What would it take: Matt Kemp

[Bark's Lounge]

To start out, I am not advocating for the Twins to trade for Matt Kemp, this thread is meant for conversation/debate/whatever.

 

It has been mentioned on this site numerous times in the last month or so about the Twins trying to trade for Matt Kemp. What would it take? This trade scenario between the Twins and Dodgers could come in all shapes and forms. Do the Twins take on his contract and give up lesser prospects? Do the Twins take on a portion of his salary and give up decent pieces (major or minor league) to make Matt Kemp a Twin?

 

I like Matt Kemp, He is a very good player. I liked his bounce back this year after 1.5 seasons lost due to injury, he can definitely be a dynamic player, maybe he even he has a superstar season or two left in his tank offensively... one can never tell.

 

Kemp does come with some baggage - he is not a centerfielder anymore, but from what I have read, he seems to be reluctant to move to a corner OF position and he is at this point in time an injury concern, maybe the injuries will not play a part going forward, but it definitely has to weigh on the minds of the party considering acquiring him.

 

Matt Kemp can be a difference maker, but I would not be willing to give up Buxton, Sano or even Berrios to acquire him. I do however see Kemp as a semi-buy low player right now, I don't know what that would take prospect or player wise, but I definitely would send out some inquiries.

 

What do you Twins Daily members think?

[Rosterman]

The Dodgers are in a position of having a minor need to cut salary from the outfield, be it Kemp or Crawford. Kemp has some longterm baggage, especially if he is injury prone, and for that reason alone he IS a big gamble and the Dodgers WILL have to pay something to another team.

 

If the Twins need to include a prospect, it does have to be someone who has a major league upside, a definite possibility, although the Twins MIGHT be able ti put a Max Kepler into the equation. But that is a huge gamble on the part of the Dodgers. I would be totally unwilling to give up ANY of the top flight starting prospects, be it Berrios or Stewart or May or Meyer. Not sure if you can throw the names of Thorpe or Eades out there, still too young. And I doubt that Logan Darnell would cause ripples in the world of L.A.

 

A given major league guy could add to the mess. Escobar, for example. Maybe Nolasco (doubtful, but would be a dream). You could dangle Hicks, who does have promise. That would be an equal gamble on the part of the Dodgers.

 

I have always liked Kemp, but he is expensive. I would want to make sure he is totally healthy. I would trade Hicks, Thorpe, maybe a catcher like Koch or Turner, and I would expect L.A. to eat at least half of the remaining salary.

[USAFChief]

A different GM?

[Bark's Lounge]

A different GM?

With all due respect on this matter Chief, I think you are in the wrong. We need a new dungeon master in on this matter and I have all of my twenty sided die waxed up and ready to tumble.

[diehardtwinsfan]

I think it takes less than Kepler.  LA has 5 OFs for 3 spots, 3 of which are under contract, and the best 2 are the cheap ones.  Kemp can be had by anyone willing to pay has contract.  I don't think that will cost Kepler, b/c I don't see a bidding war. 

[gunnarthor]

Does Kemp have 10/5 rights yet?  If so, he can veto any trade to MN.  (He might also have a no-trade clause).

 

I don't hate Kemp but at 107m over the next five years, I don't think he's a good bet for us. 

 

As to what it would take, i think that depends on LA.  Is this a salary dump where the Twins take 80% of his salary?  Then I think it wouldn't take much.  Maybe some bullpen help and a B prospect.  But if they want value for him I think they wouldn't move him without a top 5 prospect in our system + more.  LA fans aren't just going to let the FO let him go for nothing. He's pretty darn popular there.  

[Willihammer]

Does Kemp have 10/5 rights yet?  If so, he can veto any trade to MN.  (He might also have a no-trade clause).

Per an anonymous google source, he doesn't have a NT clause and his 10/5 goes into effect after next season.

[Willihammer]

Kemp is too good for the Dodgers to part with IMO, esp. if they lose Hanley. I think they'll end up keeping Ethier and Crawford for lack of interest, and deal one/both of Schebler/Pederson instead.

[minnesota transplant]

This team is still in transission, we dont need ahead problem or a superstar on a team that is possibly 2-3 years fron contention..just saying.  By the way, read a while back that someone suggested that Twins should just throw out the kids now and let them learn on the run.  I wholeheartuly agree!  What in the world do you have to lose?  It cant be worse than the last 4 years.

[nicksaviking]

Per an anonymous google source, he doesn't have a NT clause and his 10/5 goes into effect after next season.

 

I heard he had a limited no trade clause in so far as his b#$!*ing and moaning would be less limited to teams depending on the media exposure they have available to him.

[Mike Sixel]

They need a SS........Escobar, and the Dodgers eat 1/3 to 1/2 the salary. How's that? Assuming they want him gone, if they don't want him gone, he's not going for any reasonable price.

 

I'd keep him, and move him to LF, and put Pederson in CF.