Fangraphs: Buy a Prospect

[weams]

https://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/the-market-is-ripe-for-someone-to-buy-a-prospect/

Quote

And here we can move on to the real point of this. We know the Yankees are trying to stay under the threshold. We know the Dodgers are also trying to stay under the threshold. Both teams could afford to exceed said threshold, because both teams pull in unbelievable revenue, but this is the reality in which we find ourselves. Both teams have decided that staying under the soft cap is the best long-term decision. It’s a near guarantee they’re going to hold themselves to that. Both teams would still like to get better. In order to do so, money would have to be shed. The most obvious contract the Yankees would like to lose belongs to Jacoby Ellsbury, who’s due about another $68 million. The most obvious contract the Dodgers would like to lose belongs to Matt Kemp, who’s due about another $43 million.

 

 

[tntoriole]

So...this article talks about and even mentions us and Kemp.  Suggesting someone like Yadier Alvarez or Wilmer Font would come with him.   The question always though revolves around how much of the 43 million of Kemps deal they would eat  and how much prospect they would send.  

No way the Dodgers send Font or Alvarez no matter if you take on the whole deal.  And Kemp here would likely mean Trumbo in right.  Or maybe Kemp could play left and Mancini or Trumbo in right.   Yuck. 

[atomic]

49 minutes ago, tntoriole said:

So...this article talks about and even mentions us and Kemp.  Suggesting someone like Yadier Alvarez or Wilmer Font would come with him.   The question always though revolves around how much of the 43 million of Kemps deal they would eat  and how much prospect they would send.  

No way the Dodgers send Font or Alvarez no matter if you take on the whole deal.  And Kemp here would likely mean Trumbo in right.  Or maybe Kemp could play left and Mancini or Trumbo in right.   Yuck. 

You could DFA Kemp after the deal.  But it would cost you 42 million.   Not sure too many prospects are worth 42 million.   Also no way Angelo's would go for it.   I could see him willing to trade a prospect to get rid of Trumbo though.

[Redskins Rick]

2 hours ago, weams said:

https://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/the-market-is-ripe-for-someone-to-buy-a-prospect/

 

I thought it was only wanting to stay under the cap this season, since the cap penalties escalate, each time a team breaks the cap mark. Staying under, resets the penalties.

[FanSince88]

I would like to see us do something like this but doubt we will.  It's a nice shortcut to immediately improving your farm system and rookies without selling off any assets.  

Kind of sucks that the prospect himself doesn't see any of that money, even though they are for all intents and purposes being bought.  

[theocean]

2 hours ago, cimota said:

You could DFA Kemp after the deal.  But it would cost you 42 million.   Not sure too many prospects are worth 42 million.   Also no way Angelo's would go for it.   I could see him willing to trade a prospect to get rid of Trumbo though.

Yeah - kind of the entire point of prospects is that they are cheap. If you have to spend $42 million to get a prospect, they aren't really cheap anymore.

[FanSince88]

7 minutes ago, theocean said:

Yeah - kind of the entire point of prospects is that they are cheap. If you have to spend $42 million to get a prospect, they aren't really cheap anymore.

But with six years of controllability, buying one of the Dodgers prospects would essentially amount to a 6/42 deal.  Which is pretty darn cheap in this day and age!  (ok, I guess you'd have to do arbitration and whatnot if the prospect is good but you do that anyway with native prospects).  

[weams]

11 minutes ago, theocean said:

Yeah - kind of the entire point of prospects is that they are cheap. If you have to spend $42 million to get a prospect, they aren't really cheap anymore.

Sure. You get some of that money back though. From the Dodgers. Or you send them Trumbo. 

[MatthewW]

This idea of buying prospects has been brought up in the past. And to me, it never made any sort of sense... Until this year. The big boys staying under the tax threshold seems to be very real. I have thought all through this off-season that it would be a better use of resources to see what kind of prospects you can attached to Ellsbury, Kemp, Pence (if hed waive his NTC), etc. 

Are the Giants so desperate to get under that they'd move Belt and Melancon (NTC obstacle) and a prospect (LHP Suarez???) for Chris Davis and some warm body RP to fill in for Melancon? Total $$$ would be virtually the same going out, and the Giants would save around $9M this year, and $9M in 2019 towards lux tax... while the Orioles get out of Davis' contract virtually 2 years early and pick up a close to MLB ready SP.

This is the only type of deal I could see the Orioles making IMO, where the money evens out, but beneficial to the other team in terms of immediately saving luxury tax space. The Orioles won't spend $1M on an international free agent, and I just can't see Angelos approving a deal to add significant salaries of Ellsbury, kemp, etc

[weams]

2 hours ago, FanSince88 said:

I would like to see us do something like this but doubt we will.  It's a nice shortcut to immediately improving your farm system and rookies without selling off any assets.  

Kind of sucks that the prospect himself doesn't see any of that money, even though they are for all intents and purposes being bought.  

How so?  Help me understand why they should get something? Other than a shot with a team. Minor leaguers have no real value until they make it to the 40 man. 

[sportsfan8703]

On 2/2/2018 at 8:51 AM, cimota said:

You could DFA Kemp after the deal.  But it would cost you 42 million.   Not sure too many prospects are worth 42 million.   Also no way Angelo's would go for it.   I could see him willing to trade a prospect to get rid of Trumbo though.

Our MO is to trade comp picks to get rid of salaries. We traded top 75 overall picks to get rid of Webb and Matusz In B2B years.  

[weams]

20 minutes ago, sportsfan8703 said:

Our MO is to trade comp picks to get rid of salaries. We traded top 75 overall picks to get rid of Webb and Matusz In B2B years.  

It's a shame that our payroll was so constrained to have to do that to attempt to contend. Shame that it is Baltimore and the peak years for the Os coincided with so many issues regionally.

Imagine there's no Nationals. It isn't hard to do. No one killed or rioted for.  No Super Bowls too. 

Imagine all the seats filled.  Nah. That rarely happened in Baltimore.