Dodgers OF's available...what about Matt Kemp??

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from redsoxdirtdog. Show redsoxdirtdog's posts

    Re: Dodgers OF's available...what about Matt Kemp??

    In response to kimsaysthis' comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to BostonTrollSpanker's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Commie glad you brought up Kemp and so is softy.... softy has indicated he might be open to Kemp despite the huge contract and slightly suspect 2013 production... 

     

    [/QUOTE]


    Interesting dilemma. That's a beautiful pic. But would you really want a guy that would pose for that shot?

    [/QUOTE]

    If Ells could get a spread like this, stiffy would surely change his tune!

     

     

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from rameakap. Show rameakap's posts

    Re: Dodgers OF's available...what about Matt Kemp??

    In response to kimsaysthis' comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to BostonTrollSpanker's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Commie glad you brought up Kemp and so is softy.... softy has indicated he might be open to Kemp despite the huge contract and slightly suspect 2013 production... 

     

    [/QUOTE]


    Interesting dilemma. That's a beautiful pic. But would you really want a guy that would pose for that shot?

    [/QUOTE]


    It has worked out well over the years for the Pats and Brady;-)

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from Hfxsoxnut. Show Hfxsoxnut's posts

    Re: Dodgers OF's available...what about Matt Kemp??

    In response to redsoxandguitars' comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Yes, it is too bad. The assumption that "but for Ellsbury" there is no 2007 or 2013 WS is beyond near sighted. 

    [/QUOTE]

    Do you think Kemp provided better value for his salary in 2013 than Ellsbury did?

     

     
  4. This post has been removed.

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: Dodgers OF's available...what about Matt Kemp??

    softy the clown wanted us to trade Ellsbury for Kemp and complained about Ellsbury milking injuries ad nauseum.

     

    Since the clown's suggest trade:

    Games played 2012-2013

    Kemp 179 Reg Season  O post season= 179

    Ellsb   208 Reg Season 16 post season= 224

     

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from rameakap. Show rameakap's posts

    Re: Dodgers OF's available...what about Matt Kemp??

    In response to Joebreidey's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to moonslav59's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Peavy, Morales, Lava and Middy for Kemp and erase our $3.9M payments from the last trade.

    [/QUOTE]

    Too much.  At this point, Kemp looks like a negative value to me.  And while we would get some minor salary relief for Peavy and the $3.9, it isn't as much as it seems.  If we ate maybe $2-3M of Peavy's salary, we'd get a decent prospect, imho.  And the other 3.9 * 2 is pure profit.  But I don't think that is enough to offset Kemp's $21M+ cost.  Plus losing WMB?  Too much.

    • Injured the past two years
    • A 179/62 K/W over those two years
    • Except for his breakout year, his OPS generally runs in the .820 range.  Very good for a CF, but not off the charts good.
    • His contract runs to age 34.  Not quite a retirement contract, but a contract where 2 of his 6 years are eroding skill years.

    The way I look at it, he is an Ellsbury-equivalent player.  I guess a little upside on pure talent, but more 'everyday' injury-prone.  So if we could get an Ellsbury clone for even $19M, assuming LA kicks in $12M, then why not get the Ellsbury we already have.

    Plus, when do we go with our prospects?  We can't wait on everyone of them to prove themselves a star.  I'd go with JBJ over Kemp without a second thought.

    [/QUOTE]

    Joe,

    Ethier has averaged 500 PA's the past 3 seasons with .285/.360/.800 numbers, 15 HR's and the ability to play all 3 OF positions.

    The 4/71 he is owed ages 32-35 is in line with the yearly $ we would desire to pay Ellsbury. The 5/90 Pence signed for being the contract I assume the Sox would love to have Ells here at.

    But, the Dodgers have indicated they are willing to pay as much as 20-25 million of that contract to a team that takes him off their hands. Considering they would easily pay 10m on the open market for a 5 starter with no draft compensation like Dempster on a 1 year deal (leaving the years after 2014 free for the monster Kershaw extension) I think Dempster and maybe a Kalish type minor leaguer thrown in would be a good deal.

    The Dodgers then give the Sox back the 4m we agreed to pay them the next 3 years. Plus an additional 2m for Ethier in the last 3 years of his deal and they pay 1m of his 2.5m BO in '18 if we don't pick up the option.

    2014 - Save 2 million (Dempster 13.5m + 4m) Ethier makes 15.5

    2015 - We pay Ethier 12 million, Dodgers give back 6

    2016 - 12m, LA 6

    2017 - 15.5m, LA 2

    2018 - LA pays 1m of his 2.5m BO (or Sox can pick up a 17.5m option for a 35-36 yr old)

    Total: The 39 million we just gave Victorino, s VERY similat profile player, is all we are on the hook for with Ethier over the next 4 years. The first of which he can play in CF as JBJ gets a much needed 1 more season in AAA, before moving over to LF for him in '15 when Gomes is gone and maybe RF the last 2 years when Shane is gone.

     

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from rameakap. Show rameakap's posts

    Re: Dodgers OF's available...what about Matt Kemp??


