Let's Talk About Matt Kemp.

[Rough Carrigan]

I've been a pretty vocal critic of Ellsbury's fielding over the years.  And I guess it's natural to be reluctant to rethink one's judgements  My biggest criticism was that Ellsbury sucked coming in on short flies and popups.  But the Fielding Bible numbers over at billjamesonline show that he's been much better at coming in on balls than the last couple years than he was earlier in his career.  Somewhere along the line he worked on that part of his fielding game and got a lot better at it.

 

[soxhop411]

Jon Morosi ‏@jonmorosi5m
Sources: Dodgers have remained in contact with multiple teams on possibility of Matt Kemp trade. SEA, BOS, TEX among those with interest.

 

[ivanvamp]

I'm super curious as to what the Dodgers are seriously asking for.  Not first-shot-and-ask-for-the-moon kind of stuff, but realistically, what are they looking for.  

 

[TomRicardo]

I'm super curious as to what the Dodgers are seriously asking for.  Not first-shot-and-ask-for-the-moon kind of stuff, but realistically, what are they looking for.  

 
Someone to do something dumb.

 

[MartyBarrettMVP]

 
Mariners have been among the most aggressive suitors for Matt Kemp, sources say. They are looking at free agents too.

 
Per Morosi
 
https://twitter.com/jonmorosi/status/408011613531152384

 

[Minneapolis Millers]

If the Mariners can't get FAs to bite, and they're willing to both spend big and take on risk, then they seem like the perfect trade partner for LA.  I certainly don't want the Sox getting in a trade-bidding war for Kemp.  Too costly, too risky.  But if we could get him at Ethier money for a mid-tier prospect or two (not top 10), the upside would be worth it.  LA would have to be desperate to do that kind of deal, though.

 

[jimbobim]

I'd say you'd have to give them at least one top top 10 guy. Preferably they'd want a pitcher or infielder. I'd go Mookie Betts or Webster/ Barnes (seems to have fallen behind workman,renaudo,) Lavarneway maybe.  Even then I'd need 20-30 million before anyone starts talking about the really top tier on the farm where the Dodgers could theoretically sell it as building or just sign Cano resign kershaw or hanley. Lot of money to be still spent out in LA. 
 
Also the prospects getting traded around the league recently aren't exactly inspiring. Kemp has a 50/50 chance to start the season and hasn't been healthy or elite for an uncomfortable amount of time. 

 

[FFCI]

If Kemp can be had for a top 10 prospect and a couple lottery tickets, I'd be good with taking on the entire salary.  Maybe, with the salary off their books, LA can go and sign Cano - now that would be cool and I'd happily have Kemp on a "bad deal" with the Red Sox.
 
There was $20 million budgeted to sign Ellsbury and if that slides over to Kemp - I like the possibilities...
 
This is a great opportunity to add an impact "FA" bat  without having to actually go through the pains involved in free agency (no loss of draft pick and money for draft pool).
 
I'd rather overpay Kemp and keep some prospects than have LA eat money and overpay in prospects.  

 

[Devizier]

If the Mariners can't get FAs to bite, and they're willing to both spend big and take on risk, then they seem like the perfect trade partner for LA.  I certainly don't want the Sox getting in a trade-bidding war for Kemp.  Too costly, too risky.  But if we could get him at Ethier money for a mid-tier prospect or two (not top 10), the upside would be worth it.  LA would have to be desperate to do that kind of deal, though.

 
Something like Ackley for Kemp would make a lot of sense, with the Dodgers throwing Ackley in the mix to back up/compete with Guerrero while hoping to recoup his once massive potential.

 

[radsoxfan]

If Kemp can be had for a top 10 prospect and a couple lottery tickets, I'd be good with taking on the entire salary.  Maybe, with the salary off their books, LA can go and sign Cano - now that would be cool and I'd happily have Kemp on a "bad deal" with the Red Sox.
 
There was $20 million budgeted to sign Ellsbury and if that slides over to Kemp - I like the possibilities...
 
This is a great opportunity to add an impact "FA" bat  without having to actually go through the pains involved in free agency (no loss of draft pick and money for draft pool).
 
I'd rather overpay Kemp and keep some prospects than have LA eat money and overpay in prospects.

