Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity
On Twitter: AdamKilgoreWP and PostSports  |  Facebook  |  E-mail alerts: Sports and Redskins  |  RSS

Nationals would have interest in Matt Kemp

The Nationals would have interest in targeting Los Angeles Dodgers center fielder Matt Kemp in a trade if the Dodgers make him available, according to a baseball source. Their potential interest in Kemp and other outfielders on the free agent market shows the Nationals may be open to a creative solution should they not re-sign first baseman Adam Dunn.

If the Nationals acquire an outfielder, they could use the player for one of two purposes. They could simply upgrade their outfield, which ranked 25th in the majors with a .720 OPS. Or, they could move either Josh Willingham or Michael Morse from a corner outfield spot to first base in the event they do not sign Dunn or a comparable first baseman in free agency.

Apparent discord between Kemp and the Dodgers has made it seem possible Kemp could be had in a trade. Dodgers General Manager Ned Colleti has told reporters he would not actively shop Kemp but would listen to offers.

While appearing in all 162 games this season, Kemp hit .249/.310/.450 (average/on-base/slugging), all career lows. While Kemp played 158 games in center field, his skills may be better suited for left - his -24.3 UZR ranked last among all outfielders.

By Adam Kilgore  | October 9, 2010; 11:44 AM ET
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Stan Kasten's final news conference: the highlights
Next: Bryce Harper heads home, for now, as Arizona Fall League begins


Does Kemp have a reputation as a malcontent? The Dodgers GM seems to be fed up with him but you can bet he'll will want something substantial in return.

Posted by: bupbups | October 9, 2010 12:10 PM | Report abuse

Ladson claims the Nats, if they don't re-sign Dunn, might be looking to move Willingham to 1st and replace him with an outfielder via trade or FA.

But he says any team looking to trade would likely want Desmond and/or Zimmermann. If that's the price, I wouldn't do it. Over time, there are a lot more outfielders around than there are infielders who can hit for average and with occasional power, or starting pitchers.

Besides, if anybody were to get moved from the OF to 1B I would have expected it to be Morse. Is the Willingham talk related to his knee?

Posted by: Meridian1 | October 9, 2010 12:11 PM | Report abuse

Smoke screen. Smoke screen. Smoke screen. Anti MLBTradeRumors smoke screen. Ignore.

Posted by: periculum | October 9, 2010 1:02 PM | Report abuse


Posted by: dclance | October 9, 2010 1:29 PM | Report abuse

Kemp definitely needs a change of scenery. For evidence that playing for the Dodgers this year was fairly miserable look no further than Joe Torre's early resignation. That's one messed up organization.

Kemp a malcontent? Absolutely not.
Kemp an exceptional athlete? Oh yeah.

I'd love him here, suggested so in July, no doubt the Dodgers need to cut payroll, and Kemp can definitely be had.

Posted by: Sunderland | October 9, 2010 2:03 PM | Report abuse

As a replacement for Dunn? Bad idea. As a replacement for Nyjer Morgan? GREAT idea! What's Kemp's salary? This may be a necessary move for the divorce court, and a trade could be made relatively cheaply, similar to the Willingham/Bonifacio deal.

As an aside, they are supposedly reluctant to resign Dunn because of defense, but would move Willingham to 1b? Somebody's not telling the truth.

Posted by: raymitten | October 9, 2010 2:18 PM | Report abuse

Dodgers fan here. "The Nationals would have interest in targeting Matt Kemp", as would about 28 other teams. Kemp is one of two legitimate power hitters in the entire Dodgers organization. At a minimum it would take Ramos plus a major-league ready quality starting pitcher or power hitter. Having said that, the Dodgers GM has made plenty of foolish trades so anything is possible, but it seems highly unlikely to me. The Dodgers will be a better team next year with Torre gone and they need Kemp.

Posted by: nb47 | October 9, 2010 2:30 PM | Report abuse

With all of the McCourts' untidiness, do they really want to be Un-Kempt, as well?

Posted by: Drew8 | October 9, 2010 3:38 PM | Report abuse

Kemp would be an upgrade from Willie Harris or Justin Maxwell. Not for anybody else in the Nats' outfield.

