate the formation of an overlying layer of fibrocartilage. The operation was performed by Dr. Robert Anderson in Charlotte, N.C., and not by ElAttrache. Anderson is a team physician for the Carolina Panthers.
Kemp will be in a splint for two weeks and a non-weight bearing boot for another two weeks. It's unknown when he is expected to resume baseball activities.
Kemp hasn't been healthy since running into the center-field fence in Coors Field in August 2012. He underwent surgery for a torn labrum in his left shoulder last year. This season, he endured three trips to the disabled list for a strained right hamstring, left shoulder A/C joint irritation and the ankle injury.
Last week, Kemp underwent a cleanup procedure to address the arthritic A/C joint. The ankle surgery is his third operation in the last year.
 
 
Unless the Dodgers are kicking in $100mm, I want no part of 7/$140mm 6/$120mm for this guy.
 

plucy

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 2, 2006
426
a rock and a hard place
The Sox would take on more salary to protect the top ten prospects and eliminate the teams that would take a risk at 6/80-90 but not higher. If they feel he could provide 20+ fWAR over the duration of the contract then 6/104-112 with lesser prospects could get him.

I agree that LAD is motivated because of Cano. Add whatever they would eat on Kemp onto his contract.
 

Dustin the Wind

4416
SoSH Member
Apr 27, 2007
722
Rockport,Mass
nattysez said:
 
No, he means the guy who's played 189 games the past two years, just had microfracture surgery on this ankle, is not expected to be 100% in time for the start of the regular season, and has never been the same since he injured his shoulder two years ago.
 
 
Unless the Dodgers are kicking in $100mm, I want no part of 7/$140mm for this guy.
 
If you scroll down the page on this link, look at the play on July 21st, where he injured his ankle. All the reports I've seen on him put him on track to have  closer to normal offseason than he's had in two years, and another year further away from shoulder surgery.
 
http://www.fangraphs.com/fantasy/fantasy-lvp-matt-kemp/
 

TOleary25

New Member
Sep 30, 2011
358
Kemp has a career .844 OPS and a 126 wRC+. Carlos Beltran had a .830 OPS and a 132 wRC+ last season. Beltran will likely be $90-100M cheaper with no long term commitment. If you're looking to upgrade left field, Beltran would be the much safer bet IMO. It would have to be a pretty significant chunk of money back from LA plus not much of a return for me to even consider it a good move.
 

koufax32

He'll cry if he wants to...
SoSH Member
Dec 8, 2006
9,092
Duval
TOleary25 said:
Kemp has a career .844 OPS and a 126 wRC+. Carlos Beltran had a .830 OPS and a 132 wRC+ last season. Beltran will likely be $90-100M cheaper with no long term commitment. If you're looking to upgrade left field, Beltran would be the much safer bet IMO. It would have to be a pretty significant chunk of money back from LA plus not much of a return for me to even consider it a good move.
There is no chance (or very little) for Beltran to improve on those numbers. There is a good chance for Kemp to improve on his. One is in age decline. The other should be (just from an age perspective) at a steady keel for the duration of the deal. Whether or not it would be worth it would depend on the hours that Sox doctors would spend pouring over Kemp's medicals. That sentence is reason enough for great concern. It should not be an absolute deal breaker though.

I'm curious to know what LA would want in return. There's the rub.
 

nattysez

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 30, 2010
8,436
Bosox4416 said:
 
If you scroll down the page on this link, look at the play on July 21st, where he injured his ankle. All the reports I've seen on him put him on track to have  closer to normal offseason than he's had in two years, and another year further away from shoulder surgery.
 
http://www.fangraphs.com/fantasy/fantasy-lvp-matt-kemp/
 
Could you link to one of these many reports you've seen?  Because the one I linked to is all of one month old said he was going to be in a walking boot until right around now, and nothing else I've seen based on a Google search suggests that he's on track for a "normal offseason."  
 
Also, I can't help but ask -- what were we to glean from watching his ankle injury? 
 

Kid T

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
793
San Francisco
TOleary25 said:
Kemp has a career .844 OPS and a 126 wRC+. Carlos Beltran had a .830 OPS and a 132 wRC+ last season. Beltran will likely be $90-100M cheaper with no long term commitment. If you're looking to upgrade left field, Beltran would be the much safer bet IMO. It would have to be a pretty significant chunk of money back from LA plus not much of a return for me to even consider it a good move.
 