Are we discussing the same Matt Kemp? The guy who, since his last successful season, has had multiple shoulder surgeries and recent micro fracture surgery on his ankle? The same guy who MIGHT be able to run by spring training? The same guy who has put up 2.8 WAR total in the last 2 seasons, and likely can't play CF anymore?

I'm all for buying low on bounce back guys, but paying his entire contract is nuts. That's not buying low, that's paying full price for a guy with a significant chance of flaming out. I'd have given Ellsbury 7/153 before taking on the rest of Kemp's deal, even if no prospects are required at all.

Kemp requires a serious subsidy before it even approaches a reasonable option.

 

[ivanvamp]

 
Someone to do something dumb.

 
Heh.  Well in that case I hope we are out, because it would mean Ben is dumb, and I don't want a dumb GM running the Sox.

 

[NHbeau]

radsoxfan, on 04 Dec 2013 - 3:24 PM, said:

Are we discussing the same Matt Kemp? The guy who, since his last successful season, has had multiple shoulder surgeries and recent micro fracture surgery on his ankle? The same guy who MIGHT be able to run by spring training? The same guy who has put up 2.8 WAR total in the last 2 seasons, and likely can't play CF anymore?

I'm all for buying low on bounce back guys, but paying his entire contract is nuts. That's not buying low, that's paying full price for a guy with a significant chance of flaming out. I'd have given Ellsbury 7/153 before taking on the rest of Kemp's deal, even if no prospects are required at all.

Kemp requires a serious subsidy before it even approaches a reasonable option.

 
 I'm with you on this. I want no part of Kemp, even subsidized. Microfracture surgery is pretty hit and miss on professional athletes (Oden, Bogut just to name a few who've never been the same) . A subsidized Either seems a much more palatable trade target to me. YMMV.

 

[MakMan44]

Ethier is only a minor upgrade over Nava though. He still needs to be platooned and I don't think he'd handle that very well, best friends with Pedey or no.

Kemp still has top ten player in all of the MLB upside, which the main reason he's worth looking in to.

 

[FFCI]

Are we discussing the same Matt Kemp? The guy who, since his last successful season, has had multiple shoulder surgeries and recent micro fracture surgery on his ankle? The same guy who MIGHT be able to run by spring training? The same guy who has put up 2.8 WAR total in the last 2 seasons, and likely can't play CF anymore?
I'm all for buying low on bounce back guys, but paying his entire contract is nuts. That's not buying low, that's paying full price for a guy with a significant chance of flaming out. I'd have given Ellsbury 7/153 before taking on the rest of Kemp's deal, even if no prospects are required at all.
Kemp requires a serious subsidy before it even approaches a reasonable option.

As makman put it - kemp has superstar potential. Now, there'd have to be a physical/review of medical records for a deal - but kemp is a target that doesn't impact draft picks or the pool for the draft.

The opportunities for big market teams to flex their financial muscles is closing and if the red sox can add a potential player like kemp for mostly money - it is an advantage that I'd like to see them pursue. A big right handed power bat in Fenway...appeals to me.

He doesn't have to be CF - there are plenty of ways to get him in the lineup.

Here's an article/blog which proposes a similar argument...

http://blog.masslive.com/redsoxmonster/2013/12/boston_red_sox_hot_stove_why_a.html

 

[soxhop411]

Nick Cafardo ‏@nickcafardo11s
Matt Kemp is in play for the Red Sox and the Dodgers would eat some money in the right deal. Just a question of whether the Red Sox want to

 

[MakMan44]

Could you imagine if they sent Webster back to the Dodgers in a deal? 
 
That'd be awesome. 

 

[CaskNFappin]

I think it will take Peavy, a top 15 prospect, and maybe a third team to take Nava or Carp to get this done.....a little bit of subsidy from LA plus taking on Peavys contract should put us on the hook for Kemp at 5/80-90 that we were offering Ells.

 

[radsoxfan]

As makman put it - kemp has superstar potential. Now, there'd have to be a physical/review of medical records for a deal - but kemp is a target that doesn't impact draft picks or the pool for the draft.