Posted by: bertbkatz | October 9, 2010 3:46 PM | Report abuse

All: Kemp is signed w/LAD through 2011 ($4.0M in 2010), so unless McCourt starts dumping salary immediately, I don't see him as being available in the off-season.
Sorry, Sunderland.

Posted by: BinM | October 9, 2010 4:28 PM | Report abuse

BinM, players under contract don't get traded? I don't understand.

And, the Dodgers ARE interested in dumping salary. McCourt is broke, & papers from their divorce proceedings have indicated that the team's plans include maintaining a reduced payroll through 2018.

It's likely the Dodgers will make deals this winter to reduce payroll. And yes, NB47 is right, their will be a bunch of other teams interested in Matt Kemp as well.

Posted by: Sunderland | October 9, 2010 4:43 PM | Report abuse

Reality check - Dunn is all but gone, if you look at the way the team has handled him this year, or read the claptrap posted on other sites.

If so, it looks like either Morse (OK) or Willingham (NO!) would shift to 1B, leaving a gap in one of the corner OF spots, dependant on who else Rizzo can sign in the off-season.

Overall, a bad choice, imo.

Posted by: BinM | October 9, 2010 4:50 PM | Report abuse

Well, at least it's a new post.

I'd likely have interest in Tim Lincecum, Roy Halladay, and Cliff Lee. Interest and acquisition are two different things, though. Time will tell, I suppose.

They are likely verklempt as well, Drew. :-)

Posted by: natsfan1a1 | October 9, 2010 5:24 PM | Report abuse

A .249 average and ranked last in fielding?? Sounds like the perfect Nat! Sign him up!

Posted by: g3jr | October 9, 2010 5:41 PM | Report abuse

Stop the madness!

Sign Adam Dunn.

Posted by: dand187 | October 9, 2010 5:52 PM | Report abuse

"At a minimum it would take Ramos plus a major-league ready quality starting pitcher or power hitter."

Ramos is our catcher of the future, he will not be traded.

Posted by: elbeisbol | October 9, 2010 6:10 PM | Report abuse

g3jr, thanks for the thoughtful post. Thinking we should only sign all-stars? Yeah, there's tons of affordable all-stars out on the market.

In 2009 he hit .207 with 26 HR, 101 RBI and 38 SB.

Matt Kemp 2007 - 2009, ages 23 - 25.
Games - 412
Avg - .303
SLG - .483
SB's - 79, with 24 CS

He's 26, and he certainly regressed this year.

As for the UZR, perhaps his 2009 Gold Glove will assuage your concerns about his fielding. Like Ryan Zimmerman, he earned both the Gold Glove and Silver Slugger in 2009, when he spent almost the entire season in CF.

If we were able to sign Kemp, he'd immediately become the best OF wearing the curly-W.

Posted by: Sunderland | October 9, 2010 6:27 PM | Report abuse

@elbeisbol - Right, the Nats wouldn't trade Ramos, but some other team would likely offer the Dodgers a similar player to fill their need at catcher or starting pitcher. I don't think the Nats have the right pieces available for trade.

@Sunderland - That should be .297 for Kemp in 2009.

Posted by: nb47 | October 9, 2010 7:17 PM | Report abuse

@Sunderland - That should be .297 for Kemp in 2009.
Yep, typo, thanks.

Posted by: Sunderland | October 9, 2010 7:22 PM | Report abuse

Now that I actually looked up Kemp's career stats on (and caught Sunderland's typo), I can see how deciding not to acquire him is not as obvious as his most recent year's stats would indicate. That's why they pay Rizzo to make those decisions.

Posted by: bertbkatz | October 9, 2010 7:52 PM | Report abuse

It is infuriating that all the talk is about trying madly to find a (subpar) replacement for Adam Dunn when we could have easily had Adam Dunn. Cheap. Cheap. Cheap.

Posted by: NatsFly | October 9, 2010 8:48 PM | Report abuse

Kemp, another guy that will not be an upgrade. Keep looking Rizzo. The Nats need sure things!!!!!