 
A 3 year contract to a 36 year-old might be riskier than a 6 year contract to a 29 year-old.  The real question in my mind (as you pointed out) is whether Kemp is worth the remaining $128 million of his contract (less whatever the Dodgers might kick in) along with the cost in players/prospects.  Cherington and Farrell have also worked hard to erase the bad clubhouse culture, so another question might be how well Kemps personality would mesh in the clubhouse. 
 
I would expect the team to review his medicals in excruciating detail, so it is doubtful a trade would be consumated if he was still limited physically.  I think the more likely scenario is that he might be able to have another elite season or two in the immediat future (next 3-4 seasons) before starting any age/injury-related decline in performance.  Also, I think he might have a better chance to stay healthier in Boston if he is given the less taxing position of LF.. 
 

E5 Yaz

Transcends message boarding
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 25, 2002
90,032
Oregon
plucy said:
Guerrero would play SS, Ramirez to 3B. Speculation , of course.
 
That sound conceivable. LA press had speculated they want to move Hanley to 3B to reduce wear and tear
 

JMDurron

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
5,127
Aside from the sexy name and 2011 MVP-caliber season, I'm not seeing the appeal of an expensive, injured, and possibly declining (but maybe just injured?) player with a nominal capability to play CF.
 
Matt Kemp, last 2 seasons: 290/352/482, average of 90 games played, 29 HRs in 179 games.  So, 1 HR every 6.17 games.
 
Daniel Nava, career (3 partial seasons) vs RHP: 292/390/443, 14 HRs in 248 games.  1 HR every 17.7 games.
Jonny Gomes, career vs LHP: 277/377/502, 58 HRs in 552 games.  1 HR every 9.52 games. 
 
I went with career numbers because the last 2 seasons include Nava's breakout 2013 and Gomes' excellent 2012 with Oakland, which *might* be overstating their capabilities. 
 
So, I get the appeal in terms of "Farrell said he wants power, Kemp = power!"  But, unless you think 2011 Kemp is coming back, he's not likely to be an upgrade over Nava/Gomes in LF as reflected in his triple slash lines.  It would take a massive subsidy from LA and relatively little prospect value heading their way for me to be ok with this deal.  This would only make sense to me if, for some reason, the FO thinks Nava's true talent level is much closer to his 2012 numbers than 2013.  I know that's also the popular SoSH opinion, but we don't know that the FO thinks that at this time. 
 
I get that the FO apparently isn't stupid anymore, so such a trade would indicate strong belief in the return of 2011 Kemp and/or complete disappearance of 2013 Nava, but this admittedly ignorant outsider doesn't see an upgrade that is comparable to the cost in salary and/or trade chits.  Perhaps Cherington and company think they got extremely lucky with the performances of both Nava and Gomes, and therefore want a higher-ceiling talent permanently installed in their place, but I'm hesitant to write off the Nava half of that equation as a fluke without another nearly full season of performance from him to use to establish his baseline capabilities. 
 

radsoxfan

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 9, 2009
13,622
nattysez said:
 
No, he means the guy who's played 189 games the past two years, just had microfracture surgery on this ankle, is not expected to be 100% in time for the start of the regular season, and has never been the same since he injured his shoulder two years ago.
 
 
Unless the Dodgers are kicking in $100mm, I want no part of 7/$140mm for this guy.
 
Agreed.  His medicals are scary, and I certainly don't think he will be a good or even average defensive CF going forward.
 
I don't think the Sox would need 100M to make it worthwhile, but I think at least half that. And that's with no prospects of note going to LA.  
 

Sampo Gida

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 7, 2010
5,044
I think I would want to pursue Stanton instead of Kemp.   Kemps already locked in his big deal, and some players coast after that.  Rather a young guy who is still hungry.  Stanton would cost you a bit more though.
 
That said, I am happy with the OF as presently constructed.  Don't see the need to make either move though.
 