The opportunities for big market teams to flex their financial muscles is closing and if the red sox can add a potential player like kemp for mostly money - it is an advantage that I'd like to see them pursue. A big right handed power bat in Fenway...appeals to me.

He doesn't have to be CF - there are plenty of ways to get him in the lineup.

Here's an article/blog which proposes a similar argument...

http://blog.masslive.com/redsoxmonster/2013/12/boston_red_sox_hot_stove_why_a.html

 
 
Just because someone proposes it on the internet doesn't make it a good idea.
 
I won't deny Kemp has superstar potential.  But you want more than that if you are going to pay 128M over 6 years.  You want superstar probability.
 
Given that Kemp has never been good on D, and cant play CF anymore, he is going to have to be a ridiculous offensive force to make that contract a decent idea. He has done it pre-shoulder and ankle surgery, but it's a pretty big risk to expect him to do it now (and continue into his age 35 season).
 
If you think there is a better than 75% chance of him rebounding to close to 2011 form, then it might make sense.  But I think thats incredibly optimistic given his recent injuries and recent performance.  
 
I'd want close to 50M in subsidies on Kemp (or maybe 40 and dump Dempster), as I think there is a not insignificant chance he will never be a 3+ win player again.  Hopefully when Cafardo says "some money" he means "a shitload of money".

 

[MakMan44]

If you don't think he can be AT LEAST a 3 win player ever again then yeah, it's a shitty trade no matter what. I think you're a little too down on Kemp though. 

 

[radsoxfan]

If you don't think he can be AT LEAST a 3 win player ever again then yeah, it's a shitty trade no matter what. I think you're a little too down on Kemp though. 

 
I think he CAN be at least a 3 win player.  I think he CAN be a 5 or 6 win player.  I just think given the past 2 seasons, when you combine both the major injuries and the poor performance, it's a very risky proposition.  
 
The error bars on his likely career from here on out are huge, and you don't want to be stuck taking that big of a risk if you don't have to. If the Dodgers are willing to pay enough money to make that risk palatable, then its worth considering.  But I think they would have to pay a ton of money to make that risk/benefit scenario end up in the Red Sox favor.

 

[Tyrone Biggums]

If it's a straight salary dump and it doesn't cost prospects then I'm fine with it as long as medicals check out. I could see a Victorino Bradley Kemp outfield working. If he's fully healthy then his contract that's left is a steal over Ellsbury. That is a big if as far as health is concerned.

 

[Drek717]

 
Not that his opinions should be taken as Gospel, but Dave Cameron had a rather interesting article last week discussing the aging / regression of players of Ellsbury's skill set as they entered their thirties. All in all the players who were defined as having skills similar to Ells aged rather well.
 
http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/the-slow-decline-of-speedy-outfielders/

 
I've got to be honest, Cameron's article here just screams "missing the forest in the trees" analysis here to me.
 
EVERY player in his comp list regressed except two.  Devon White who went from a wRC+ of 98 to a wRC+ of 100, pretty marginal move there, and Ricky Henderson who went from a wRC+ of 133 to a wRC+ of 148.  Ricky Henderson's AVERAGE wRC+ over his age 30-36 seasons was better than any single season Suzuki, Lofton, and all the other comps except Andy Van Slyke (once) and Tim Raines (during his peak in his mid-20's) ever even matched for a single season.
 
Culling away from the bottom of the list and not culling from the top puts a massive skew on his numbers.  Ricky Henderson is not a valid comp for pretty much any other player ever, and he massively shifts the data here.  Here are the wRC+ comps for speed players who aren't one of the ~20 greatest position players of all time:
 
27-29: 113 (only a 2 point drop from the set with Ricky)
30-36: 102 (a 5 point drop from the set with Ricky)
 
Conveniently, Jacoby Ellsbury had a wRC+ of 113 last year (career average of 109, FYI).  If his next seven years are somewhere between what Jon Jay (wRC+ of 104) and Gregor Blanco (wRC+ of 99) I'm pretty sure the Yankees are going to feel properly fucking hosed paying him $22M per year for that kind of production.