Posted by: GoingGoingGone | October 9, 2010 9:54 PM | Report abuse

I'm a little confused how Kemp wouldn't be an upgrade in the outfield. They wouldn't be picking him up to play first base or replace Dunn's bat. They would be putting him in left or center and replacing Morgan's bat. Is the equation Kemp+Morse better than Morgan+Dunn? Who knows what the future will hold, but get if you get Morse 550 AB's and he produces at the same rate he did this year, and Kemp's line looks more like it did for his first two years than his last one, you'd have to argue that it is.

That said, Kemp+Morse+Dunn is definitely better than Morgan+Dunn. If there is any way they could keep Dunn and still facilitate a trade with the Dodgers for Kemp, or pick up Crawford in free agency, there really aren't many holes in that lineup.

I am wondering where that leaves Bernadina and Willingham, though. All of this assuming that Dunn is re-signed: If they were to sign Crawford, you've got Willingham as the 4th outfielder with Bernadina in Center. If they were to trade for Kemp, Willingham may still be the 4th outfielder, with Bernadina in left. Should be an interesting offseason.

Posted by: Cavalier83 | October 9, 2010 10:38 PM | Report abuse

Throw Rihanna in on the deal ... absolutely!

Posted by: reddog278 | October 9, 2010 11:39 PM | Report abuse

Trade? Who? The Nats infield is set for a long time, except for first base. Put Mike Morse at first, a natural place for the former all-american first baseman in his younger days. I would be ok with a direct trade of Kemp for Willingham because of Kemp's being younger by five plus years and no injuries unlike Willingham. Seriously, trade Willingham for SOMEBODY before its too late to get something for him. Even with Kemp in LF, and Bernadina in CF, the Nats would need a right fielder. They'll need to get another outfielder, hopefully a power hitter to make up for Dunn. I would be ok with making Morse the first baseman, but not Willingham (pretty stupid, actually).

Posted by: shred11 | October 10, 2010 1:11 AM | Report abuse

I'm with Sunderland on trying to get Kemp. The question is what can the Nats give up: My vote would be Clip, Stammen, Milone, Chico and just about anybody else in the minors. Definitely not Burnett.

Posted by: nats24 | October 10, 2010 1:59 AM | Report abuse

To get Kemp would take Bernadina, Norris, Burgess, and a pitcher such as Milone--at the very least.

Posted by: jcampbell1 | October 10, 2010 6:48 AM | Report abuse

Rizzo out shopping for bargain basement steals...again. Who knows, McCourt might take a pot of cash and Moonball for Kemp. Desperate men make desperate deals.

Not a trade that's gonna sell tickets though. Call San Diego, Rizzo...Adrian Gonzalez is gonna get moved somewhere.

Posted by: howjensen | October 10, 2010 8:09 AM | Report abuse

Whether the Dodgers will deal Kemp is debatable, but there's always a selling price.

Whether we have the pieces to create such a deal is debatable.

Whether Rizzo has the will to actually part with those pieces is debatable.

What's not at all debatable is whether Kemp is an upgrade. Silver Slugger and Gold Glove at age 25 as a center fielder. (remind you of a certain corner infielder? )

And I'd suggest heeding BinM's reality check. Dunn is all but gone. The possibility that he suits up next year in a curly-W is the same as him suiting up anywhere else, about 1 in 30.

Posted by: Sunderland | October 10, 2010 8:23 AM | Report abuse

We're better off standing pat than trading for Matt Kemp.

Please, Rizzo, leave this alone. You're building our team of position players around fielding and speed, and that's a good idea; Matt Kemp goes in the opposite direction, and he's not all that great a hitter, either.

Posted by: FergusonFoont | October 10, 2010 9:30 AM | Report abuse

The Dodgers have about $30M in 'dead money' coming off the books, and a number of expiring contracts (Ausmus, Barajas, Kiroda, Weaver, Padilla, Lilly, Sherrill) that total another $29M. McCourt will have 'wiggle room' for replacement signings & Arbitration raises, without dumping other players, imo.

I think Colletti would ask a high price in exchange for a player he isn't being forced to let go of.

