Jump to content

Trade Trumbo to the Dodgers for Kemp, Prospects and Cash

NCRaven

By NCRaven
in Orioles Talk

Recommended Posts

NCRaven Hangout Grand Counsel

NCRaven

Posted
Posted

The Dodgers have had no takers for Kemp and are trying to add a prospect or two to get someone to bite.  So, give them Trumbo, get back two prospects and cash to make up the difference.  Either play Kemp at DH or just cut him loose.

What prospects would it take to make that happen?  How much cash would we need to get back?  Given the number of trades (3) of Kemp's contract that have already occurred, I have no idea how much a new team would owe him in the first place.

  • Replies 44
  • Created
  • Last Reply
Can_of_corn Hangout Grand Counsel

Can_of_corn

Posted
Posted
6 minutes ago, clapdiddy said:

What would the Dodgers do with Trumbo?

 

The only reason would be if it freed up more money that they could spend this year and stay under the luxury tax threshold.

 

NCRaven Hangout Grand Counsel

NCRaven

Posted
  • Author
Posted
Just now, Can_of_corn said:

The only reason would be if it freed up more money that they could spend this year and stay under the luxury tax threshold.

That ain't going to happen if they send cash back.

I’m sure we wouldn’t get the full difference between Kemp’s and Trumbo’s contract.  We’d be buying the prospects so the value of those players would come into consideration.  The Dodgers would get more cash to spend this year at the cost of  two prospects.  

I assume that that they would simply cut Trumbo much like Atlanta did Gonzales.

Can_of_corn Hangout Grand Counsel

Can_of_corn

Posted
Posted
Just now, Aristotelian said:

What would we do with Kemp? We would be getting rid of Trumbo's contract in exchange for eating a worse one.

You would DFA him.

Or put him at DH.  I think he could very well outperform Trumbo with the bat next year.

 

NCRaven Hangout Grand Counsel

NCRaven

Posted
  • Author
Posted
2 minutes ago, RZNJ said:

Matt Kemp is owed 43.5M over the next two year but the Dodgers and Padres, from prior trades, are already picking up 12M of that.    So essentially, whatever team trades for him owes him 31.5M over two years.   Trumbo is owed 26M over the next two yeas.    If you trade Trumbo fo Kemp the Dodgers save about 3M this year and 2M next year.    The Dodgers might do it but you ain't getting any prospect back.

What does $5 million cash buy you in prospects?

Ruzious Hangout Grand Counsel

Ruzious

Posted
Posted
26 minutes ago, RZNJ said:

Matt Kemp is owed 43.5M over the next two year but the Dodgers and Padres, from prior trades, are already picking up 12M of that.    So essentially, whatever team trades for him owes him 31.5M over two years.   Trumbo is owed 26M over the next two yeas.    If you trade Trumbo fo Kemp the Dodgers save about 3M this year and 2M next year.    The Dodgers might do it but you ain't getting any prospect back.

Good analysis.  I'm just wondering if the Dodgers would get luxury tax savings.  Not knowing what the rules are - If the Dodgers keep Kemp this year and next - is it the 43.5M (over 2 years) that counts against their cap, or is it the 31.5M?  If it's the 43.5M, would they save another chunk o money by trading him?  

Redskins Rick Hangout Grand Counsel

Redskins Rick

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, RZNJ said:

They only really cared about going over it this year.   I think if you go over it 3 years in a row you get a 50% tax on whatever you go over it the next year.   Staying under it this year means they only have to pay a 20% surcharge next year when Harper and Machado are free agents.    I think that's right but anyone feel free to correct me.   As for what kind of prospect we could get for saving the Dodgers 5M, I'd say not much.   Certainly not a top ten guy.  

Quote

From 2012 through 2016, teams who exceed the threshold for the first time must pay 17.5% of the amount they are over, 30% for the second consecutive year over, 40% for the third consecutive year over, and 50% for four or more consecutive years over the cap.[4]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luxury_tax_(sports)

 

Ruzious Hangout Grand Counsel

Ruzious

Posted
Posted
Just now, RZNJ said:

They only really cared about going over it this year.   I think if you go over it 3 years in a row you get a 50% tax on whatever you go over it the next year.   Staying under it this year means they only have to pay a 20% surcharge next year when Harper and Machado are free agents.    I think that's right but anyone feel free to correct me.   As for what kind of prospect we could get for saving the Dodgers 5M, I'd say not much.   Certainly not a top ten guy.  

Thanks for that explanation.  I've been totally clueless on how the baseball lux tax works.  I guess the system can be worked when one team is well below the tax, and the other is in it but has some maneuvarability.  Might as well see if the O's can take advantage of that - especially when the players are somewhat similar.  

theocean Major Leaguer

theocean

Posted
Posted
42 minutes ago, RZNJ said:

Matt Kemp is owed 43.5M over the next two year but the Dodgers and Padres, from prior trades, are already picking up 12M of that.    So essentially, whatever team trades for him owes him 31.5M over two years.   Trumbo is owed 26M over the next two yeas.    If you trade Trumbo fo Kemp the Dodgers save about 3M this year and 2M next year.    The Dodgers might do it but you ain't getting any prospect back.

Exactly - you aren't getting back a prospect for that small difference in cash. I can see a team that has money but still rebuilding - like the Phillies - take on Kemp for prospects. 

But, trading Kemp for Trumbo is kind of a lateral move.

sportsfan8703 Hangout Grand Counsel

sportsfan8703

Posted
Posted
10 minutes ago, theocean said:

Exactly - you aren't getting back a prospect for that small difference in cash. I can see a team that has money but still rebuilding - like the Phillies - take on Kemp for prospects. 

But, trading Kemp for Trumbo is kind of a lateral move.

We need to find some kind of creative move to get some SP.  With the price of relievers, is O'day looking like that bad of a contract now?  Maybe he's only overpaid by 2-3 million. 

 

Can_of_corn Hangout Grand Counsel

Can_of_corn

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, sportsfan8703 said:

We need to find some kind of creative move to get some SP.  With the price of relievers, is O'day looking like that bad of a contract now?  Maybe he's only overpaid by 2-3 million. 

 

Remember O'Day has a no trade clause and with his wife's job will probably only be willing to go to a limited number of teams.

sportsfan8703 Hangout Grand Counsel

sportsfan8703

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

Remember O'Day has a no trade clause and with his wife's job will probably only be willing to go to a limited number of teams.

Good point.  It's probably Nats or nothing.   We are in a place where we are far away from making the playoffs, but yet have no flexibility. 

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing


  • Posts

    • Pickles
      Orioles 2027 Payroll Projection

      By Pickles · Posted

      This is true, but the problem remains if you sign some guy to a 7 year contract, while that money might be palatable in 2026, it could quickly grow not so in the upcoming years.  Obviously, if you could sign Burnes for 1/2 years you'd do it; but that isn't really an option.
    • Pickles
      Orioles 2027 Payroll Projection

      By Pickles · Posted

      What happened in the 2nd half w Adley is puzzling. I would say however that 17 mill in 2027 should be more like 10% of the payroll, so far more palatable than 20%.
    • bpilktree67
      Orioles 2027 Payroll Projection

      By bpilktree67 · Posted

      You have to look at payroll in context though thinking 3 years in advance compared to what league average will be with revenue increasing.  This is league average payroll.   2019 112 million 2020 58 million but was Covid year. 2021 120 million 2022 134 million 2023  150 million 2024 156 million So league average is up 36 million 4 years.  If it keeps around that pace league average should be over 180 million so that 100 million would be little over half of league average payroll.  
    • Tryptamine
      Trades

      By Tryptamine · Posted

      This is drastically underestimating Paredes
    • Safelykept
      Trades

      By Safelykept · Posted

      they did not. 2 big moves so far, bring in Fried and Williams, but lose Holmes anf Cortez, Not to mention Soto. Oblivious there not yet but as it stands now they are not as good. and god forbid Stanton regresses or Judge gets hurt. 
    • interloper
      Orioles 2027 Payroll Projection

      By interloper · Posted

      I think if you're going to spike the payroll this is the year to do it, with so much potentially coming back off next year.
    • Just Regular
      Orioles 2027 Payroll Projection

      By Just Regular · Posted

      Elias spending the $25M early, Roster Resource has us at $122M tonight, 19th in MLB. If we close Burnes, we hit 13th for a minute.    Any AAV between 29 and 44 lands us between SFG at $167M and BOS at $150M. That'd just be a momentary crest - we land Burnes to make $65M in new 2025 salary and we're near done while most of the Top 50 free agents still have jobs to get. But to the OP point, that'd set us at ~$160 with all the studs the cheapest they'll ever be again in 2025.    We will get to reconfigure about $35M next winter when Eflin, Mullins and Sanchez walk, and of course there's the calculation/hope O'Neill plays well enough to opt out. I do think the O's financial analysts deserve a little credit for finding a contract balance where the CLUB is hoping the player opts out too.

  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...