 

[Savin Hillbilly]

The more I look at Kemp, the more I think I've been a little too bearish. There's certainly a lot of risk there, but if the Sox are convinced that he's healthy, he could be the ideal middle ground between Stanton and Choo; more affordable (in terms of talent) than the former, but younger and with more upside than the latter. If the Dodgers are willing to subsidize Kemp to the point where he'll effectively cost the same as Choo probably would (i.e. 6/90 or thereabouts), and we can then close the deal with blocked or redundant prospects, I think I'm on board. I think.

 

[PedroKsBambino]

This is one of the funniest things I've read in weeks. 
 
Quick name the top 5 all-time overvalued players due to the "Hollywood effect"?
 
I'd have to think Steve Garvey, with that toothy smile and 'Mr. Clean' image, may be on that list.  Though years later he was discovered to be a complete womanizing predator.
 
Sounds very "Hollywood-ish" to me

 
Agreed---not sure that the theory holds water.  True of New York, though....just not a lot of evidence it is true of LA.

 

[melonbag]

As far as Kemp returning to his MVP form.....if the Dodgers thought it had a good chance of happening, he wouldn't be on the trading block.  Or, he would cost a lot in terms of a trade.
 
I'd pass.

 

[The Gray Eagle]

I would only be interested in Kemp if the Sox believed that he was healthy enough to play RF in Fenway for the next few years at least. If he could do that, he would actually give us depth at all 3 OF positions (since Victorino could cover CF if Kemp was in RF.)
 
I really hate the idea of tying up LF with a big long contract, it limits your flexibility too much. LF in Fenway is a position that the Sox should always fill with cheap solid hitters, like we did this year.
 
If we traded Peavy for a subsidized Kemp and landed Tanaka, that would really add a lot of upside to the roster. A guy with top of the rotation potential and a guy with heart-of-the-lineup power for basically just money and Peavy, whose spot in the rotation would be filled by Tanaka (the Dodgers would want a "name" player in return, and presumably Dempster wouldn't cut it.) We'd keep all our picks and prospects and maintain a ton of depth and some flexibility.
 
But that's all assuming the Sox think Kemp is healthy and won't just be a LF-only with rapidly declining speed. If that's all he would be, then I would definitely be against picking him up at all.

 

[ji oh]

I would only be interested in Kemp if the Sox believed that he was healthy enough to play RF in Fenway for the next few years at least. If he could do that, he would actually give us depth at all 3 OF positions (since Victorino could cover CF if Kemp was in RF.)
 
I really hate the idea of tying up LF with a big long contract, it limits your flexibility too much. LF in Fenway is a position that the Sox should always fill with cheap solid hitters, like we did this year.
 
...

 
So you don't like what they did most of 1939-2008?   :nsmith:

 

[radsoxfan]

I would only be interested in Kemp if the Sox believed that he was healthy enough to play RF in Fenway for the next few years at least. If he could do that, he would actually give us depth at all 3 OF positions (since Victorino could cover CF if Kemp was in RF.)
 
I really hate the idea of tying up LF with a big long contract, it limits your flexibility too much. LF in Fenway is a position that the Sox should always fill with cheap solid hitters, like we did this year.
 

 
Well before his most recent ankle injury and microfracture surgery, he was well below average by UZR at all 3 outfield positions. -12.1 UZR/150 overall in his career. The guy is primarily a LF/DH going forward, and if you play him at CF or RF, especially at Fenway, I think you are asking for trouble.
 
The talk of "if the medicals check out"...  I understand is an easy thing to say address the injury issue in one blanket statement.  But its often not that black and white.  
 
The medicals might check out in the sense that he is healed enough to get back on the field.  But that doesn't mean there isn't a chance they could affect his play.  He's hoping to regrow cartilage (or some cartilage like substance) in his ankle and he's hoping a reconstructed shoulder holds up (and generates his natural power).  Possible, but its still not clear that he'll be "good as new".

 

[Savin Hillbilly]

I really hate the idea of tying up LF with a big long contract, it limits your flexibility too much. LF in Fenway is a position that the Sox should always fill with cheap solid hitters, like we did this year.

That approach worked in 2013, yes. If you'll recall, the approach that worked in the previous two championship years was to fill the position with a "LF-only with rapidly declining [or rather, never existing] speed," locked up on a long-term contract.