Posted by: BinM | October 10, 2010 9:54 AM | Report abuse

Matt Kemp is a legit power hitter, and ostensibly would be an excellent clean-up replacement for the loss of Dunn.

However, the Nats have taught us from all the Dunn discussions that we should be more interested in defense than hitting, and that you can always find 30 or 40 HR guys without looking too hard. Therefore the Nats should stick with Bernie and Nyjer, both of whom play adequate defense and are affordable.

Posted by: EdDC | October 10, 2010 10:06 AM | Report abuse

The storied franchise that was the LA Dodgers is now of the side show bob variety thanks to the McCourts, the O'Malley's must be wincing whenever they turn on the tv and see what this once proud model of baseball efficiency has turned into, i'm sure Kemp wants out and the Dodgers need to dump salary. Matt Kemp would be a welcomed addition, can the Nats make it work without damaging their "future"and can they keep Dunn, a lineup with Kemp,Zimm,Dunn,in the middle would be a nice upgrade.

Posted by: dargregmag | October 10, 2010 11:15 AM | Report abuse

The Nats will never be interested in Adrian Gonzalez at $20 milion plus per season over several years. That's a pipe dream.

Posted by: bupbups | October 10, 2010 11:55 AM | Report abuse

To those who don't think Kemp would be an upgrade: HUNH???? Here's the list of all the other outfielders in our organization who won the Gold Glove and Silver Slugger awards in 2009: [ ]

Yeah, Kemp had a bit of an off year last year, but (1) he's 26 years old (5 days older than Ryan Zimmerman); (2) has a career line of .285/.336/.472 (not too far off from Zim's .288/.355/.484); and played 162 games last year and 159 in 2009 (compare to Willingham's 114 and 133). I'm not sure he's an elite defensive CF, but he's got the tools, including speed (88 SBs in the last 3 years), and certainly could hold down RF quite well. I'd give up a lot for this guy, whether as a replacement for, or addition to, Dunn. If Rizzo is serious about Kemp, I hope he doesn't overvalue his own "prospects" and hesitate to pull the trigger.

Posted by: whereswilky | October 10, 2010 12:58 PM | Report abuse

It's just like a Bowden pick up - good tools, attitude problem, high upside. Everything I ever saw was that he quit right after he signed his most recent contract. There's something wrong with you if you quit on Joe Torre. You think he'd put out for RIggleman? People are crazy even to mention him.

Posted by: Brue | October 10, 2010 1:33 PM | Report abuse

Just curious, did Torre quit on the Dodgers?

Posted by: Sunderland | October 10, 2010 2:58 PM | Report abuse

Brue & Sunderland are both right. Almost all of the Dodgers quit on Torre, as Torre quit on them. The real question is who quit on who? Sorry, who quit on whom?

Meanwhile no one knows what the Dodgers will do. Dump salary? Try and rebuild? Go after big time free agents?

Of course, no one really knows who owns the team. Husband? Wife? Both, at the same time? The Lawyers? Peter Angelos? Me? Arnold Schwarzenegger? Oh wait, he took steroids forty years ago, so Bud the Dumb may not let him be involved in baseball.

Posted by: mikecatcher50 | October 10, 2010 4:23 PM | Report abuse

I don't wanna hear this attitude krap about Matt Kemp, if memory serves me well it was this article written in the post when the Nats were 20-15 about what a great clubhouse,how the players all liked one another blah,blah,blah, and what pray tell did all that warm and fuzzy bullsh#t do for us? let me refresh the collective memories of this fanbase NOT A DAMN THING!!!!!. We need players that are used to winning and that have "skills" and that play with an edge not dirty players mind you but players that hate losing, if Rizzo can get him then pull the freakin trigger!

Posted by: dargregmag | October 10, 2010 5:10 PM | Report abuse

I look at Kemp's stats and I think he could be a reasonable replacement for Dunn in the lineup. His .808 OPS isn't in Dunn's area, but he's playing in Dodger Stadium, a long-time great pitcher's park. Would likely do significantly better in a neutral park like ours.

Put Willingham or Morse at first - I don't care which one. Put the survivor in the OF with Kemp and Bernadina, and your outfield is immediately improved with Nyjer on the bench or in Houston or Cleveland.

