my account:
premium blogad:
blogads:
advertisement:
advertisement:
sitemeter:
advertisement:
|
|
|
November 14, 2008
Far Out Space Nuts Trade Proposal!!
Carlos Beltran (perhaps subsidized) and Daniel Murphy (and perhaps Parnell or Niese) TO Dodgers FOR Matt Kemp, Clayton Kershaw, and Tony Abreu and/or Chin-Lung Hu followed by: F.A. acquisitions C.C. Sabbathia and (perhaps) Milton Bradley ADVANTAGES: For the Dodgers: The Dodgers (a contender) get the best CF in baseball at a good price for three years (and a substantial improvement over Kemp) and get a promising young 3rd baseman so they can move Blake Dewitt to second and rid themselves of their 2nd base issues. They may also get some decent to good young pieces (i.e. Parnell? Niese?) in the process. For the Mets The Mets (a contender) have center field taken care of for up to 9 years at a very good price. They get a young and cheap pitcher who might be as good as Santana as early as 2010. They get one or more young 2nd basemen who can’t be much worse than Luis Castillo; and they free up salary for the big-time FA pitcher C.C. Sabbathia. As early as 2010, this could be a monumental 1-2-3 top of the rotation. By selling Murphy high, they replace a redundant 3rd baseman with one or more good 2nd base prospect(s). They get so much younger in the process that they can sign free agents without worrying much about giving up picks. By signing Sabbathia and Bradley to make up for the drop from Beltran to Kemp, they don’t compromise 2009, but come back very strong in 2010, when Milton Bradley can replace Carlos Delgado at 1st, F!Mart can take LF, and Kershaw emerges. If Bradley doesn’t work out, we have Evans/Carp as fallbacks in 2010, and we have 4 1st basemen from 2009-2010, (Delgado, Bradley, Carp, and Evans) three of whom can be traded for relief help. Transaction Advantages: The trade is easy to leverage. Kershaw-Kemp for Beltran-Murphy is even enough so that whatever imbalances there are can be rounded out by peripheral considerations. If you think that the trade benefits the Dodgers, since Beltran is the only current proven superstar, you can ask the Dodgers to give you Lu and/or Abreu in the deal. If you believe that Kershaw’s ace potential makes him highly valuable, the Mets can throw in a piece like Parnell or Niese to round it out, in the process perhaps asking for one or more of the Dodgers’ 2nd base prospect(s), or you can give the Dodgers cash considerations. Disadvantages: Beltran can veto any trade, and we might have to part with more parts to get Kershaw, Kemp, and Lu and/or Abreu. The good news is that in the context of the overall plan, Niese, Kunz, and Parnell all become negotiable. The trade has the potential to be a disaster for the Mets if Kershaw, and Lu/Abreu do not pan out. However, since you lose much or all of Beltran’s salary, you have more room to hedge your bet by signing C.C. Sabbathia, which would be much more difficult moneywise if Beltran’s salary were on the Mets’ books. And Kemp is good, and Kershaw should be at least a solid mid-rotation pitcher. This seems somehow totally absurd and yet reasonable at the same time. 7 Responses to “Far Out Space Nuts Trade Proposal!!”Leave a ReplyYou must be logged in to post a comment. |
advertisement:latest poll:
recommended journals:
recent user journals:
advertisement:recent articles:
rss/syndication:your ad here:advertisement: |
Loading ...
If Beltran was entering the last yr of his contract, and you had no intention of re-signing him, then the proposal makes some sense.
At this point though, it does not.
You lose a major part of your defense and offense in return for a couple of guys who have proven nothing at the ML level.
Then turn around and spend $$$$$$$ on CC, who has tossed a heck of a lot of innings the past two years, and Bradley, who may not be able to play every day given his injury history.
Kemp is, I think, proven that he can be well-above-average at CF. I see him as a Lastings Milledge (the upside of Lastings Milledge) type who can play his position.
It would shock me if Kershaw did not develop into a mid-rotation starter at least.
Sabbathia’s injury liability will be addressed in his overall free-agent value. He might make $18M/yr instead of $22M/yr because of it. All things considered, C.C. remains the cream of the free agent market.
