Dodgers willing to trade Kemp?

by JRPhillips on Sep 26, 2007 5:46 PM PDT

I've been waiting for someone to post this, and I haven't seen it happen yet...

http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2007/09/dodgers-willing.html#comments

God bless you, Ned Colletti! Thank you for doing your part to ensure the Dodgers can compete for years to come with the Giants! God bless you!

This FanPost is reader-generated, and it does not necessarily reflect the views of McCovey Chronicles. If the author uses filler to achieve the minimum word requirement, a moderator may edit the FanPost for his or her own amusement.

0 recs | Comment 36 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

The Giants have "Veterans"

They might be WWII veterans, but we'll trade them.

It's good to know high people in low places, isn't it Sabes?

Bonds stands alone.

by nostocksjustbonds on Sep 26, 2007 5:36 PM PDT 0 recs

Re: Dodgers willing to trade Kemp?

Ray Durham and Randy Winn!

Matt Cain: He'll save children, but not the Dodger children.

by jponry on Sep 26, 2007 5:43 PM PDT 0 recs

Re: Dodgers willing to trade Kemp?

I'd be willing - and this is hard to do - but I'd be willing to sign Feliz to a 3 year contract for 16mil and spin him to the Dodgers along with RayRay and Randy. BUT only if, and this is the part that's really hard to do... But only if they'd throw in Russell Martin. He's not exactly a veteran yet, he's still a young guy! And this trade would get rid of two of these underachieving young guys on the Dodgers while giving them THREE savvy veterans going forward! Obviously this kind of deal would cripple us and our veteran happy stance... But I'd bite the bullet for Ned.

"He called the sh** POOP!" -- Adam Sandler

by JRPhillips on Sep 26, 2007 5:48 PM PDT up 0 recs

Re: Dodgers willing to trade Kemp?

I think if we re-sign Feliz we're not allowed to trade the contract until close to the middle 2008. I think this is a real rule that MLB has in place to keep big teams from signing guys just to use them to fleece the little teams that really wanted them a week later.

I could be wrong, though. I've been wrong before.

Dave Righetti: You don't know him. / Read My Blog, Because I Write It

by howtheyscored on Sep 26, 2007 5:59 PM PDT up 0 recs

Re: Dodgers willing to trade Kemp?

You are correct, sir.

Brian Anderson: converting saves and dominating as best he can.

by Anticon23 on Sep 26, 2007 7:53 PM PDT up 0 recs

Re: Dodgers willing to trade Kemp?

You buttholes are ruining my daydream of re-signing Feliz just to trade him to the Dodgers so we could collect Russell Martin too. Damn you both!

I use the term buttholes as a term of endearment. Don't take it personally. =)

"He called the sh** POOP!" -- Adam Sandler

by JRPhillips on Sep 27, 2007 9:59 AM PDT up 0 recs

Re: Dodgers willing to trade Kemp?

Maybe we could make it Aurilia instead.

by Evan on Sep 27, 2007 10:17 AM PDT up 0 recs

Re: Dodgers willing to trade Kemp?

I'd do that in a heartbeat! He's got TWO terms as a Giant, so he might even net us James Loney as well!

Can I get a hell yeah!

"He called the sh** POOP!" -- Adam Sandler

by JRPhillips on Sep 27, 2007 10:53 AM PDT up 0 recs

Re: Dodgers willing to trade Kemp?

I'll take three.

Barry Bombs gear | comics | Durham? I hardly know 'im!

by Natto on Sep 26, 2007 6:09 PM PDT 0 recs

Re: Dodgers willing to trade Kemp?

I'd be stunned if the Giants would risk sending the kind of talent to the Dodgers it would take to get Kemp. There are certain kinds of trades these two teams can't make.

by NearestNorwich on Sep 26, 2007 6:32 PM PDT 0 recs

Re: Dodgers willing to trade Kemp?

especially if it's veterans Colletti seeks. The Giants' veterans all suck.

