So you are complaining about Matt kemp but every single team have bad contracts look at Red Sox Pablo Sandoval, Dodgers Andre Either, New York Yankees used to had A Rod. We need to look how we can move that contract or swallow the pill.
Maybe Matt Kemp and prospects for Stanton work or Matt Kemp plus prospects and some cash for Velander and Upton work.
Last edited by ixiXSolidXixi; 07-31-2017 at 09:54 PM.
Yeah, lets make a bad situation worse by trying to trade for an even worse long term contract that will cripple us, great idea!Originally Posted by ixiXSolidXixi
We aren't the Yanks, Red Sox, or Dodgers, we don't have the payroll to make these sorts of mistakes and not have it affect us, that's why people are going to complain about those deals. A couple of moves like the Kemp deal can cause us major problems when worthless players are taking up 25-35% of our payroll.
What we really need to worry is that our players develop. Braves are not going to sign a player like Moustakas that probably we require minimum 25 million a year or a Yu Darvish that will ask for 28 millions minimum. Less if we need to pay with a draft pick.
I was disappointed in Coppy not making any moves today. But if you break each player down, it is understandable while we were unable to make anything happen.
Julio: even in a limited market for controllable starting pitching, Julio's value is at an all time low. Best to hang on to him and hope he regains value. No rush to move him either
Johnson: recent struggles caused his value to collapse and surely frightened off any interested GMs, even on a day when relievers were flying off the shelves. Should have moved him weeks ago, but Coppy couldn't have seen these struggles coming.
Dickey: Who wants a 42 year old starter? That market is non-existent, even as solid as Dickey has been.
Vizcaino: Surely our most attractive trade chip today. Coppy must see him as our closer as we move towards contention. Given the return on late inning relievers, I wish we would have moved him.
Ramirez: Surprised he didn't get much attention. Been solid for us, but peripheral stats point to regression.
Phillips: Even with his strong play, you still need an interested party to make a deal. Buyers just didn't need a 2b, so Dat Dude stays put
Adams: Yankees seemed to be an ideal fit. No other contender needed a 1B/DH. Surprised we did not move him, but again, need two to tango.
Markakis and Kemp: no one wants their contracts. Hopefully we can eat some cash and move one of them in the off-season to make room for DPete/Acuna
At the end of the day, we just don't have attractive pieces that other teams desired. The biggest win in keeping these vets is the guys on the farm get more seasoning before making it to the Show, and keep their service clocks from starting.
The homer in me though is tired of trade deadlines passing and the Braves not adding pieces to help ensure division titles. Gosh how I miss the old days. While we need to stay the course and trust the process, I cannot wait for the rebuild to come to fruition and enjoy meaningful October baseball in the South again.
It still hurts me that we traded Simmons primarily due to his offense and "need" to get younger, yet he's still playing terrific defense and hitting .302 with 11 homers, 48 RBI's and an OBP over .351.
Hell, he hit .281 last year.
Even more than the Wood trade, I thought it was a bad move.
Hawk (08-01-2017)
Pretty good article from Passan on the Darvish trade.
https://www.yahoo.com/amphtml/sports/inside-frenzied-12-minutes-led-dodgers-deal-yu-darvish-061433584.html
Correct. It's less overall money and Kemp is a below replacement level player. He's literally costing the team wins and payroll at the same time.
It's a fair deal. Darvish is expected to be worth ~1.5 WAR the rest of the year plus the work he does in the playoffs. Comes out to an expected 20-25 million in surplus value which is what Willie Calhoun and the throw ins are worth.
I think Calhoun legit hits at the MLB Level, and does just fine. I think the en vogue thing is to ding him for his defense, but he should likely be valued a bit higher if he holds the fort in LF.
Ivermectin Man
Like Matt Kemp does? That's probably the level of defense we would see from Calhoun. He's future is at DH if he can stick with the bat. Truly a man without a position. Not that there is anything wrong with that. But the Dodgers did well to trade him to an AL team. He has more value there than he does in the NL.