The Sox could use some long-term corner OF stability, and some power. Kemp could provide both, if he's healthy and the price is right. Both of which are, admittedly, ginormous ifs.

 

[NJ_Sox_Fan]

If Stanton really is going to be kept by Miami no matter what, then I think exploring a Kemp deal at least makes sense.

 

[Sandy Leon Trotsky]

 
Well before his most recent ankle injury and microfracture surgery, he was well below average by UZR at all 3 outfield positions. -12.1 UZR/150 overall in his career. The guy is primarily a LF/DH going forward, and if you play him at CF or RF, especially at Fenway, I think you are asking for trouble.
 
The talk of "if the medicals check out"...  I understand is an easy thing to say address the injury issue in one blanket statement.  But its often not that black and white.  
 
The medicals might check out in the sense that he is healed enough to get back on the field.  But that doesn't mean there isn't a chance they could affect his play.  He's hoping to regrow cartilage (or some cartilage like substance) in his ankle and he's hoping a reconstructed shoulder holds up (and generates his natural power).  Possible, but its still not clear that he'll be "good as new".

If his fielding is as bad as UZR's assesment then LF in Fenway would be great for him for a few years with a potential DH move further down the line then, assuming his offensive numbers can keep him as a middle of the order bat, then no?

 

[The Gray Eagle]

 

 
So you don't like what they did most of 1939-2008?   :nsmith:

 

Things were drastically different for most of that era, with no free agency and keeping your players as long as you wanted, and then you could just dump them with little long term guaranteed money owed.

But obviously Manny worked out great, so if we can sign a Hall of Fame level talent in his mid-20's for the position and then get lucky that the contract works out better than 90% of all other big money long term contracts, then sure let's do that. I am going to assume that that isn't likely though. Realistically, we should take advantage of the small LF and use it for good hitters who don't cost much. We can get away with a good bat, poor glove type out there more than most teams, and we shouldn't have to pay much or commit a lot of years to find one. Flexibility is really important, it allows you options to fill your holes and improve.

As for Kemp's defensive numbers, Fielding Bible has him as a horrible CF but an average RF defensively. That's usually where right fielders come from, moved from center because they can't cut it there.

We wouldn't want Kemp in CF, but if he is healthy he should be about average in RF. If his health is too questionable to even make one move down the defensive spectrum then we should stay away from him.

 

[Clears Cleaver]

Kemp would play some RF and some LF and some DH for the Sox. I can't imagine a situation where he plays CF over Bradley and then victorino. I suspect Gomes or Nava would be traded

 

[BosRedSox5]

With Gomes making 5 mil I'd say he'd be the most likely guy out the door if the Sox got Kemp. I'd really like Kemp in LF. I think he, JBJ and Vic would make a really good defensive outfield. 

 

[TomRicardo]

As far as Kemp returning to his MVP form.....if the Dodgers thought it had a good chance of happening, he wouldn't be on the trading block.  Or, he would cost a lot in terms of a trade.
 
I'd pass.

 
I mean, the Dodgers have four OF.  Puig, Ethier, Crawford, and Kemp.  They are paying a lot for these guys.  Ethier has almost no trade value.  Crawford has negative trade value.  So you either trade Puig or Kemp.  If I am the Dodgers I am trying to trade Kemp

 

[RedOctober3829]

 
I mean, the Dodgers have four OF.  Puig, Ethier, Crawford, and Kemp.  They are paying a lot for these guys.  Ethier has almost no trade value.  Crawford has negative trade value.  So you either trade Puig or Kemp.  If I am the Dodgers I am trying to trade Kemp

If you are trying to keep your 3 best OF then you are trying to trade Kemp.  If you are looking for the best return, you are trying to trade Puig.  Puig doesn't have the injury history of Kemp and has a manageable contract(signed through 2017 with AAV's of 3.714, 6.214, 7.214, and 8.214). 

 

[Gunfighter 09]

I would trade everything short of X and Pedey for Puig. One can only dream of how awesome it would be to have Puig in Fenway with that douche McCann on the MFYs....which is precisely why the Dodgers are not trading him, Puig is their X. 
 
