Nats need an OF

[Kc61]

Just to be clear — if Reds trade Kemp it will still cost them dollars. Not saying that they can pass along the full contract in any trade. But given the $7 million and the possible off-sets from past trades the Reds may not be left holding the bag for too much money.

[mikemo14]

Kemp just doesn't seem to me like the type of guy who will be happy playing against LHP two or three days a week and pinch hitting. Obviously the Reds took him and his contract as a way to move Bailey and not address a glaring need. I still think he is likely to be moved at some point to the right team and the Reds will eat the majority of the salary owed him to keep Winker/Senzel in the lineup. It looks like he has plenty left and whatever money the Reds saved could go to upgrades at the deadline.

[RedTeamGo!]

Because some people see Kemp as a threat to Jesse Winker

Cool strawman you got there.

[Big Klu]

Cool strawman you got there.

Calling it the way I see it. I think there are some fans who don't want Kemp on the club because they think he will take AB's away from Winker.

[kaldaniels]

Calling it the way I see it. I think there are some fans who don't want Kemp on the club because they think he will take AB's away from Winker.

Speaking for myself you can see that I put forth my rebuttal right after you said that.

If there is a logjam and a trade can be made to improve the club (and yes it would include dollars going the other way) Kemp would be the first guy to go for me. Schebler would be ok to be traded as well. I want to hold onto Winker and Senzel...and Puig is the best of all the OF...that’s why I would have my eye on trading Schebler/Kemp.

Not because I want Winker to get more AB. (This year)

[Big Klu]

Speaking for myself you can see that I put forth my rebuttal right after you said that.

If there is a logjam and a trade can be made to improve the club (and yes it would include dollars going the other way) Kemp would be the first guy to go for me. Schebler would be ok to be traded as well. I want to hold onto Winker and Senzel...and Puig is the best of all the OF...that’s why I would have my eye on trading Schebler/Kemp.

Not because I want Winker to get more AB. (This year)

I don't have an issue with that. It makes perfect sense.

I just don't think there's a logjam, and I think there are some people (not you) who have an emotional attachment to Winker (for whatever reason) and want to "clear the deck" to guarantee that he has no competition.

I don't see them as competition to each other at all, but rather as teammates working toward the same goal.

[PuffyPig]

I don’t know, Griff, but on the face of things I disagree in part.

The $7 million, yes, seems like an outright payment of cash. But given the nature of the trade, one can clearly attribute it to Kemp’s salary. Take your pick, it’s in the eyes of the beholder.

But the earlier trades, as I understand, contained specific amounts payable from LA and SD toward Kemp’s salary on an annual basis thru 2019. Those payments may well have carried through in subsequent trades of Kemp including to the Reds.

Without the contract language, and the specific trade terms, I can’t be sure.

I doubt that when a team agrees to kick in money to move a player, the dollars ever actually follow the player where ever he goes.

It would make zero difference to the payor, and there is no logical reason why the payee would want it structured that way.

It seems almost certain that Reds are on the hook for all of a Kemp’s salary this year, and the Dodgers sent $7M their way to help. That money doesn’t somehow attach itself to Kemp.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Kc61]

I doubt that when a team agrees to kick in money to move a player, the dollars ever actually follow the player where ever he goes.

It would make zero difference to the payor, and there is no logical reason why the payee would want it structured that way.

It seems almost certain that Reds are on the hook for all of a Kemp’s salary this year, and the Dodgers sent $7M their way to help. That money doesn’t somehow attach itself to Kemp.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

We’re not talking outright cash payments. We’re talking an agreement to “pay $3M of Kemp’s salary annually through 2019.” That latter type agreement should continue through 2019 even if the player is traded again.

The acquirer would want that payment obligation to follow Kemp’s contract because it’s an asset that increases Kemp’s value. No reason that asset should disappear on a subsequent trade.

When Kemp was a Brave, it was reported that he was being paid by “three different teams.” The Dodgers, Padres, and Braves. That’s the result of this type agreement. Business Insider, 10/31/17.

[HammerTime]

I don’t think those cash payments follow the player. They simply are an agreement to pay team X $ amount every year. So the Reds owe Kemp $21.5M in 2019. The Dodgers sent $7M in cash as part of the trade that the Reds can do whatever they want with. It works to bring down Kemp’s salary from the Reds perspective, but if traded he is still owed the remainder of his $21.5M less whatever the reds kick in.

This is correct.

[mamell]

As of this moment in ST Winker isn't hitting MY weight and I'm a skinny guy. That may change and he might start hammering the ball left and right, but what if last year's injury ruined him or he just has a terrible season? Then what? Dump Kemp and keep Billy Hamilton 2.0 without the speed nor defense? I see a very good reason to keep Kemp this season unless he too falls off the cliff.

[Kc61]

This is correct.

One last article on this, from four days ago, Redleg Nation: “While he’s [Kemp’s] owed $21 million this season, the Dodgers and Padres are both paying a portion of that money.”

Very good article on the subject of whether Reds should trade Kemp BTW.

https://redlegnation.com/2019/03/12/...ade-matt-kemp/

[Kingspoint]

Is it sticky?

No, but I heard you can get two fives for a Finnegan.

[Frank Robinson]

I'm pretty sure folks ain't gettin' their head wrapped around the fact that the Reds are only going to keep 4 OFs on their 25 man. Of course one will be Ervin, who I think deserves the chance to play - somewhere but someone else is leaving, whether to another team or to Luvul.

As John Wayne once said "which'll it be?"

[M2]

I'm pretty sure folks ain't gettin' their head wrapped around the fact that the Reds are only going to keep 4 OFs on their 25 man. Of course one will be Ervin, who I think deserves the chance to play - somewhere but someone else is leaving, whether to another team or to Luvul.

As John Wayne once said "which'll it be?"

Do not bet future children on this.

[HammerTime]

I'm pretty sure folks ain't gettin' their head wrapped around the fact that the Reds are only going to keep 4 OFs on their 25 man. Of course one will be Ervin, who I think deserves the chance to play - somewhere but someone else is leaving, whether to another team or to Luvul.

As John Wayne once said "which'll it be?"

Ervin is not making the team.