PDA

View Full Version : Wild speculation: Matt Kemp?


rowand33
09-26-2007, 07:48 PM
So I came across this article today:

http://www.latimes.com/sports/la-sp-plaschke26sep26,1,1875248.column?coll=la-headlines-sports&ctrack=1&cset=true

Insiders say that Kemp could be headed out of LA.

Kemp's .331/.361/.509 line this year is pretty nice.

He can hit, he can run, he can field.

Is a Kemp for Garland trade a possibility?

Kemp for Contreras?

I think Kemp would fit nicely for the sox in CF next year.

Jjav829
09-26-2007, 09:29 PM
I can't read the article, but I don't need to read it to know Matt Kemp is only going for a big time player. Kemp looks like a star in the making.

thedudeabides
09-26-2007, 10:44 PM
Kemp is a great young hitter, but he is not much of a CF.

Domeshot17
09-26-2007, 10:55 PM
You would be trading a lot of defense for offense with an OF of Fields-Kemp-Dye.

palehozenychicty
09-27-2007, 07:03 AM
You would be trading a lot of defense for offense with an OF of Fields-Kemp-Dye.

Indeed. That D would be slow and not steady.

MetroPD
09-27-2007, 07:05 AM
I personally would rather have a bullpen next year, but if we turn into the Phillies with a bunch of good bats, I wouldn't complain either.

Frater Perdurabo
09-27-2007, 07:30 AM
I'm normally opposed to trading Garland, but this is one instance where I would.

In this case, you put Kemp in left and go with Owens/Anderson in center, batting ninth. Then, you trade Paulie for a starting pitcher and put Fields at first.

rowand33
09-27-2007, 10:12 AM
I'm normally opposed to trading Garland, but this is one instance where I would.

In this case, you put Kemp in left and go with Owens/Anderson in center, batting ninth. Then, you trade Paulie for a starting pitcher and put Fields at first.

You're allways finding excuses to trade Paulie...

IN all seriousness though, with the way Jose has been pitching and the way Owens has been playing lately I'd welcome an outfield of Kemp-Owens-Dye.

What if our lineup looked something like this:

SS- Eckstein
LF- Kemp
RF- Dye
DH- Thome
1B- Fields
3B- Crede
C- Pierzynski
2B- Richar
CF- Owens

eh. that still screams 80 wins to me, plus I'd miss Paulie. We'd be good if the kids (Kemp, Fields, Richar, Owens) all turned out good. Reminds me a lot of the 2006 Brew Crew.

The Immigrant
09-27-2007, 10:23 AM
Then, you trade Paulie for a starting pitcher and put Fields at first.

Frater, you never disappoint.

Frater Perdurabo
09-27-2007, 09:40 PM
You're always finding excuses to trade Paulie...

Frater, you never disappoint.

I have a reputation to uphold... :tongue:

Seriously, I think Paulie is a very good hitter who would bring back good value in a trade, but he's quite "replaceable."

Thome is more "replaceable" (it's easier to find a DH than a 1B), but he wouldn't bring as much back in a trade.

OTOH, Garland or Vazquez certainly would return more in a trade, but it's much harder to find a replacement #2 starter than it is to find a 1B.

getonbckthr
09-27-2007, 09:55 PM
If we trade Paulie I want in return:
Wang (NYY), Beckett (BOS), WEAVER (ANA), Tejada (SS), Haren (OAK), King Felix (SEA), Saltalamaccia and Young (TEX), Oswalt (HOU), Smoltz (ATL), Hudson (ATL), James and Renteria (ATL), Willis (FLA), Peavy (SD), Young (SD), or Kemp and Furcal (LAD). So basically he isn't tradeable.

Huisj
09-27-2007, 09:59 PM
So I came across this article today:

http://www.latimes.com/sports/la-sp-plaschke26sep26,1,1875248.column?coll=la-headlines-sports&ctrack=1&cset=true

Insiders say that Kemp could be headed out of LA.

Kemp's .331/.361/.509 line this year is pretty nice.

He can hit, he can run, he can field.

Is a Kemp for Garland trade a possibility?

Kemp for Contreras?

I think Kemp would fit nicely for the sox in CF next year.

I don't feel like signing up to read the article. Does it say why insiders say he could be headed out of LA? Why would they trade a young player who has hit the crap out of the ball this year? I don't get it.

