Should the white sox buy a prospect?

[Dominikk85]

Suggestion on fangraphs

https://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/the-market-...spect/#comments

 

The white sox don't have unlimited money but the next 2-3 years the payroll is so low that they could take on 20-30m per year the next 2 years and still have one of the lower payrolls.

 

Several teams like the yankees, dodgers, giants and red sox are approaching the tax threshold and might like to stay under the tax.

 

You are not getting a top50 prospect probably, but a lower level top100 prospect (maybe an older one or one with some risk) might very well be possible.

 

So why not take on matt kemps contract and get back a 50fv and maybe a 40 on top as a bonus?

[wrathofhahn]

Seems like it was wrote by a dodgers fan. Front? Really? Try again.

 

Also if you aren't getting back someone in the top 50 plus another intriguing prospect outside the top 100 you better be getting back a bunch of intriguing prospects. For example the guy I'd want in their system would be Alvarez.

 

If not Alvarez it would have to be something like Ruiz, Heredia, Brito and Marinan.

Edited February 2, 2018 by wrathofhahn

[Bob Sacamano]

Seems like it was wrote by a dodgers fan. Front? Really? Try again.

 

Also if you aren't getting back someone in the top 50 plus another intriguing prospect outside the top 100 you better be getting back a bunch of intriguing prospects. For example the guy I'd want in their system would be Alvarez.

 

If not Alvarez it would have to be something like Ruiz, Heredia, Brito and Marinan.

 

As someone pointed out, there hasn't really hasn't been too many of these moves where there were big prospects. I think you have to use that Touki Toussaint deal as a guideline. I believe he was trade for only one year of Arroyo and Kemp is making me more annually. So it should definitely be worth more than him unless like you said, we get multiple intriguing guys.

[wrathofhahn]

Just going off the Moss deal as a baseline you'd probably at best be looking at a one year 5 million ish deal for Kemp. He is making 38.5 million over the next two years. Thats 33 million worth of excess cost.

 

If you aren't going to get a good package for taking on the cost of Kemp I'd rather them just focus on other areas bring in someone like Duda on an one year deal and hope he hits for you then move him at the deadline.

 

Bringing it back to Moss that trade that Oakland pulled off for a reliever arm is a smaller deal we could be targeting like we did with Soria. We don't sort of need to take on a commitment like Kemp to get a decent prospect or interesting ML arm back like Front. If it's Kemp we should and would demand more much more.

Edited February 2, 2018 by wrathofhahn

[Bob Sacamano]

If the Dodgers want to get creative to add Darvish and stay under the luxury tax to reset their penalty to spend big next year, couldn't a team take Kemp and pay his full 2018 salary and then have the Dodgers send like $15 mill to help cover his 2019 salary? Or take on a bad contract that is hitting luxury tax insignificant as Kemp? For example: Shields makes $21 mill this year but is annual average salary is what hits, which would be about $18.5 mill (I come out to this number because I am unsure how it is calculated with an option year so I left it off).

 

Edit: I know that's not a great example since they wouldn't save a lot but an idea of what the Dodgers could do with someone else.

Edited February 2, 2018 by soxfan2014

[wrathofhahn]

As someone pointed out, there hasn't really hasn't been too many of these moves where there were big prospects. I think you have to use that Touki Toussaint deal as a guideline. I believe he was trade for only one year of Arroyo and Kemp is making me more annually. So it should definitely be worth more than him unless like you said, we get multiple intriguing guys.

 

Yeah the Liriano deal for me sort of stands out. The Blue Jays got two fringy top 100 guys for eating Liriano deal but Liriano had value and was only making 18 million over 2 versus like I said Kemp being owed 38 million (lower figure then salary bc 5 million paid by padres). I said in my other post at best 5 million and really thats probably pretty optimistic regarding what he could get in FA right now.

 

I have no idea Liriano value (contract wise) at the time of the trade. I do know the Blue Jays were able to move him later and get some interesting guys back as well from Houston without eating any of his contract. That won't happen with Kemp.