    This lineup in 2014 would make me VERY happy:

    2B - Pedroia

    * begrudgingly takes leadoff spot, agrees to post .400 OBP's for remainder of extension;-)

    CF - Ethier

    * loves leaving a pitcher's park for a hitter's one, Pedy is a close friend from ASU

    3B - Middlebrooks

    * Put the potential 30 HR guy whose weakness is chasing bad pitches in front of the teams best power hitter in order to get him lots of strike zone pitches

    DH - Ortiz

    * 'Pop' is still there

    1B - Napoli

    * A 2 year deal guarantee of the 26m he would have made, + up to 4m in incentives per year and THEN a player option for 2 more years at around 13m a year (if health incentives reached in '14/'15) to 1B/DH when Papi reties

    C - McCann

    * Pay a lot upfront for a guy who will be an elite catcher the next 2-3 years, then less on the backend as he moves to DH duties after Papi leaves and mentors the young (cheap) catchers/pitchers we will have coming up like his buddy Ross did

    SS - Xander

    * Rookie of the year? .285/.385 with 20 HR's?

    LF - Nava/Gomes

    * platoon worked out pretty well for us this year. Ethier moves here in '15 when JBJ takes over CF

    RF - Victorino

    * Not asking him to replace Ells in CF or in setting the table with a high OBP (never his thing) is very wise and will make for another successful .285/.345 15 HR season.

     
  8. This post has been removed.

     
  9. This post has been removed.

     
  10. This post has been removed.

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from GoUconn13. Show GoUconn13's posts

    Re: Dodgers OF's available...what about Matt Kemp??

    Bad trade eventhought he is an often injure proned player at the same time he have 6 years left of his contract. 

    Forget that deal.  If he only have two to three years left of his contract, I could consider taking him!

     

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from Joebreidey. Show Joebreidey's posts

    Re: Dodgers OF's available...what about Matt Kemp??

    In response to Hfxsoxnut's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to redsoxandguitars' comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Yes, it is too bad. The assumption that "but for Ellsbury" there is no 2007 or 2013 WS is beyond near sighted. 

    [/QUOTE]

    Do you think Kemp provided better value for his salary in 2013 than Ellsbury did?

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Softy won't respond.  Ellsbury obviously provided way better value. and Softy is genetically incapable of admitting he was wrong.

    And, if he developed the capability to admit he was wrong, it would take him into spring training to admit all the things he was wrong about in 2013.

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from rameakap. Show rameakap's posts

    Re: Dodgers OF's available...what about Matt Kemp??


    Hahahahhahahahahahaha

    What a clown Softy continues to be, so easy to laugh at

    McCann not elite? Ok. 20+ HR's since '08, an average WAR of nearly 4 and fangraphs value of 17m per season since then? Ha!

    Ellsbury fangraphs value of 28.9 million this year with a 5.8 WAR and starting CF for World Series champions. (Last 3 seasons many more games played and total WAR of 16.3 and value of 76.4 million).

    Kemp fangraphs value of -2.1m this year and -0.4 WAR (hahahaha!) and over the last 3 years was worth 50.7 million and 11.2 WAR.

    Who is better???

    Kemps' career started over a year earlier than Ells, and despite that Ellsbury has produced 17 more million in value and 3.5 more WAR than Kemp.

    WOW

    Softy WRONG again.... 

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from TheExaminer. Show TheExaminer's posts

    Re: Dodgers OF's available...what about Matt Kemp??

    In response to notin's comment:
    [QUOTE]


    They would probably prefer to move Crawford or Ethier...

    [/QUOTE]

    LOL....yeah, lets bring Crawford back. Haha, can you imagine? 

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from TheExaminer. Show TheExaminer's posts

    Re: Dodgers OF's available...what about Matt Kemp??

    In response to redsoxdirtdog's comment:

    In response to BostonTrollSpanker's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Commie glad you brought up Kemp and so is softy.... softy has indicated he might be open to Kemp despite the huge contract and slightly suspect 2013 production... 

     



    His name is Stiffy.  Please call him by his chosen name when discussing sensitive "topics."

    [/QUOTE]

    Yeah, this prima-donna would fit right in with the bushy beards and blue collar champions.

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from kimsaysthis. Show kimsaysthis's posts

    Re: Dodgers OF's available...what about Matt Kemp??

    In response to Joebreidey's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Interesting dilemma. That's a beautiful pic. But would you really want a guy that would pose for that shot?

    As a Raider fan, I always felt that some of their downfall had to do with the move to LA.  Too many of their players went 'Hollywood'.  For most of these guys, certainly not all, It is difficullt to concentrate on sports, and also expect to be a 'red carpet' type.

    [/QUOTE]

    That was probably a whole new world for the Raiders. And not in a good way. I've never understood the need to pose for pics like this when you're an athlete. I can kind of understand it for actors, but athletes don't/shouldn't need that kind of hype. Makes them seem more feminine. JMO

    I might be alone in this as a female, but I prefer my men with no fashion sense at all as opposed to male models.

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from kimsaysthis. Show kimsaysthis's posts

    Re: Dodgers OF's available...what about Matt Kemp??