Frater Perdurabo
09-27-2007, 10:29 PM
If we trade Paulie I want in return:
Wang (NYY), Beckett (BOS), WEAVER (ANA), Tejada (SS), Haren (OAK), King Felix (SEA), Saltalamaccia and Young (TEX), Oswalt (HOU), Smoltz (ATL), Hudson (ATL), James and Renteria (ATL), Willis (FLA), Peavy (SD), Young (SD), or Kemp and Furcal (LAD). So basically he isn't tradeable.

Put salaries and contracts aside and engage in some deeppink hypothetical thinking.

Would you trade Paulie straight up to get A-Rod?

If you say no, I would have to wonder about your intelligence.

UserNameBlank
09-27-2007, 11:31 PM
I have a reputation to uphold... :tongue:

Seriously, I think Paulie is a very good hitter who would bring back good value in a trade, but he's quite "replaceable."

Thome is more "replaceable" (it's easier to find a DH than a 1B), but he wouldn't bring as much back in a trade.

OTOH, Garland or Vazquez certainly would return more in a trade, but it's much harder to find a replacement #2 starter than it is to find a 1B.
How many 1B are there around who can play decent or better defense, perform under pressure, and hit 30-40 HRs, drive in 100 runs, and hit for a respectable average each year? There aren't many. In fact in the AL alone, even if you forget the part about hitting under pressure, you have maybe Carlos Pena, Justin Morneau, Nick Swisher, and that's it.

Paulie is not "quite replaceable."

UserNameBlank
09-27-2007, 11:41 PM
Put salaries and contracts aside and engage in some deeppink hypothetical thinking.

Would you trade Paulie straight up to get A-Rod?

If you say no, I would have to wonder about your intelligence.
Salary matters too. Would you take Buehrle + Konerko + a veteran reliever instead of ARod? I would. That is how much ARod costs; one very solid lefty #2 starter ($14mil per) + one of the better all-around 1B in baseball ($12mil per) + reliable veteran reliever (~$4mil per). If Payrod came here the team would suffer.

Frater Perdurabo
09-28-2007, 07:28 AM
How many 1B are there around who can play decent or better defense, perform under pressure, and hit 30-40 HRs, drive in 100 runs, and hit for a respectable average each year?

I think the Sox already have such a player on the roster: Fields. Obviously not yet on the average. But give him a year. I know Paulie's having a down year, but he's only batting 12 points higher than Fields (.258 to .246). If you're going to give Paulie a mulligan for a down year, then you have to give Fields the benefit of the doubt because he's a rookie. In two thirds of the ABs, Fields has just eight fewer homers. Projected out over 543 ABs (what Paulie has), Fields would have 4 more homers and 10 more RBIs than Paulie, and that's with Paulie batting behind the highest OBP guy on the team (Thome). I'm not trying to disrespect Paulie, but rather trying to show that Fields isn't that far behind him.

What I'm saying is that given Fields MLB minimum salary and the fact that he can produce close to Paulie's stats (yes, he needs to cut down on the strikeouts and boost the average), it might be wise to consider dealing Paulie in order to get back young SS/CF/leadoff help AND free up $12 million/year to re-sign Garland AND re-load the bullpen.

When the traded Lee, they did not get equal value in return in that trade. But they did get salary relief (and from letting Maggs go) that they used to upgrade at several positions. Then they won the World Series. I'm not saying that the Sox SHOULD pursue a deal in which they don't get equal value back for Paulie. But seriously, some of you overrate him to ridiculous levels. Paulie's biggest fans seem to think that I'm saying "he sucks" when I make an argument to trade him. That's not true.

In a deal with the Dodgers, I would trade Paulie for Kemp or Furcal, straight up. If it's Kemp, the salary relief can sign a leadoff hitting SS or CF. If it's Furcal, then we've found a leadoff hitting SS and can make a run at Hunter.

Rocky Soprano
09-28-2007, 11:33 AM
How many 1B are there around who can play decent or better defense, perform under pressure, and hit 30-40 HRs, drive in 100 runs, and hit for a respectable average each year? There aren't many. In fact in the AL alone, even if you forget the part about hitting under pressure, you have maybe Carlos Pena, Justin Morneau, Nick Swisher, and that's it.

Paulie is not "quite replaceable."

Paulie is not as a good as some Sox fans think.
He performs under pressure? How many times does he line into double plays with men in scoring position?