 

https://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2016/08/blue...co-liriano.html

Edited February 2, 2018 by wrathofhahn

[Chicago White Sox]

I’m all for buying prospects. We practically have zero commitments beyond next season. Adding a portion of say Matt Kemp’s salary over the next two years won’t impact our ability to be major players in free agency from a dollars standpoint. The real challenge we face however is that helping out the Dodgers (or Yankees) makes them stronger competitors in next year’s free agent bonanza. Given that adding a Manny Machado type will already be an uphill battle, I think any deal where we take on a bad contract from a big spender will require a premium prospect return.

[BlackSox13]

I like the idea and in theory it's pretty sound. However, Hahn has been very shrewd in his trades which leads me to believe Hahn's asking price in a deal for Kemp would be more than the Dodgers are willing to pay. The Dodgers are more desperate to trade Kemp than the White Sox are for prospects and Hahn would surely exploit that.

[Bob Sacamano]

I’m all for buying prospects. We practically have zero commitments beyond next season. Adding a portion of say Matt Kemp’s salary over the next two years won’t impact our ability to be major players in free agency from a dollars standpoint. The real challenge we face however is that helping out the Dodgers (or Yankees) makes them stronger competitors in next year’s free agent bonanza. Given that adding a Manny Machado type will already be an uphill battle, I think any deal where we take on a bad contract from a big spender will require a premium prospect return.

 

While I think the Dodgers could certainly sign Machado (just need to shuffle guys around, Seager to 2B?), I think they'd be more likely to go after Harper. And yeah, I would rather pay the 2 years of Kemp instead of the 3 years of Ellsbury anyway. Yankees would have to give up something great for us to help them.

Edited February 2, 2018 by soxfan2014

[Dominikk85]

Seems like it was wrote by a dodgers fan. Front? Really? Try again.

 

Also if you aren't getting back someone in the top 50 plus another intriguing prospect outside the top 100 you better be getting back a bunch of intriguing prospects. For example the guy I'd want in their system would be Alvarez.

 

If not Alvarez it would have to be something like Ruiz, Heredia, Brito and Marinan.

 

Top 50 AND another interesting prospect is unrealistic but I agree about font.jeff loves him for some reason.

 

I think a real (but fringy) top100 and a filler would be a realistic return, don't want a 27 year old who dominated AAA. Must be a real prospect.

 

Alvarez would be perfect but then you absolute don't get any second guy of course.

[GenericUserName]

Top 50 AND another interesting prospect is unrealistic but I agree about font.jeff loves him for some reason.

 

I think a real (but fringy) top100 and a filler would be a realistic return, don't want a 27 year old who dominated AAA. Must be a real prospect.

 

Alvarez would be perfect but then you absolute don't get any second guy of course.

Alvarez had fallen off the top100 and his stock is pretty down right now. If we target him, you could also probably get another guy from the back of their top 30 pretty easily.

[wrathofhahn]

Alvarez had fallen off the top100 and his stock is pretty down right now. If we target him, you could also probably get another guy from the back of their top 30 pretty easily.

 

He's still a top 100 prospect his stuff is electric but yeah he probably falls a little after last year. A bunch of their guys took steps back but they still have some really young guys who could be part of a 2nd wave (or all flame out entirely). Heredia. Brito. Merinan.

 

What impresses me most isn't who they have at the top but the guys 15-30. Most of our guys are already advanced with very little upside. Their guys could rise to the ranks of the top 100 in a couple of years.

 

I'm also not sure what the market is right now doesn't seem like there are any other teams willing to take on a contract of Kemps size.

Edited February 2, 2018 by wrathofhahn

[GenericUserName]

He's still a top 100 prospect his stuff is electric but yeah he probably falls a little after last year. A bunch of their guys took steps back but they still have some really young guys who could be part of a 2nd wave (or all flame out entirely). Heredia. Brito. Merinan.

 

What impresses me most isn't who they have at the top but the guys 15-30. Most of our guys are already advanced with very little upside. Their guys could rise to the ranks of the top 100 in a couple of years.

 

I'm also not sure what the market is right now doesn't seem like there are any other teams willing to take on a contract of Kemps size.

Alvarez is off both the BA and mlbpipeline new top 100 and is #5 in the dodgers BA top 10. I think people are really concerned about his control, so he's a perfect project for the White Sox!