Devizier

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 3, 2000
19,472
Somewhere
foulkehampshire said:
 
You mean the guy who averaged 149 games a year from 2008-2012? (159 a year from 2008-2011)
 
I've seen some pretty amazing numerical gymnastics on this board, but this has to take the cake.
 

Savin Hillbilly

loves the secret sauce
SoSH Member
Jul 10, 2007
18,783
The wrong side of the bridge....
Where are people getting this idea that Matt Kemp is like this super young dude? We would have him for ages 29 through 34. That's not downright old, but it's certainly post-peak. It's basically Adrian Gonzalez all over again.
 
This is a guy who strikes out as much as Middlebrooks, walks less than Salty, and may not be a CF any more (and certainly isn't a good one). He has only had a wRC+ of 125 or better in a full season once, and he'll turn 30 next year. He used to have elite power, but it's not by any means clear he'll have it going forward. At 6/120, I pass so hard I get a speeding ticket.
 

Why Not Grebeck?

New Member
Feb 29, 2008
378
LA transplant here. I don't have season tickets to the Dodgers or anything but I do follow the team a decent amount and have seen Kemp play a bunch.
 
First off, Kemp is supremely talented. I've seen him muscle balls over the fence in centerfield at Dodger Stadium that have no business being home runs. He doesn't grade out well defensively but keep in mind that he's playing a ton of games in massive west coast ballparks. He's certainly not a butcher in the OF. 
 
I don't really think his numbers being down represent a loss of skill at all. He was unreal in 2011 and for the first part of 2012 before getting hurt. He was never right in the second half of 2012 or at all during 2013, really. I guess it's possible that he never fully recovers, but it's clear that injuries were responsible for his struggles. This is a chance to buy low on a guy who might contend for MVP awards over the next couple seasons. Of course, it's a very high risk chance and if the Dodgers want to dump him that would be a huge red flag to me.
 
There are also character issues. Early on, there were reports that he was letting the 'LA lifestyle' get in the way of him actually contributing on the field. This was back in 2009 and 2010 when he was young and mercurial, trying to put his game together. I haven't heard any big knocks on him recently so that may all be behind him, but I'm not sure he'd take well to Boston and I can't see him growing a beard and joking around with Gomes and Napoli.
 
I'm glad the Sox are looking into Kemp. At a certain point, he makes more sense than re-signing Jacoby simply because of his massive upside. Unless the price is great, though, it's a risk the Sox really don't have to take right now.  
 

Morgan's Magic Snowplow

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 2, 2006
22,345
Philadelphia
Savin Hillbilly said:
Where are people getting this idea that Matt Kemp is like this super young dude? We would have him for ages 29 through 34. That's not downright old, but it's certainly post-peak. It's basically Adrian Gonzalez all over again.
 
This is a guy who strikes out as much as Middlebrooks, walks less than Salty, and may not be a CF any more (and certainly isn't a good one). He has only had a wRC+ of 125 or better in a full season once, and he'll turn 30 next year. He used to have elite power, but it's not by any means clear he'll have it going forward. At 6/120, I pass so hard I get a speeding ticket.
 
I think very few people in this thread are arguing otherwise.  The question is really what you do if he's offered at 6/90 or so.  There doesn't seem to be much to this rumor so its all just speculation anyway. 
 

DennyDoyle'sBoil

Found no thrill on Blueberry Hill
SoSH Member
Sep 9, 2008
42,297
AZ
Savin Hillbilly said:
At 6/120, I pass so hard I get a speeding ticket.
 
Just a small point, but according to spotrac his contract was back-loaded a little, so he's actually due 6/128, which I assume puts you closer to the category of reckless driving.  
 
At $128 million, I think the amount of subsidy the Dodgers would have to pay to make it happen edges up into the $40 million range, unless they are throwing another player or prospect into the deal.
 

Hoplite

New Member
Oct 26, 2013
1,116
What do you think is a realistic asking price for him? We have some good prospects who are somewhat superfluous to us. Mookie Betts is blocked at second base and in centerfield. We could trade one of Barnes, Ranaudo, Webster, Workman, Britton, etc. since we don't have room for them in our MLB or AAA rotations. But LA is obviously going to want more than that and I wouldn't want to trade them Bogaerts, Bradley, Cecchini or Owens.
 