Trading Paulie to me makes sence if Fields can play a decent 1st. But only if Fields can field the position and only if trading Paulie gives us the financial flexibility to bring in someone like A-Rod to play SS or to bring in some good arms for our bullpen. I would also expect to get a good return for someone like Konerko.


Do I expect that to happen? Hell no.

russ99
09-28-2007, 02:35 PM
I think the Sox already have such a player on the roster: Fields. Obviously not yet on the average. But give him a year. I know Paulie's having a down year, but he's only batting 12 points higher than Fields (.258 to .246). If you're going to give Paulie a mulligan for a down year, then you have to give Fields the benefit of the doubt because he's a rookie. In two thirds of the ABs, Fields has just eight fewer homers. Projected out over 543 ABs (what Paulie has), Fields would have 4 more homers and 10 more RBIs than Paulie, and that's with Paulie batting behind the highest OBP guy on the team (Thome). I'm not trying to disrespect Paulie, but rather trying to show that Fields isn't that far behind him.

What I'm saying is that given Fields MLB minimum salary and the fact that he can produce close to Paulie's stats (yes, he needs to cut down on the strikeouts and boost the average), it might be wise to consider dealing Paulie in order to get back young SS/CF/leadoff help AND free up $12 million/year to re-sign Garland AND re-load the bullpen.

When the traded Lee, they did not get equal value in return in that trade. But they did get salary relief (and from letting Maggs go) that they used to upgrade at several positions. Then they won the World Series. I'm not saying that the Sox SHOULD pursue a deal in which they don't get equal value back for Paulie. But seriously, some of you overrate him to ridiculous levels. Paulie's biggest fans seem to think that I'm saying "he sucks" when I make an argument to trade him. That's not true.

In a deal with the Dodgers, I would trade Paulie for Kemp or Furcal, straight up. If it's Kemp, the salary relief can sign a leadoff hitting SS or CF. If it's Furcal, then we've found a leadoff hitting SS and can make a run at Hunter.

Dude, not sure what you're smoking...

1. Show me one report that Josh Fields has any minor league experience at first base. You just can't pick up the position overnight, and it's nowhere as easy as it looks.

2. They didn't get equal value in the Lee deal?? Lee was going to be a FA the Sox couldn't afford and they got Pods, who played a large part in winning the Sox a championship.

3. You think the Sox will have a budget next year to pay both Furcal and Hunter, regardless if Paulie is dealt or not?

4. Are you still beating that Brian Anderson horse to death?

I don't mean to rip on you, but I'd deal Paulie and Garland only if the Sox get high-quality players in return. Furcal isn't a high-quality player, Kemp might be, but the jury's still out.

Grzegorz
09-28-2007, 02:49 PM
If you're going to give Paulie a mulligan for a down year, then you have to give Fields the benefit of the doubt because he's a rookie.

No, actually I don't. PK has a very good resume as a baseball player. Fields hits home runs but he is not quite polished at the plate just yet. In the field that is another story. PK is an above average first baseman. To date, Fields has yet to prove himself as average at any one position.

Considering the number of 'touches' that fielding first base involves, I am in no way going to trust a player like Fields with the responsibility of playing that position.

UserNameBlank
09-28-2007, 08:36 PM
I think the Sox already have such a player on the roster: Fields. Obviously not yet on the average. But give him a year. I know Paulie's having a down year, but he's only batting 12 points higher than Fields (.258 to .246). If you're going to give Paulie a mulligan for a down year, then you have to give Fields the benefit of the doubt because he's a rookie. In two thirds of the ABs, Fields has just eight fewer homers. Projected out over 543 ABs (what Paulie has), Fields would have 4 more homers and 10 more RBIs than Paulie, and that's with Paulie batting behind the highest OBP guy on the team (Thome). I'm not trying to disrespect Paulie, but rather trying to show that Fields isn't that far behind him.

What I'm saying is that given Fields MLB minimum salary and the fact that he can produce close to Paulie's stats (yes, he needs to cut down on the strikeouts and boost the average), it might be wise to consider dealing Paulie in order to get back young SS/CF/leadoff help AND free up $12 million/year to re-sign Garland AND re-load the bullpen.

When the traded Lee, they did not get equal value in return in that trade. But they did get salary relief (and from letting Maggs go) that they used to upgrade at several positions. Then they won the World Series. I'm not saying that the Sox SHOULD pursue a deal in which they don't get equal value back for Paulie. But seriously, some of you overrate him to ridiculous levels. Paulie's biggest fans seem to think that I'm saying "he sucks" when I make an argument to trade him. That's not true.