Randy Messenger: "I got a win yesterday!! Never mind how I pitched!!"

by rxmeister on Sep 26, 2007 6:37 PM PDT up 0 recs

Dodgers will sign Feliz this offseason

Bonds stands alone.

by nostocksjustbonds on Sep 26, 2007 7:25 PM PDT 0 recs

Re: Dodgers willing to trade Kemp?

I would be willing to trade Barry Zito, Noah Lowry and Randy Winn (assuming he would go)for Matt Kemp.

The Dodgers get two proven lefty starters and a veteran switch-hitting outfielder who is a class act, while the Giants get a potential superstar.

The Dodgers perhaps become the favorites to win the NL West in 2008, while the Giants kick-start their rebuilding process.

The Giants take the greater risk, but perhaps gain the greater reward. The Dodgers take on a bunch of salary, but get three players who could put them over the top in 2008.

I realize the Giants don't trade with the Dodgers (very often), but they just made a deal for Mark Sweeney -- and with Brian and Ned having the working relationship they did for many years, perhaps the door which seemed to be nailed shut is edging slightly open.

Incidentally, with Kemp, the Giants would have a #3 or #4 hitter and a potential outfield of Kemp, Davis/Lewis/Roberts and Schierholtz/Ortmeier.

True, the Giants trade two valuable commodities in lefty starters and are still left with many holes. But they also pick up a guy who likely will be their best hitter -- by a lot.

Remember, the Giants should be looking five years down the road. Five years from now, Matt will have just turned 28 and should be entering his prime.

Meanwhile, the Giants would still be left with a rotation of Lincecum, Cain, Correia, Misch and Sanchez. And five years from now, they might well have a rotation of Lincecum, Cain, Bumgartner, Sanchez and Henry Sosa -- with Tim Alderson as their closer, set up by Brian Wilson.

IMO the Giants should be looking for situations just as Kemp's has been presented. Situations where something has gone awry or is believed to be so, allowing the Giants to somehow leverage their limited assets into a potential star player. Ideally that player would be young, which Kemp certainly is.

I have to believe this deal would be at least tempting to the Dodgers. The Giants would perhaps take the greater risk, particularly in the short term. But the short term matters to the Dodgers. For the Giants, it really shouldn't (at least not from a baseball standpoint).

by sharksrog on Sep 26, 2007 9:26 PM PDT 0 recs

Re: Dodgers willing to trade Kemp?

Shark, (feels as if I am addressing James Woods) - while Kemp has star potential he also does have some holes in his swing and work ethic issues. If giving up all that pitching (and yes I do understand SF would be getting a lot of salary relief in return) would prefer to not bundle Zito AND Lowry in same deal unless LA was also throwing in Kershaw, LaRoche or another top talents.

by wilriv21 on Sep 26, 2007 10:05 PM PDT up 0 recs

Are you being sacarstic?

"Work ethic" issues? According to Plaschke? If they had just played Kemp the whole season, instead of idiotically signing proven veteran Pierre, who does the little things and plays the game the right way, they would probably be a playoff team.

Teams taking Zito are doing the Giants a favour. And you expect another elite level talent in return?

by rfloh on Sep 26, 2007 10:45 PM PDT up 0 recs

Re: Are you being sacarstic?

Some of Kemp's teammates mentioned his work ethic and maturity issues. Playing Kemp the entire season may have exposed some of the holes in his swings at an earlier time. He is still very young and has the talent to improve and become a star but he needs to work at it. I agree that the unloading of Zito is a good thing but believe SF should receive more if they are to trade both Zito and Lowry in a deal.

by wilriv21 on Sep 26, 2007 10:54 PM PDT up 0 recs

Re: Are you being sacarstic?

If a team would take Barry at full salary (He is owed another $116 million over the next six seasons, or nearly $20 million per year.) I wouldn't expect a lot in return.

If someone would take Dave Roberts or Ray Durham at full salary, I wouldn't expect ANYTHING in return.

Incidentally, I don't think a team would get rich taking Roberts at full salary, but taking Durham might be a worthy gamble for a team that is a second baseman away from being highly competitive. Ray has been in a funk for a long time, but I don't think it is impossible that he could bounce back to somewhere around his levels of 2003-2005.

