Opinions on a deep dynasty league trade

by PrincetonCubs on Dec 30, 2011 10:52 AM EST

Wanted to know what people thought about a trade I just made. 24 teams, 225 man rosters (40 majors/185 minors), $115m salary cap, standard scoring. Minor leaguers, once they are called up, are cost-controlled for five seasons with the ability to drop them during any offseason (salary escalating from $.3m to $4m over time).

I traded:

Matt Kemp (contract through 2015, escalating from $13.65m this year to $18.99m in 2015)

Fernando Martinez and Leon Landry (minors)

I received:

Alexei Ramirez ($8.2m through 2013, plus an option for 2014 at the same salary)

Bryan Lahair (2nd year of a rookie contract, so $.6m)

George Springer and Robbie Erlin (minor leaguers)

1st, 2nd, and 3rd round picks in the upcoming international players draft

I'm trying to rebuild my middle-of-the-road team. Obviously, I gave up the best player, but I think I got some good prospects back plus Ramirez (who I can probably flip for more prospects), and also cleared about $5m in salary space immediately (plus I won't be paying Kemp $19m in 2015, which he almost certainly won't be worth). Thoughts?

Tweet Comment 12 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

international players draft

is Cespedes and Darvish avalable in this draft?

Ray Guilfoyle
www.faketeams.com
www.minorleagueball.com
www.mlbdailydish.com

by Ray Guilfoyle on Dec 30, 2011 11:03 AM EST reply actions

if they get signed to a major league contract

they go through open FA, rather than this draft. So Darvish/Cespedes probably not, but Soler probably yes. The pool is mostly the international signings (e.g. Elier Hernandez, Nomar Mazara), unsigned FAs within the league (last year, for example, I selected Reed Johnson and Endy Chavez and was able to use rookie contracts on them), and college/HS draftees who were not picked in our first-year player draft.

by PrincetonCubs on Dec 30, 2011 12:50 PM EST up reply actions

Well ... you asked ...

I don’t like this deal at all – figure you could have received a much better haul for Kemp even with his salary concerns. None of those prospects are top notch and the draft picks are essentially lottery tickets only with lesser odds.

by Traindogger on Dec 30, 2011 3:41 PM EST reply actions

+1

Kemp should have netted u WAY better prospects…
@MarkusPotter

@MarkusPotter

by Markus Potter on Dec 31, 2011 5:37 PM EST up reply actions

I love this trade....

for the other guy. You gave up a stud player in his prime and received zero players with his ceiling. If you’re going to do prospect heavy deals, which I am not a fan of, the talent should at least be somewhat comparable in terms of ceiling. Erlin is the most attractive piece you got back and he should not be the premier piece in a Matt Kemp package. If I was to deal Kemp and was seeking prospects in return I would’ve aimed for Harper and settled for Trout, then constructed the package from there. That’s the type of prospect foundation you need when dealing a 5 category impact player.

Follow @ChristopherB609

by Chris Buckley on Dec 30, 2011 5:17 PM EST reply actions

that is why

I asked if Darvish or Cespedes are in the int’t draft. I don’t like this deal for you. I agree with Chris here. You should have received a much higher ranked prospect(s) for Kemp.

Ray Guilfoyle
www.faketeams.com
www.minorleagueball.com
www.mlbdailydish.com

by Ray Guilfoyle on Dec 30, 2011 9:31 PM EST up reply actions

interesting

thanks for the comments, everybody. I’ve made bad deals in the past like everyone else, but I almost always have a queasy feeling afterward like I made a mistake. This time, I didn’t have that feeling, but at the same time I didn’t feel like I got an ideal return for a top 2 fantasy player.

One thing I’d say in my favor is that I was close to being capped out, so I’ve cleared the decks a bit so I can make a couple runs in free agency (including Darvish/Cespedes, who can be signed to deals through 2017).

The other issue was Kemp’s contract—$13.65m was one of the largest salaries in this league, and 19m will be the biggest. If Kemp slumps even a little bit next season, the contract would be untradeable (w/o my taking on a lot of dead weight contracts in return…I think Garrett Atkins is still floating around on a $9m salary on some team.) I was looking to deal Kemp this offseason precisely because I think last season might have been his career year.

by PrincetonCubs on Dec 31, 2011 10:12 AM EST up reply actions

+1

@MarkusPotter

by Markus Potter on Dec 31, 2011 5:38 PM EST up reply actions

see my other comment

but the value of having a top prospect for five cost-controlled years (with the ability to extend for three more at medium-ish salaries) is immense…if I had Trout or Harper, I might not even have even dealt them for Kemp straight up.

by PrincetonCubs on Dec 31, 2011 10:30 AM EST up reply actions

I saw it

people over-value prospects in dynasty leagues. While Trout and Harper appear to be sure things, even though there is no such thing, the adjustment period and learning curve needs to be taken into consideration. Harper had trouble with breaking balls at Double-A, there’s no reason to believe he’ll be able to handle a curve from the likes of Cliff Lee. As for Trout, he has a fantastic skill set as well but he did not impress in his play last year, and probably would be better off getting more seasoning in the minors too.

While those guys may be great long term pieces, and could possibly live up to the hype, I dont think anyone expects them to produce Matt Kemp like numbers right away. You’re talking about a guy coming off a close to 40/40 season, Trout may steal those many bases but doesn’t project to have that power. Harper may hit those homeruns but I don’t see him swiping that many bags.

Anyway, that’s kind of besides the point. No matter how you view Harper or Trout the return for Kemp was still too light. The big prize in the international draft is Soler, and he’s still years away, if you don’t get the #1 pick to take him who’s really left? International players are even more over hyped in dynasty than prospects.

Follow @ChristopherB609

by Chris Buckley on Jan 3, 2012 5:09 PM EST up reply actions

wow

I think you’re missing a couple major issues, such as:

-salaries. This was the dominating factor in the trade, and I’m not sure you’ve understood it…have you played in a salary league before?

-the international signings…was that a serious comment? I might not take Soler #1, because the class this year is so strong. I have a spreadsheet of 200 names to look at for the first ten rounds or so, but at the top would be Mazara, Ronald Guzman, Elier Hernandez, Malave, Y Mendez, Jelly Arias, Jesus Gonzalez, Lugo, Becerra, etc etc.

Yes, they take a few years to develop, but they a) have trade value and b) are key to longterm development, which is how you win a longstanding league with 24 teams.

by PrincetonCubs on Jan 10, 2012 9:08 AM EST up reply actions

what am i missing?

the difference in salary this year is less than 5 million. I have a hard time believing that you couldn’t find lower cost replacements at other starting positons or bench spots to come up with the same amount of relief while holding on to your best asset. If you do a salary dump, which this obviously was, you don’t go into rebuild mode moving the most valuable piece first. You allowed the other owner to set the market and in turn lessoned your advantage when dealing other pieces, that is if you really are rebuilding like you say. For a little over 15 million in salary relief for the next two seasons you recieved zero A prospects, no matter how you try and sell it, the value is not there.

In regards to the international prospects, I think it’s awesome that you have a spreadsheet with 200 names, I’m really impressed. I’m not familiar with most of them, is Jelly Arias related to Joaquin Arias? Or is Ronald Guzman related to Angel Guzman? Are any of these guys the next Bobby Abreu like the recently released Fernando Martinez was?

Follow @ChristopherB609

by Chris Buckley on Jan 10, 2012 11:39 AM EST reply actions