Kemp would be a better righthanded bat than Corey Hart or Mike Napoli. They all have varying degrees of health issues (it's more the strike out rates, walk rates and BABIP that concern me with Napoli).
 

Hoplite

New Member
Oct 26, 2013
1,116
Papelbon's Poutine said:
Aren't the Dodgers looking for SP depth? Could Dempster be worked in here? Or Peavy?
 
Dempster was a very successful starter in the National League from 2008-2012. If the Dodgers buy in to his ability to be a quality starter for them, I'd be all for it. Hey, they bought in to Josh Beckett.
 

DanoooME

above replacement level
SoSH Member
Mar 16, 2008
19,831
Henderson, NV
koufax32 said:
There is no chance (or very little) for Beltran to improve on those numbers. There is a good chance for Kemp to improve on his. One is in age decline. The other should be (just from an age perspective) at a steady keel for the duration of the deal. Whether or not it would be worth it would depend on the hours that Sox doctors would spend pouring over Kemp's medicals. That sentence is reason enough for great concern. It should not be an absolute deal breaker though.

I'm curious to know what LA would want in return. There's the rub.
 
 
Hoplite said:
What do you think is a realistic asking price for him? We have some good prospects who are somewhat superfluous to us. Mookie Betts is blocked at second base and in centerfield. We could trade one of Barnes, Ranaudo, Webster, Workman, Britton, etc. since we don't have room for them in our MLB or AAA rotations. But LA is obviously going to want more than that and I wouldn't want to trade them Bogaerts, Bradley, Cecchini or Owens.
 
Kemp would be a better righthanded bat than Corey Hart or Mike Napoli. They all have varying degrees of health issues (it's more the strike out rates, walk rates and BABIP that concern me with Napoli).
 
 
Papelbon's Poutine said:
Aren't the Dodgers looking for SP depth? Could Dempster be worked in here? Or Peavy?
 
Too bad the Sox don't have DeJesus and Sands any more, they could have been part of the deal.
 
Yeah, until Kemp proves he's healthy again, the Dodgers can't expect to get much AND would have to eat a lot of contract and/or take back less favorable contracts (i.e. Dempster).
 

MakMan44

stole corsi's dream
SoSH Member
Aug 22, 2009
19,363
If you isolate his 2012 (purely for this exercise), where he put up .303/.367/.538 slash line. 
 
What would you be ok with the Sox trading for that? 
 
Because I don't think it's that much of a stretch for Kemp to be able to reach numbers like that if he's actually healthy for an entire season. Maybe a little lower on the SLG but overall, a very solid line for a LF. 
 

Hoplite

New Member
Oct 26, 2013
1,116
MakMan44 said:
If you isolate his 2012 (purely for this exercise), where he put up .303/.367/.538 slash line. 
 
What would you be ok with the Sox trading for that? 
 
Because I don't think it's that much of a stretch for Kemp to be able to reach numbers like that if he's actually healthy for an entire season. Maybe a little lower on the SLG but overall, a very solid line for a LF. 
 
I think it's fair to expect Kemp to produce like he did in 2012 (assuming the Sox go over his medicals and his shoulder looks good). We saw what happened to Ellsbury coming off shoulder issues, he was basically useless for the 70 or so games he played the next year.
 
2012 Ellsbury - 74 games, 84 wRC+
2013 Kemp - 73 games, 102 wRC+
 
The Sox have historically had a decent shoulder strengthening program that helped Papelbon and Ellsbury get back to full strength.
 
Anyone thinks there's any substance to the behavioral issues/clubhouse issues that Kemp is rumored to have?
 
 
 
Kemp has such a seemingly casual attitude, he can be hard to read. Or if you try, it can be an unflattering read.