The Giants in recent years have had a knack for taking on bad contracts.

by sharksrog on Sep 27, 2007 1:18 AM PDT up 0 recs

Can you name those teammates?

IIRC, one of them was Jeff Kent. Next please.

Another was Luis Gonzalez. A guy who was bitching and moaning at being replaced by younger players in Arizona. A guy who took repeated shots at the DBacks even though Arizona treated him very well, and handled his departure very graciously, just because they wouldn't gratify his ego by giving the starting spot to him for the next few years. A guy who has in repeated public statements made it clear that all he cares about is padding Luis Gonzalez' career stats. A guy who is afraid of losing playing time to Kemp.

The guys on the Dodgers who are bitching about the young players are the underperforming veterans who are afraid of losing their jobs.

Juan Pierre: OPS+ 76, about 25 runs below average. Matt Kemp: OPS+ 121, in very limited playing 7 runs above average. Pierre, like Johnny Damon, also throws like Mary, except in Pierre's case, he throws like a 4 year old Mary.

If you want Kemp + Kershaw / LaRoche for Zito + Lowry, then you should be prepared to have Zito for the next 7 years. No team is going to give up TWO elite level talents for Lowry and the pleasure of having the millstone that is Zito around their necks.

by rfloh on Sep 27, 2007 7:16 AM PDT up 0 recs

Re: Dodgers willing to trade Kemp?

I would trade that same package for Clayton Kershaw -- in a flash. I don't think the Dodgers would make that deal,however.

by sharksrog on Sep 27, 2007 1:13 AM PDT up 0 recs

Re: Dodgers willing to trade Kemp?

Zito has the NTC . . .

Brian Anderson: converting saves and dominating as best he can.

by Anticon23 on Sep 26, 2007 11:23 PM PDT up 0 recs

Re: Dodgers willing to trade Kemp?

I would think that Barry might waive that if he could play close to home in LA -- and for a contender, no less.

If the Dodgers had Lowry, Zito and Winn next season and say two of the three put up good years, they could have a shot at going a long way.

by sharksrog on Sep 27, 2007 1:19 AM PDT up 0 recs

Re: Dodgers willing to trade Kemp?

Hmmm, looking 5 years down the road I see Kemp and Cain filing their FA papers. That didn't help any.

My boy ain't fat, he's just big boned. Big bat, too.

by Roger on Sep 27, 2007 5:47 AM PDT up 0 recs

Re: Dodgers willing to trade Kemp?

Just six more years (possibly seven) until Barry Zito files HIS! :)

by sharksrog on Sep 27, 2007 12:05 PM PDT up 0 recs

LOL you guys think Zito has trade value

And at full price no less, that's hilarious. He has mucho negative value at full price, and I'm not sure he has all that much if the Giants ate 26 mil of salary either (which they'd never do).

by awesomer on Sep 27, 2007 4:28 AM PDT 0 recs

Re: LOL you guys think Zito has trade value

be more condescending please. I barely see anyone in this thread who actually thinks Zito has any trade value.

Matt Cain: He'll save children, but not the Dodger children.

by jponry on Sep 27, 2007 6:33 AM PDT up 0 recs

This was meant to be a reply to shark and wil

who both seem to be posting a lot in this thread and seem to think Zito has +value.

by awesomer on Sep 27, 2007 9:17 AM PDT up 0 recs

Re: This was meant to be a reply to shark and wil

Awesomer, what the hell are you talking about, Zito doesn't have trade value? At what point in time did Ned Colletti STOP liking savvy veterans who have experience playing for the Giants? Obviously, since Barry Z only has the one season of Giants experience, his trade value is slightly lessened, but it's still there! And considering the premium Nedly puts on young guys, I don't even think a Zito-for-Kemp straight up trade is out of the question!

Except that our own general manager also doesn't really put a premium on young talent. So obviously this trade won't happen, but not because Ned wouldn't do it!