In a deal with the Dodgers, I would trade Paulie for Kemp or Furcal, straight up. If it's Kemp, the salary relief can sign a leadoff hitting SS or CF. If it's Furcal, then we've found a leadoff hitting SS and can make a run at Hunter.

1. If you move PK and put Josh at 1B, what do you do at 3B when Crede either falls apart or leaves via FA? Why count on Crede when PK is healthier at a less-athletic position?

2. Fields is very far behind Paulie in plate discipline. I love Josh Fields and have stated many times that I think within two years he'll be the best player in our entire organization, but he's not at Paulie's level at the plate. He has more power, but he has a ways to go before he lowers his K total and walks more.

3. If you think the 2004-05 is the rule and not the exception you are probably going to be pretty upset come October 2008. That offseason was extremely productive and the following season saw career years from several players. That isn't going to happen again. That's what makes 2005 so special. We overachieved.

4. We didn't get full value on the Lee trade, you are right. But why should we use that as a reason to not get full value out of Konerko? That's kind of dumb. The salary relief PK would provide would only help if it were used to acquire or re-sign a player that is better and more useful to the Sox than PK is. Garland is not better than PK. You don't trade 30-40 HRs and around 100 RBI's in order to make room for a #3 starter, especially when you have 4 minor league pitchers with that kind of ceiling waiting for an opportunity to pitch every five days. We don't have ANYONE who can step in for Paulie.

5. Saying you would trade Paulie for either Matt Kemp or Rafeal Furcal is like a Dodgers fan saying he would trade Chad Billingsley for either Josh Fields or Jose Contreras. Kemp is extremely valuable and thus extremely expensive. Furcal could probably be had a bag of balls if any team wanted to pick up that contract. There is no reason to add $13mil to the payroll just for a leadoff-hitting SS with no power. Even if we did pick him up, we couldn't re-sign him and we couldn't offer arbitration. The only way we could re-sign him is if we traded for him and he agreed to take another say 3 years at like $6mil less per year, because Furcal is in no way worth $13mil per. Unless he wanted to re-sign at a much lower figure, we wouldn't get draft picks for him because in order to do that we'd have to offer arbitration, and there would be no reason to offer arb to a slap hitting $13mil SS.

6. If you're talking about adding Hunter and Furcal at the expense of PK, you are talking $13 mil for Furcal + at least $15 mil per for Hunter while subtracting $12 mil. So you are talking about adding at least $16mil to the payroll for LESS OFFENSE THAN PAULIE ALREADY PROVIDES.

7. Please Frater, stop with these trade Paulie scenarios. The only way you trade someone like him is if:
A) He's a bad contract, which he's not.
B) He's blocking a young stud 1B, which he's not.
C) You can acquire a player that will improve your team immediately and in the future, which is not the case.
D) He's badly injured or injury-prone and you question his manuverability, which he's not. He does have a hip issue but that hasn't come into play.

Frater Perdurabo
09-29-2007, 10:22 AM
4. We didn't get full value on the Lee trade, you are right. But why should we use that as a reason to not get full value out of Konerko? That's kind of dumb. The salary relief PK would provide would only help if it were used to acquire or re-sign a player that is better and more useful to the Sox than PK is. Garland is not better than PK. You don't trade 30-40 HRs and around 100 RBI's in order to make room for a #3 starter, especially when you have 4 minor league pitchers with that kind of ceiling waiting for an opportunity to pitch every five days. We don't have ANYONE who can step in for Paulie.

I just quoted this part but will reply to all as best as I can. Of course I would WANT to get equal or better value in a trade. But I was just pointing out that it is possible to get less than equal value in a trade but still come out with a better team because the money can be used elsewhere.

Pretend Garland was on another AL team that played in a HR friendly park (just like the Cell) and put up the same numbers he does now and won 36 games between 2005 and 2006. I absolutely would trade Paulie to get him. Sorry if we disagree, but unless we're talking about Pujols or a similar hitter, I'll always trade a slugging 1B to acquire a quality starting pitcher.

I don't have an answer for the Crede health thing. I already agreed with you on Fields' plate discipline. If Furcal could be had for a bag of balls, then KW damn well better acquire him.