I wonder if a huge part of the decision making for Ben & Co is what kind of insurance they can get on Kemp's contract. If they could get decent coverage on the contract, I would have to think that trading him for a SP, 5-10 prospect and a couple of lottery tickets makes a ton of sense. Subtract $5M from the cost and get back one of the lottery ticket prospects when you trade Gomes, and reduce the need / urgency to re-sign Napoli now that you have another power bat, and trading for Kemp seems like a pretty obvious move.
 
 
I need a bit of privacy while I contemplate Puig in a Red Sox uniform pimping stand up triples.  It aint happening.

 

[DJnVa]

This article throws Ethier to Boston into the mix: http://www.latimes.com/sports/dodgersnow/la-sp-dn-dodgers-red-sox-andre-ethier-dustin-pedroia-20131203,0,2486263.story?track=rss#axzz2mcNwqDTh and mentions the Dodgers being interested in Middlebrooks.

 

[swingin val]

There was a nice article written on fangraphs about the Dodgers OF predicament. Their top prospect is also an outfielder. So it is more like 5 players for 3 starting spots.

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/the-dodgers-and-too-many-outfielders/

 

[MakMan44]

This article throws Ethier to Boston into the mix: http://www.latimes.com/sports/dodgersnow/la-sp-dn-dodgers-red-sox-andre-ethier-dustin-pedroia-20131203,0,2486263.story?track=rss#axzz2mcNwqDTh and mentions the Dodgers being interested in Middlebrooks.

God I hope not, I was looking at Nava's and Ethier's FG page and Ethier is not worth the resources it'll take to acquire him nor is he going to worth the price difference between him and Nava. I really hope the Sox stay far, far away. 

 

[drbretto]

If you are trying to keep your 3 best OF then you are trying to trade Kemp.  If you are looking for the best return, you are trying to trade Puig.  Puig doesn't have the injury history of Kemp and has a manageable contract(signed through 2017 with AAV's of 3.714, 6.214, 7.214, and 8.214). 

 
Puig isn't going anywhere. How much value he'd bring is as relevant as how much value the Sox would get for Pedroia. I was going to say X, but until X has a full season of household name stardom under his belt, it's a little premature. Kemp and Ethier are the only options worth bringing up here.

 

[RedOctober3829]

 
Puig isn't going anywhere. How much value he'd bring is as relevant as how much value the Sox would get for Pedroia. I was going to say X, but until X has a full season of household name stardom under his belt, it's a little premature. Kemp and Ethier are the only options worth bringing up here.

I'm not saying that the Red Sox are going to ask for Puig.  All I was saying is that if the Dodgers are intent on getting the best return for one of their OF then you trade Puig.  Kemp's contract and injury history will limit what you get back because anyone is going to want salary relief in exchange for a lesser deal.  Puig's deal is much easier to trade and he's the better player currently so obviously the return is greater.
 
It's not irrelevant if the Dodgers wanted to pursue Stanton.  Puig's Cuban heritage would be very valuable to the Marlins.

 

[Morgan's Magic Snowplow]

There was a nice article written on fangraphs about the Dodgers OF predicament. Their top prospect is also an outfielder. So it is more like 5 players for 3 starting spots.

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/the-dodgers-and-too-many-outfielders/

I think that article breaks things down pretty well and also captures why Ethier may actually make more sense than Kemp for the Red Sox. You'd get more contract covered (maybe the Dodgers subsidize it down to 4/40), would need to give up a lesser return (maybe a B-level prospect, nobody Top 10 in the system), he'd provide more defensive versatility than Kemp (especially ability to play a credible CF), and we're in a good position to cover up his primary limitation with the bat (an inability to hit lefties) given that we have Gomes.

Its not the sexy signing that Kemp would be but acquiring Ethier, a quality all around player who should be good for 2-2.5 Wins for a couple more years but happens to be grossly overpaid, at 4/40 is actually very much in line with recent Red Sox philosophy of player acquisition.

 

[jimbobim]

If they resign Drew for 2 years and an option move x to 3rd then trading WMB for a bigger more proven bat makes sense. Some people would likely say WMB has a ton of market value and this would be trading low. I personally think if its either him or cecchinni as the centerpiece for Kemp subsidized down to 90ish I keep cechinni and send WMB packing. 
 