If you really think the deal benefits the Dodgers, you can simply hold on to Murphy or ask them for much more. The deal, conceptually, makes sense for both teams, so there is plenty of room for negotiation.
Even so, the Mets get so much younger that it automatically hedges any bets.
Milton’s injury liability will be addressed by the market too. He’ll get less money and less years.
All impressions are that Kershaw will be a star; he is the definition of untouchable, even for a superstar. Matt Kemp is perhaps available, but I doubt they’ll give up Lu; he’s also a big time prospect, and even though he hasn’t hit much at all, his Glove is Golden. To get this done, you will have to include Niese+.
In that case, farewell to Niese+.
But this is what I suspected would happen. Some people say that the Mets would be foolish to pull the trigger on this; and equal amount are saying that the Dodgers would be fools to do so.
This to me is the definition of complimentarity. And we are beginning to see that the leverage options are almost infinite.
The best CF in baseball and the only established superstar in the deal for three years at a very fair price should be more than enough to make Kershaw touchable. Throw in Murphy and Niese+ and a haul of Kemp/Kershaw/Lu and/or Abreu should be more than feasible.
And part of the point is to lock up CF cheap, free payroll for CC, and get young enough so we can acquire free agents w/o worrying too much about draft picks.
1. We already have CF locked up. Not cheap, but not a problem area.
2. We probably couldn´t get CC anyway, whether because we´d be outbid or because of bad karma.
3. We are getting younger next year by losing Pedro, Duque, Alou, etc. We´ll get younger next year when Delgado goes. We could get younger by just dumping Castillo´s ass and giving the position to Murphy. The only caveat is Omar avoiding signing any more AARP members.
All this is fine, but it doesn´t address 2 main problems of the pen and a corner OF slot. It also leaves us without a concrete solution to the rotation for 2009. If I´m going to swing a trade, I´d rather trade Delgado now for a #2 or 3 starter, or Heilman+ for a 4/5 starter, then sign a FA like Ibañez or Rivera for LF, or trade for Dye for 1 or 2 more years until F! is ready.
1.) All this is becoming a theoretical discussion, but there is a difference between a CF for 3 years at a good rate and 9 years at a cut-out Evan Longoria type rate. And as Kemp is no where near as good a player as Evan, he should be even cheaper. Wright and Reyes are fast approaching their paydays, and they won’t come cheap, especially if they continue to be subjected to outrageously unfair media abuse. We will sooner rather than later have to think about getting much younger and cheaper around them.
2.) Karma is beyond anyone’s control, but if we dropped $18M of salary, we can afford to outbid the field for CC and have payroll room for a Bradley/Burrell type. (I’m thinking Bradley because he has 1B experience and I’m expecting F! to take that slot in 2010, and because he won’t demand as many years, which allows us flexibility in that spot soon, in case we can get younger/cheaper with Ike Davis or a better free agent emerges.
3.)Since we are not talking about what will be done (and there is little chance that Omar will be sensible and put Murphy at 2nd and allow his D to improve) It is quite possible upon reflection that Beltran is worth Kershaw and Kemp (and possibly more) by himself since he is locked up for 3 years at a good rate and is the only superstar in the deal. We may still have Murphy, whether to keep (at 2nd) or to sell high–continuing with the Dodgers, Tony Abreu and Hung Chi Kuo(?) (if we throw in Kunz). This may be the better strategy, since Murphy’s K% O-Swing% and BABIP signal that he may be due for a more serious regression than we anticipate.
4.)Again, because we really drop payroll in the deal, the Mets will also be able to afford a Bradley type for the outfield (and F!Mart is slotted to push Bradley to 1st.) If we do this, we will have a deep glut at 1st base that will allow us to trade any combination of Carp/Evans/Delgado/Davis/Bradley for relief help (as well as other things). The rotation in 2009 is more than set at Johan, C.C., Maine, Pelfrey, Kershaw, and Niese. By 2010, that’s a 11122 starting 5 at best and a 11223 at worst. The trade-off is Beltran for pitching and youth.
5.) Again, this is quickly becoming a theoretical exercise. But perhaps not, as this line of thinking will be more applicable (and perhaps more relevant) in 2010.