"He called the sh** POOP!" -- Adam Sandler

by JRPhillips on Sep 27, 2007 10:10 AM PDT up 0 recs

Re: This was meant to be a reply to shark and wil

I'm pretty curious what people think about this. I'm of the opinion that the Giants would have to pick up literally half of Zito's contract in order to trade him, but maybe I'm too pessimistic.

by Evan on Sep 27, 2007 10:16 AM PDT up 0 recs

Re: This was meant to be a reply to shark and wil

Seattle supposedly offered Zito $16.5M/year on a 6-year deal last season. This mediocre season would probably bring his value down some, but he finished strongly, which should mitigate that. $15M/year doesn't seem out of line, which would mean the Giants eating $26M of the $116M left on his contract.

However, as I've said before, I don't think the Giants will trade him.

SJ Giants, 2007 Cal League champs! Couldn't have done it without the All-Father.

by EliminateMe on Sep 27, 2007 10:44 AM PDT up 0 recs

Re: This was meant to be a reply to shark and wil

I agree that it's not going to happen; it's just a random hypothetical that I'm interested in

I don't think it's a matter of a mediocre season bringing his value down, but of a mediocre season (submediocre, really) throwing a spotlight on a consistent pattern of decline. The value assigned to Zito last off-season was a sort of bubble caused by his unsustainably low ERA, his record as a proven winner, and the Giants' desperation to sign a marquee free agent. When a bubble bursts, it usually does so a lot more quickly than anyone expects. I suspect that GMs now see him for what he is: a back-of-the-rotation innings eater.

But then, it only takes one who disagrees.

by Evan on Sep 27, 2007 11:30 AM PDT up 0 recs

Re: This was meant to be a reply to shark and wil

Of COURSE the Giants won't trade Barry Zito. They're not THAT smart! :)

In actuality, if Barry could somehow put up a good season in 2008, he would seem to have decent trade value -- even at full contract.

by sharksrog on Sep 27, 2007 12:08 PM PDT up 0 recs

He makes 20 fucking million dollars a year

For the next 6 years. 6 years. 6. A pitcher, even with Zito's durability, should not be getting a 7 year contract ever. Its stupid, his arm blows out one day and the team is out a bajillion dollars (I realize there is player insurance and such but that doesn't do a whole lot for payroll I imagine)

He is a pitcher with declining peripherals who posted a spotty 4.63 ERA in what's considered the second best pitchers park (this is speaking in terms of how dumb GM's would view him, smart GM's wouldn't touch him with a 1293129391293192399329 ft pole at this point).

This post can't be serious I hope (but I think a little of it is), Zito for Kemp (even if Zito's whole contract was paid for, which it appears none is in your deal)? Even the most ardent Kemp haters/Zito lovers wouldn't propose such a thing.

(I also like parentheses)

by awesomer on Sep 27, 2007 10:51 AM PDT up 0 recs

Re: He makes 20 fucking million dollars a year

Insurance companies have long since stopped covering pitcher contracts over 3 years, and I believe I heard a report last year that teams were having more and more trouble getting any baseball contracts covered on insurance(which makes sense, the downside for the insurance companies is much larger than the upside unless you're looking at 7 figure premiums).

My boy ain't fat, he's just big boned. Big bat, too.

by Roger on Sep 27, 2007 11:23 AM PDT up 0 recs

Re: He makes 20 fucking million dollars a year

Um... Yes. My post is a complete joke dude. I'm poking fun at the fact that Ned Colletti does in fact love himself some former Giants (Ramon Martinez, Jeff Kent, Shea Hillenbrand, Brett Tomko, etc), but no... Nobody would EVER think even Nedly would actually trade Kemp straight-up for Zito. It's a silly concept meant to be laughed at, not taken seriously.

To reiterate, I am in fact NOT serious about that trade possibility, in no way, shape, or form. I WOULD like to see us somehow fleece the Dodgers of Matt Kemp, but I don't for a second believe Zito for Kemp would/could actually happen. It was a strictly silly post with no intent whatsoever to be taken seriously.

"He called the sh** POOP!" -- Adam Sandler

by JRPhillips on Sep 27, 2007 11:35 AM PDT up 0 recs