They need a big bat maybe 2 if Napoli doesn't resign. 

 

[drbretto]

The things that make Puig the more valuable trade chip are the things that make Puig the most valuable player on the Dodgers. They wouldn't trade him for Stanton straight up (nor would that be close to enough in the first place). I can't think of any possible package that would inspire the Dodgers to part with Puig this early into his career, under the contract that he is under, for any player in baseball. That's a contract you build around.

 

[TomRicardo]

If they resign Drew for 2 years and an option move x to 3rd then trading WMB for a bigger more proven bat makes sense. Some people would likely say WMB has a ton of market value and this would be trading low. I personally think if its either him or cecchinni as the centerpiece for Kemp subsidized down to 90ish I keep cechinni and send WMB packing. 
 
They need a big bat maybe 2 if Napoli doesn't resign. 

 
Ethier is not a bigger bat than WMB,  Ethier is basically slightly better Daniel Nava you pay over 17 million a year for the next 4 to 5 years to watch his skills erode.

 

[Savin Hillbilly]

 
Ethier is not a bigger bat than WMB,  Ethier is basically slightly better Daniel Nava you pay over 17 million a year for the next 4 to 5 years to watch his skills erode.

 

1. Correction: Ethier's very well-established offensive abilities are slightly better than what we saw from Nava for the first and only time this year, the repeatability of which is open to question. That counts for something. On defense, Ethier seems to have made genuine improvements, and right now, he is pretty clearly superior to Nava (let's put it this way: no contender would have started Nava in CF for 70 games this past year).
2. About the eroding skills question: the difference in ML service time can easily fool us into talking as if Nava is a young player just entering his prime, while Ethier is a veteran on the verge of decline. In fact, Ethier is only 10 months older. There's not much reason to think his skills will erode significantly sooner than Nava's.
3. Obviously we don't trade anything for Ethier without a subsidy of some kind, so paying $17M/year is not really a relevant consideration. I think getting it down to 4/40 is probably a pipe dream, but 4/50 or thereabouts might not be.

 

[TomRicardo]

None.  I am not saying Nava is a better solution.  I am saying Ethier < Nava + 16 million.
 
Edit - Ethier has no trade value because of his contract.  I am not saying he does not have value but I don't think he is worth half of his contract at this point.

 

[jimbobim]

The Dodgers would be elated if they could dump Ethier on us. This conversation begins and ends with Kemp.
 
I'd imagine the Mariners and their Cano pursuit are holding up a Kemp decision. A lot of sellers or FA's want to take advantage of their empty payroll and their GM's nervousness about his job.
 
Dodgers probably will take a substandard offer, but they'd be foolish not to play up the Mariners interest. 

 

[The Boomer]

If it's a straight salary dump and it doesn't cost prospects then I'm fine with it as long as medicals check out. I could see a Victorino Bradley Kemp outfield working. If he's fully healthy then his contract that's left is a steal over Ellsbury. That is a big if as far as health is concerned.

 
Cherington did his due diligence on Victorino who, for a reasonable contract length, was essentially bought low though he was older than Kemp.  If, assuming due diligence in looking at Kemp's medicals indicates that last season for Kemp was like 2012 in terms of injuries for both Ellsbury and Victorino, a subsidized salary dump for 6 years (until he reaches the magic age of 35) is arguably no more risky than committing to Ellsbury coming off one of his healthy rather than injured years at about the same age.
 
If the Dodgers would take Peavy (wanting a proven veteran), Carp or Nava (possibly arranging for a 3 team trade to make this work) and a prospect outside the top 10 for the Red Sox, you jump on it if the money is right.  The organization can justify paying a player more long term than they are paying Pedroia probably only for Giancarlo Stanton or a prospectively healthy Kemp (or proven player at that level not past their prime).  Something not much exceeding $16 million per annum for 6 years as a salary commitment (more or less than $96 million) won't upset the team's salary structure and might make sense.  These conditions would need to be met:
 

1. He is physically healthy enough at age 29 to justify acquiring him.
2. He won’t cost too much in terms of talent (something expendable).
3. The salary commitment for the remainder of his contract is a reasonably worth it gamble.