He doesn’t exactly emanate competitive fire. His energy seems focused on being cool, both in the clubhouse and too often on the field. He comes off so relaxed, his focus and intensity come into question.
 http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/dodgers/2010/06/can-matt-kemp-get-the-message-joe-torre-keeps-him-on-bench-in-dodgers-opener-against-giants.html#sthash
 
 
 
Earl, I have it on good authority (NOT from Colletti, from others) that if anything, Ned UNDERSTATED the issues with Kemp. This kid is really full of himself, to the point that it is becoming an issue in the clubhouse. I’m not saying they WILL trade him. I still think there is less than a 50-percent chance that they will. I’m just saying that if they do trade one of their core young players, he probably will be the one, not only because of these issues but also because he would have the most value.
http://dodgerfan.net/is-matt-kemp-an-issue-in-the-clubhouse-for-the-dodgers
 
 
 
The Dodgers center fielder hasn’t played since May 29th, and even when he was in the lineup, he was striking out almost as often as Rickie Weeks, yet bitching at his manager when he was pulled as part of a double switch, a move that would eventually lead to a 5-3 victory for the Dodgers.
http://dailyupperdecker.com/2013/06/matt-kemp-is-actually-a-piece-of-shit/
 

BeantownIdaho

New Member
Dec 5, 2005
481
Nampa, Idaho
If the Sox are looking at 6 @ 126 for years 29-35 then why not offer that to Ellsbury? Unless money is coming back and  you shed some with Demptster or Peavy then I am not sure the team is better off than just locking up Ellsbury for that money and keeping their trade assets for other needs.
 

OCD SS

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
BeantownIdaho said:
If the Sox are looking at 6 @ 126 for years 29-35 then why not offer that to Ellsbury? Unless money is coming back and  you shed some with Demptster or Peavy then I am not sure the team is better off than just locking up Ellsbury for that money and keeping their trade assets for other needs.
 
Because of the structure of Kemp's contract (only $10M in 2012, w/ $2M from that year deferred) the Sox would almost certainly be getting money back. I typically work under the assumption that the Sox don't care about the actual payroll so much as the CBT calculation, so that money coming back further reduces what he costs against the cap off his $20M/ yr AAV baseline (as opposed to the $128M/ 6 yrs that he's owed on the contract). By contrast Ellsbury looks to be in line to get more than that, and every penny will count against the cap. even getting $12M from LA knocks Kemps AAV down to $18M/ yr, which I don't think we've seen it suggested that Jacoby will be close to. Jacoby is also a seasonal year older than Kemp.
 
Each has health issues (did anyone ever think that we'd be looking at Ellsbury's medicals as indicative of the more durable player?), but going forward Kemp fits the Sox better. They need power in a corner OF and can put JBJ making the minimum in CF. To me, if they re-sign Ellsbury JBJ becomes a trade chip to get corner OF power (think someone like Stanton, if not him specifically) and that route adds payroll (since you're giving up the 1st year player on a minimum salary). Put him in LF and the Sox could get power production with great defense.
 
I'm not a fan of the reports of Kemp's attitude, but a baseball-mad Boston might be a better environment for him than LA. Baseball is show buisness in Boston.
 

MoGator71

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
5,117
I'd be shocked if they got Kemp subsidized much if at all. 6/128 for Kemp is high, but would he get that on the market? That's probably in the neighborhood of what Ellsbury will get...but that's with Ellsbury being free vs. costing prospect(s). The best you can probably do is sell them on taking Dempster and Gomes (they'll have 2 LHH OF's for him to take AB from vs. LHPs), maybe you include some young talent but not anything near a top prospect. Bogaerts is laughable.
 

Yelling At Clouds

Post-darwinian
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
3,407
Hoplite said:
 
I think it's fair to expect Kemp to produce like he did in 2012 (assuming the Sox go over his medicals and his shoulder looks good). We saw what happened to Ellsbury coming off shoulder issues, he was basically useless for the 70 or so games he played the next year.
 
2012 Ellsbury - 74 games, 84 wRC+
2013 Kemp - 73 games, 102 wRC+
 
The Sox have historically had a decent shoulder strengthening program that helped Papelbon and Ellsbury get back to full strength.
 
Anyone thinks there's any substance to the behavioral issues/clubhouse issues that Kemp is rumored to have?
 
 http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/dodgers/2010/06/can-matt-kemp-get-the-message-joe-torre-keeps-him-on-bench-in-dodgers-opener-against-giants.html#sthash
 
http://dodgerfan.net/is-matt-kemp-an-issue-in-the-clubhouse-for-the-dodgers
 
http://dailyupperdecker.com/2013/06/matt-kemp-is-actually-a-piece-of-shit/
 
Two of these are three years old and the third comes from a source that doesn't exactly scream credibility. And, for that matter, two of these also contradict each other, as one indicates he's too laid-back and another criticizes him for getting in Mattingly's face after being pulled from a game. 
 