    In response to rameakap's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to kimsaysthis' comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to BostonTrollSpanker's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Commie glad you brought up Kemp and so is softy.... softy has indicated he might be open to Kemp despite the huge contract and slightly suspect 2013 production... 

     

    [/QUOTE]


    Interesting dilemma. That's a beautiful pic. But would you really want a guy that would pose for that shot?

    [/QUOTE]


    It has worked out well over the years for the Pats and Brady;-)

    [/QUOTE]

    That might be true, I don't follow football. But it's just not for me. I mean a wet T-shirt? C'mon. It's not very masculine. Just sayin'.

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from kimsaysthis. Show kimsaysthis's posts

    Re: Dodgers OF's available...what about Matt Kemp??

    In response to TheExaminer's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to redsoxdirtdog's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to BostonTrollSpanker's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Commie glad you brought up Kemp and so is softy.... softy has indicated he might be open to Kemp despite the huge contract and slightly suspect 2013 production... 

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    His name is Stiffy.  Please call him by his chosen name when discussing sensitive "topics."

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Yeah, this prima-donna would fit right in with the bushy beards and blue collar champions.

    [/QUOTE]

    That's so true. There's really no metrosexual vibe on the Red Sox, and I'm grateful for that.

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from jete02fan. Show jete02fan's posts

    Re: Dodgers OF's available...what about Matt Kemp??

    In response to Sportswizard1's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    I'd rather they trade for Eithier if they trade with the Red Sox west.

    [/QUOTE] his closeness with DP would definitely help the transition, but he'd likely have to play LF since Victorino is in RF..


     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from Joebreidey. Show Joebreidey's posts

    Re: Dodgers OF's available...what about Matt Kemp??

    In response to kimsaysthis' comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to Joebreidey's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Interesting dilemma. That's a beautiful pic. But would you really want a guy that would pose for that shot?

    As a Raider fan, I always felt that some of their downfall had to do with the move to LA.  Too many of their players went 'Hollywood'.  For most of these guys, certainly not all, It is difficullt to concentrate on sports, and also expect to be a 'red carpet' type.

    [/QUOTE]

    That was probably a whole new world for the Raiders. And not in a good way. I've never understood the need to pose for pics like this when you're an athlete. I can kind of understand it for actors, but athletes don't/shouldn't need that kind of hype. Makes them seem more feminine. JMO

    I might be alone in this as a female, but I prefer my men with no fashion sense at all as opposed to male models.

    [/QUOTE]

    I agree 100%.  I come from a blue collar area in the Bronx, and I cannot imagine a guy ever posing like that.  It's like the picture of ARod kissing the mirror.  Just imho, it strikes me as weird.  Kind of in the way that real men always preferred Mary Ann over Ginger

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from Flapjack07. Show Flapjack07's posts

    Re: Dodgers OF's available...what about Matt Kemp??

    So we want the Dodgers' expensive contracts now? I'll pass on that.

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from redsoxpride34. Show redsoxpride34's posts

    Re: Dodgers OF's available...what about Matt Kemp??

    i think kemp could definitely be an intriguing option for the sox, the price would likely be lower than stanton and he would fit well in center if ellsbury leaves. given kemps contract, which elminates alot of potential suitors for him, and coming off a down year, perhaps would could get him for a reasonable price. 

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from billge. Show billge's posts

    Re: Dodgers OF's available...what about Matt Kemp??

    It apears 4 now softy can't respond

     
  24. This post has been removed.

     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from kimsaysthis. Show kimsaysthis's posts

    Re: Dodgers OF's available...what about Matt Kemp??

    In response to Joebreidey's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to kimsaysthis' comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to Joebreidey's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Interesting dilemma. That's a beautiful pic. But would you really want a guy that would pose for that shot?

    As a Raider fan, I always felt that some of their downfall had to do with the move to LA.  Too many of their players went 'Hollywood'.  For most of these guys, certainly not all, It is difficullt to concentrate on sports, and also expect to be a 'red carpet' type.

    [/QUOTE]

    That was probably a whole new world for the Raiders. And not in a good way. I've never understood the need to pose for pics like this when you're an athlete. I can kind of understand it for actors, but athletes don't/shouldn't need that kind of hype. Makes them seem more feminine. JMO

    I might be alone in this as a female, but I prefer my men with no fashion sense at all as opposed to male models.

    [/QUOTE]

    I agree 100%.  I come from a blue collar area in the Bronx, and I cannot imagine a guy ever posing like that.  It's like the picture of ARod kissing the mirror.  Just imho, it strikes me as weird.  Kind of in the way that real men always preferred Mary Ann over Ginger

    [/QUOTE]


    ARod kissing a mirror. LOL I forgot that one. Yes, that is very much in the same vein. I can see ARod in a wet t-shirt pic, and I bet there's already one out there.

    And my dad is from the Bronx born and raised until he was 17, so I know exactly what you're talking about. Could be why I feel the way I do as well.

    As for the Mary Ann over Ginger argument, they really only portray two extremes. I believe, most women, like myself, fall somewhere in between. I love having my hair and nails done, but I also love throwing on a Sox jersey and going to a baseball game.

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share