Of course, if the asking price is Zimmerman or one of our young middle infielders, all bets are off. Maybe Flores, if he's completely healthy again.

Posted by: gilbertbp | October 10, 2010 6:00 PM | Report abuse

Matt Kemp?!?!?! Don't necessarily see him helping take the Natinals to the promised land.

Posted by: Poopy_McPoop | October 10, 2010 9:11 PM | Report abuse

I think whereswilky and Sunderland are the only sane posters today. Matt Kemp is a terrific 5-tool ball player. He's big, 26 y, and has power and speed. Dunn is a one-dimensional player and not a great clutch hitter, period. Big time upgrade.

That all said, the Nationals dont have what it takes to get him. I think the idea of Ramos and a ML-ready pitcher (posted by nb47) is about right, and I wouldnt do it if I were the Nats at this stage of their development.

Posted by: hersheyman | October 11, 2010 2:19 AM | Report abuse

I think whereswilky and Sunderland are the only sane posters today. Matt Kemp is a terrific 5-tool ball player. He's big, 26 y, and has power and speed. Dunn is a one-dimensional player and not a great clutch hitter, period. Big time upgrade.

That all said, the Nationals dont have what it takes to get him. I think the idea of Ramos and a ML-ready pitcher (posted by nb47) is about right, and I wouldnt do it if I were the Nats at this stage of their development.

Posted by: hersheyman | October 11, 2010 2:20 AM | Report abuse

Darn- saw on MLBTradeRumors that Adam Dunn is not a Group A Free Agent- which means we would only get a sandwich 1st round pick instead of a 1st and a sandwich. Hope that means that we resign Dunn....

Posted by: stever37 | October 11, 2010 5:00 AM | Report abuse

Even in an off year, Kemp put up numbers far superior to anything produced by a Nots outfielder. However, I cannot imagine them being able to make a trade for him, they simply don't have what it would take, as several have noted. He's also due to make a shade under $11 million next year, and is arbitration eligible in 2012. I can't imagine the pinch-penny Lerners going for that.

This story would have a lot more credibility if there were some discussion of what the Nots might offer the Dodgers. As it stands, it doesn't even merit the label of idle speculation.

Posted by: Fairfax6 | October 11, 2010 9:33 AM | Report abuse

Kemp's 2 year contract is for $11M.
It's roughly $4M for 2010 and $7M for 2011. And he'd remain under control, arbitration eligible for 2012.

But that would mean the Nats would control him for only 2 years, and the price of getting him for only 2 years of service will likely be just one more, of many reasons, this does not happen. It would make more send if the Nats could get a mutli-year deal in place.

And yeah, the headline may as well have read "Nearly every MLB team would have interest in Matt Kemp".

Posted by: Sunderland | October 11, 2010 10:00 AM | Report abuse

>We need players that are used to winning and that have "skills" and that play with an edge not dirty players mind you but players that hate losing, if Rizzo can get him then pull the freakin trigger!

Posted by: dargregmag

Kemp's the opposite of that - he wasn't interested in winning, or even playing. He might be big, and he might be a bruthah, but he ain't nasty. He's a punk, and he showed in with flying colors last year. He gives minimal effort, and if he got into a losing situation, he'd get even worse. And there's no way in hell he'd ever re-sign in DC after two years. Quit defending people because you think it's your duty. It's transparent.

Posted by: Brue | October 11, 2010 10:09 AM | Report abuse

I like the creative thinking, but Kemp -- a touch of a problem child with questionable glove which likely makes the club place Willingham at 1B (do we have to find new positions for every day players every season?), may not be what this club needs. It may end up favorable, but it is likely a treading water kind of move (if we lose Dunn and add Kemp, it is at best a wash for the club) and it does nothing to energize the fanbase. The Nats need something of a lock of a top performer, not another hopeful.

Now, if this was the kind of move that was in addition to the club inking a legit 1B LHB slugger and a legit Ace, then great (I'd take Kemp under control over Werth anyday) -- but who are we kidding here folks. This club stinks at being bold, plumb awful - they have yet to make a splash in 5 years, so trading away the chips that a Kemp deal would require? Not likely.