I think early on, yeah. Kemp doesn't "hold the fort" does he?
Kemp had plenty of value early on...
Ivermectin Man
On Kemp I don't think it's terrible. IIRC we owed Olivera 60 million through 2020. Now we will owe Kemp 36 million through 2019. If we can dump him with 30 million we still saved half the money and got some time killed for peterson and acuna.
I'd consider moving Kemp to 1B if they like FF at 3B.
I'd consider moving kemp and eating 30 million.
I'd consider just keeping Kemp and using him off the bench and as a spot start if we go young in the corners. DPeterson I believe in. Acuna I believe in and he's coming up. Right now the bad braves are paying like 18+11 for bad corner OF play. IF Peterson and Acuna are good players at the minimum you are only paying 40 million instead of 39 million for the corners. Braves will want vets on the team anyway. Markakis won't cause trouble. Maybe Kemp will. But just use Nick as your PH when you need a single and Kemp as your PH when you need a HR and spot start them.
On Darvish...I think we should look to target him. I don't think he can have any compensation tied to him since he's traded. We need to get a front line starter by offering 30 million for a one year deal with a team option for 30 after that. See if we can get someone like Darvish to bet on himself for a year. That buys us time with Gohara/Allard/Soroka/Wright.
I really like Darvish, but I don't see how its going to work. He's 30 and even in a down year he will end up having huge contract offers for more years than I'd be comfortable guaranteeing a 30 year old power pitcher. Can't imagine Darvish would settle for a one year team with an option.
I do want to see what Peterson can do after continuing to heal a full off season.
We did not save money by swapping Olivera... I believe we owed him only $30m.
Now we owe Kemp something like 55m.
So we took on additional 25m for the sucky player
"The idea of trade value being defined by prospects’ place on a list somehow has come into prominence, and it is the height of absurdity, as if being top 50 on one person’s subjective list, as opposed to top 75, makes one particular trade more valuable than others."
Good read.
Just like anything...surplus value of prospects it's a good tool but far from definitive
Enscheff is not going to like that at all.
I doubt it works either. But I'd give it a shot. Maybe he'd bet on himself and instead of getting 25 million for 6 years he thinks he can get 30 for two and then get a bigger deal.
I thought Olivera made more...so yea....sucks. I still think we can afford to move Kemp and Neck to a bench role since the replacements will be so cheap. Everyone thinks Peterson and Acuna will out War those guys just on Defense, right? What's a reasonable WAR for those guys? 1 for Peterson with a shot at 2? 2 for Acuna with a shot at more? Our WAR for Kemp and Neck is close to zero, right?
Yeah I didn't like that trade at the time either. I'm still not happy with it, and I'm a big Nuke fan. I just don't think we got enough back for a guy that was still very young, on a great contract, and overall was one of the best SS in baseball.
I remember there was some hope at the time that Aybar could continue his previous solid production and there wouldn't be a drastic drop off in overall production. Then we could flip him at the deadline for a SS needy team. Obviously that didn't happen.
Last edited by Carp; 08-01-2017 at 11:48 AM.
UNCBlue012 (08-01-2017)
It is sort of a worthless point, to be honest, that also still has some level of truth haha.
If his argument is that surplus value figures are pulled out of thin air and attached to players based on their prospect list standing, then that's dumb. The figures are historical figures based on past data; that is how much surplus value prospects in those ranges have provided in the recent past.
But it still does bear repeating that figures like that derived from aggregate data will always give you that kind of progression. All it really says is that the people who rank prospects at least have some idea of what they're talking about. Prospects in the 1-10 range, in the aggregate, will be better than prospects in the 11-25 range. What that doesn't mean, though, is that a single prospect ranked 10 differs in any tangible way from a prospect ranked 15 or 20 in a given year. It all averages out over time, which is why the aggregate data gives you the results it does. But in a single instance? It's not really very useful at all in assigning any true value to a single prospect.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote