Trade Trumbo to the Dodgers for Kemp, Prospects and Cash

[NCRaven]

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.

[clapdiddy]

What would the Dodgers do with Trumbo?

 

[Can_of_corn]

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.

 

[Roll Tide]

7 minutes ago, clapdiddy said:

What would the Dodgers do with Trumbo?

 

They are trying to dump payroll to get under the luxury tax. 

[NCRaven]

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.

[Aristotelian]

9 minutes ago, clapdiddy said:

What would the Dodgers do with Trumbo?

 

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

[Can_of_corn]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.