I say that if there is any market for Willingham, I say trade him. Might LA like Josh in a deal for Kemp? He's never been healthy much and his performance last year prior to getting hurt is as likely his peak as it is his break-through. Morse is a nice player, but not enough pop to play 1B or RF as a regular. So, he can go too, if anyone will give us something for the guy.

Posted by: dfh21 | October 11, 2010 10:46 AM | Report abuse

MLBTraderumours also has us pursuing Loney if the Dogers nontender him.

Posted by: SCNatsFan | October 11, 2010 10:57 AM | Report abuse


Thanks for the detail on Kemp's contract situation.

Kemp won a Gold Glove last year, and had a total of 30 assists in '08 and '09 combined, so it's hard to believe he isn't an upgrade as a fielder. As to Kemp's personal behavior, Nyjer Morgan has shown quite a bit of nasty conduct, so I don't see where Kemp might be more of a problem there either.

But again, I don't see the Nots has having the required trade bait to put Kemp in red and white.

Posted by: Fairfax6 | October 11, 2010 11:07 AM | Report abuse

"The Nationals would have interest in targeting Los Angeles Dodgers center fielder Matt Kemp in a trade if the Dodgers make him available, according to a baseball source." "Potential interest." And people are calling other people insane for supporting/opposing a potential trade that the Nats might consider if the Dodgers considered trading the guy. I suspect you could substitute any other starting player in MLB and the sentence would still be true, except perhaps with respect to third basemen. This is like an intrasquad game for the hot stove league.

Posted by: markfromark | October 11, 2010 11:34 AM | Report abuse

"This is like an intrasquad game for the hot stove league."

True dat...

Posted by: Sunderland | October 11, 2010 11:35 AM | Report abuse

Let's be honest - Who do the Nationals have in the system that could carry 'value' in any trade? Excluding 2010 draftees, here's my list...

Top flight (would start for any team in MLB): RZim, Strasburg.

2nd Tier (could start for a majority of teams in MLB): Desmond, Willingham, JZimm, Livo, Lannan.

Hot Prospects (could play a significant role on every MLB team): Ramos, Espinosa, Clippard, Storen.

3rd Tier (supporting role on most MLB teams): Pudge, Flores, AGonz, Morgan, Bernadina, Morse, Marquis, Detwiler, Atilano, Martis, Balester, Burnett.

Teasers (minor-league players with projected value): Norris(CA), Marrero(1B), Moore(1B), Lombardozzi(2B), JP Ramirez(OF), Perez(OF), Burgess(OF), Hood(OF), Milone(LHP), Br.Peacock(RHP), Tatusko(RHP), Roark(RHP), Meyers(RHP), Rosenbaum(LHP), Bronson(LHP), Holder(RHP), Severino(LHP), AJ Morris(RHP), Carr(RHP), Kimball(RHP).

Posted by: BinM | October 11, 2010 11:47 AM | Report abuse

Post of the day?


This is like an intrasquad game for the hot stove league.

Posted by: markfromark | October 11, 2010 11:34 AM

Posted by: natsfan1a1 | October 11, 2010 12:00 PM | Report abuse

What MLB GM's need to determine is not just comensurate value but also the likely cost and return for each player.

Using Kemp as the example, a GM would know that Kemp will cost $7M is 2011, and depending upon his performance perhaps $8 - $10M in 2012 and then comes free agency.

Compare that to any two guys from "Teasers".

Talent-wise, does that equal Matt Kemp?
Maybe. Maybe not.

But the Teasers give you the potential for 12 years of pre-free agency MLB service. And for the same $17M that Kemp might cost you for 2 years, you could surely pay for 12 years of MLB service from the Two Teasers. (with no guarantees that they perform at MLB levels of course)

So it could mean that Kemp could be had for less than we realize. And it also could mean that Rizzo wouldn't want do it anyway, for good baseball reasons.

Posted by: Sunderland | October 11, 2010 1:20 PM | Report abuse

As I stated in my previous post, the Dodgers' ownership issue colors any trade rumors.