And I really want the new top 30 for the dodgers to come out because on the 2017 list, I like basically all their guys from like 23 down 30.

[oneofthemikes]

Lets ask for Alvarez and Jake Peter!

[Dick Allen]

The prospect they get for taking Kemp better be really, really good. It would be $43 million they can't spend on other guys including Manny Machado.

 

 

[Bob Sacamano]

The prospect they get for taking Kemp better be really, really good. It would be $43 million they can't spend on other guys including Manny Machado.

 

Have the Dodgers kick in half his salary for 2019. It's a work around I see where the Dodgers stay under the luxury tax this year to be able to reset their penalties to extend Kershaw and sign Harper if they want and sign Darvish for 2018 and beyond.

Edited February 2, 2018 by soxfan2014

[Balta1701]

Have the Dodgers kick in half his salary for 2019. It's a work around I see where the Dodgers stay under the luxury tax this year to be able to reset their penalties to extend Kershaw and sign Harper if they want and sign Darvish for 2018 and beyond.

IIRC there are rules somewhere stating that if you chip in salary it gets spread out across the deal when counted for tax purposes.

[Sarava]

Unless the prospect coming back is a Luis Robert caliber prospect (and it won't be), then the Sox should pass. Save their money for next winter.

[Balta1701]

The prospect they get for taking Kemp better be really, really good. It would be $43 million they can't spend on other guys including Manny Machado.

 

 

Unless the prospect coming back is a Luis Robert caliber prospect (and it won't be), then the Sox should pass. Save their money for next winter.

That's kinda where I'm at too. The idea is great in theory, but the Dodgers or Yankees would need to move so much salary to us for it to make sense that they're not going to give up the prospect we want. If the Yankees wanted us to take on all Ellsbury's remaining deal, that is $69 million. He's not a worthless player, but he's basically worthless to us, the only reason we would do that is to get the prospect. If Robert is a $50 million cost, name a player on the Yankees org worth more than that and you get to "guys they won't give up".

 

It might make more sense for the Dodgers, but the Dodgers don't have the right caliber of prospects in their system to pull this off save one or two guys.

[Harry Chappas]

That's kinda where I'm at too. The idea is great in theory, but the Dodgers or Yankees would need to move so much salary to us for it to make sense that they're not going to give up the prospect we want. If the Yankees wanted us to take on all Ellsbury's remaining deal, that is $69 million. He's not a worthless player, but he's basically worthless to us, the only reason we would do that is to get the prospect. If Robert is a $50 million cost, name a player on the Yankees org worth more than that and you get to "guys they won't give up".

 

It might make more sense for the Dodgers, but the Dodgers don't have the right caliber of prospects in their system to pull this off save one or two guys.

 

The question is, does the prospect that's getting moved equate to the tax savings and the FA signing.

 

 

[Buehrle>Wood]

Trading a prospect for 25-30 million dollar defeats a lot of the purpose of prospects. The lower rated you go the more true that is.

[southsider2k5]

A guy like Kemp would be off of the books before we would be spending in any real amount again anyway.

[Bob Sacamano]

A guy like Kemp would be off of the books before we would be spending in any real amount again anyway.

 

And the payroll will be low in 2019 (subtract Shields contract) anyway to the point where it shouldn't effect adding someone like Machado if you were willing to pay the price for him.

[southsider2k5]

And the payroll will be low in 2019 (subtract Shields contract) anyway to the point where it shouldn't effect adding someone like Machado if you were willing to pay the price for him.

 

Realistically, even if you took on a guy like Jacoby Ellsbury who runs through 2020 with a buyout, you are still going to have so many pre-arb guys on the roster, that it won't stop you from signing a Machado. That will be because of a different story.

 

Again, I'd rather have as much depth as possible to insulate against needing free agents whenever possible.

[Sarava]

A guy like Kemp would be off of the books before we would be spending in any real amount again anyway.

 

For starters - it looks to me like he has 2 years left on his deal? So we're conceding that they aren't even trying for a free agent in next year's big free agent class?

 

Also, even if it were off the books, the money is still spent. $40 million is still $40 mil. It's going to eventually come out of something. The Sox don't have an infinite amount of money to spend.