Drek717

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 23, 2003
2,542
DanoooME said:
 
Yeah, until Kemp proves he's healthy again, the Dodgers can't expect to get much AND would have to eat a lot of contract and/or take back less favorable contracts (i.e. Dempster).
In a world where Jason Vargas just signed a 4 year, $32M deal should we really consider Dempster a less favorable contract?  He has real value based on his 1. long term health history and 2. exceptional success just last season in the NL.  In the AL he's a 4th/5th starter type and being paid about what a 4th/5th starter type is not getting on the market, maybe just a touch more but that comes with the benefit of just a one year commitment.  I'd say that for a NL club he looks like good value relative to what other deals have been struck for starters to date.
 
I think he'd be value added in a deal for Kemp.  Not a ton, but he wouldn't be a negative weight on the deal to off-season an unwillingness to further subsidize Kemp's contract.
 
The real problem here to me is that the new organizational manifesto post-Punto trade is to avoid deals exactly like what Kemp's current contract and recent performance history makes him - long term commitment tied to inconsistent results.  If the Dodgers want to subsidize him to the tune of ~$30M and make him a roughly $15M player he's worth the gamble.  If they'll subsidize him further, say $42M bringing him down to a $13M guy, then you've got something to really talk about as far as what you send back for him.
 
They'll need a legitimate player back in return I think.  Their fans won't be pleased with anything less as it feels like a massive sell low otherwise, no matter how much money is sent with him.  To me this is where the sticking point emerges.  Dempster for Kemp +$30M with payouts starting in 2015 would actually make some sense, but it has zero glamour to it.  Kemp +$42-50M for Doubront however?  That is something they can sell as adding yet another young strikeout lefty to the arsenal.  But if you're Boston do you want to do that when Doubie is a proven mid to back of the rotation starter at worst who is price controlled right at the time when there is uncertainty about every other ML starter's future beyond 2014?  I don't know if you do.
 
Ultimately I see some other team more desperate for the marquee name and more willing to gamble on Kemp's potential upside while ignoring the risks should the Dodgers move him.  The Yankees would make a ton of sense if they lose out on two of Cano, Beltran, and McCann.  The Rangers might be game and offer some young pitching if they can't secure another worthwhile OF in some other move.  And if we're talking subsidy in exchange for prospects I'd say that is a siren call for Jack Z who needs performers but is gun shy on giving Ells and the like $20M.  Kemp subsidized down to the mid-teens per year in exchange for some of their mid-minors pitching talent?  Kemp has shown he can be productive at the plate in a pitcher's park.
 
I just don't see the Sox, with the Nava/Gomes, Victorino, and JBJ groupings already lined up, being the most willing to take on salary or give talent back for Kemp.  A lot of other teams would likely be much less risk adverse than Boston when it comes to Matt Kemp.
 

Steve22

New Member
Jul 28, 2011
132
All-Star/MVP type outfielder and a likely buy-low opportunity. Sox would be irresponsible not to check in. Doesn't mean they're "in discussions" or any closer to acquiring Kemp than any of the other 200 players that are likely "available" this offseason. Honestly, until I see something more substantial I'm not even going to waste brain space trying to figure out if this is a smart move or not. 
 

Savin Hillbilly

loves the secret sauce
SoSH Member
Jul 10, 2007
18,783
The wrong side of the bridge....
Steve22 said:
All-Star/MVP type outfielder and a likely buy-low opportunity. Sox would be irresponsible not to check in. Doesn't mean they're "in discussions" or any closer to acquiring Kemp than any of the other 200 players that are likely "available" this offseason. Honestly, until I see something more substantial I'm not even going to waste brain space trying to figure out if this is a smart move or not. 
 
When you say "buy low," what do you have in mind? What do you think the Sox could realistically offer LA that might get the deal done and would seem like buying low from a Sox fan's point of view? This is not a rhetorical or gotcha question, I'm genuinely curious. From what people are posting so far I'm not getting a clear picture of what SoSHers think would be a reasonable offer.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.