Basically, any and all GMs are circling them like a pack of hungry sharks.

Expect Colletti not to do anything serious until there is some sort of clarity to that situation. They may do some salary dumping (See: Ramirez, M.), but probably nothing that will entail moving someone like Kemp, who the Dodgers have under control for another two years (even if '12 is at a much higher price.)

Posted by: mikecatcher50 | October 11, 2010 1:52 PM | Report abuse

Not to specifically focus on Kemp, but in a broader sense of trade possibilities; Look for players 'of value' (24-29yo, with options/Arb years remaining) who might be 'pried loose' from their current teams for a combination of 2nd Tier or lower players.
With a trade in mind, would the current exchange value of what you recieve equal 75% or more of what you give up in a trade? If you think it does, make the deal; If it doesn't pass the 'sniff test' (ex. Dunn for Jackson straight up = 50%, imo), move on.

Posted by: BinM | October 11, 2010 2:49 PM | Report abuse

As I noted earlier in the string, Colletti has nearly $60M coming 'off the books' in 2011. Certainly, some of the players left on the roster are due raises, but I think the Dodgers can field a competetive team in 2011 at $80M without going into 'fire-sale' mode.
Now, if the McCourt's feel differently & want to devalue the team prior to a court-ordered sale, sobeit.

Posted by: BinM | October 11, 2010 3:08 PM | Report abuse

@BinM...I think that you actually agreed with me. Yes, they have a ton coming off of the books, but Colletti's hands may still be tied by the nonsense that the McCourts (boy, talk about an ironic name) are putting the franchise through.

As a lawyer friend of mine once said: "No matter how amenable the divorce, sooner or later you will need to bring out the mop & bucket to clean up the blood. In this one, I think we are dealing with hundreds of mops and not a few WetVacs.

Posted by: mikecatcher50 | October 11, 2010 3:35 PM | Report abuse

While I still think Colletti can pull a competetive team out of the ashes for 2011, I think your 2nd paragraph may contain the real truth. This divorce case between the McCourt's can only end badly, with the team being sold as the ultimate end game.

Posted by: BinM | October 11, 2010 5:06 PM | Report abuse

For all those aging Senator fans it must really stick to their craw that both former Washington teams made the playoffs. I mean, it only took those franchises leaving DC before they became successful.

Makes you wonder just how much better the current Natinals will be when they abandon DC for the 3rd time.

Posted by: Poopy_McPoop | October 11, 2010 6:25 PM | Report abuse

Brue; Just caught your post, i'll defend who i damn well please and i don't need you or anybody else to validate it,Matt Kemp is a good ballplayer and no, i don't know if he's "head case" or a quitter but neither do you, i don't think any of us are satisfied with the current roster and imho Kemp would clearly be an upgrade tell you what i'd take my chances with Kemp helping this team get out of the cellar.

Posted by: dargregmag | October 11, 2010 7:43 PM | Report abuse

Late to the thread, but I'm curious how a guy who won the Gold Glove in 2009 playing center and has enough speed to steal a decent number of bases can have the worst UZR rating among outfielders in baseball in 2010. What happened? He played in every game in 2010 so I'm assuming it wasn't due to injury, can an objective reader explain this?

Posted by: dabagley | October 12, 2010 11:01 AM | Report abuse

dabagley, I don't think we could reach concensus on this.
But I think we can all agree UZR is an inconsistent measure.

It's interesting that Adam Kilgore chose to mention Kemp's 2010 UZR and not the 2009 Gold Glove, even though Adam knows full well the lack of reliability with UZR.

Adam would not categorize Ryan Zimmerman as a player with the 4th highest number of errors for a 3rd baseman in the NL, or as having the 2nd worst fielding percentage of any NL 3rd baseman with 100 or more games played.

Recall also that UZR in 2009 showed that Nyjer was a great centerfielder. And yet when you watch Nyjer with your eyes, that's not what you see.

So forget UZR, Kemp is a very good fielder.

Posted by: Sunderland | October 12, 2010 11:20 AM | Report abuse

Post a Comment

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.

characters remaining

RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company