On the other side of the coin from what I said yesterday, perhaps the Angels should trade for Matt Kemp

[ivdown]

http://baselinetimes.com/your-favorite-american-league-team-should-trade-for-matt-kemp/

For this article, I wrote about Matt Kemp's offensive re-emergence offensively, as well as how his defense hasn't been as awful this year as the previous four years. I listed a number of teams that could be improved in LF or at DH by trading for Matt Kemp, and the Angels were one of them. Obviously, this wouldn't be a move to compete now, but by trading for Kemp it could help the Angels stay afloat with Trout gone, and then make for a deeper lineup once he returns. Since Kemp has 2.5 years left on his contract, they could even trade Kemp later if he continues to hit at a high level.

I'd be interested to hear any feedback or thoughts on this. I actually believed the Angels should have traded for Kemp 2 years ago or even a year ago, since their LF situation has been rough for a while. But I'd be interested to see if Angels fans would even want him.

[arch stanton]

I'm not clicking anything you post until you change your name to Angelfan

[Brent Maguire]

Matt Kemp still has plenty left in his bat but he's a DH all the way. With the Angels employing Albert Pujols at DH, there's really no fit with the Angels. Kemp in left field is an abomination at this point so this doesn't really work well. 

[Angels#1Fan]

22 minutes ago, Dodgerfan23 said:

For this article...

Alright bro, you need to get your arse over to the Dodger forum and write about them there.

[Angels#1Fan]

7 minutes ago, arch stanton said:

I'm not clicking anything you post until you change your name to Angelfan

That would be ok but I'd prefer he changed it to "DodgersSuck".

[ivdown]

2 hours ago, arch stanton said:

I'm not clicking anything you post until you change your name to Angelfan

haha. I didn't remember my log in so I just went through facebook, but apparently that was linked to my old account. Oops!

[ivdown]

2 hours ago, Angels#1Fan said:

Alright bro, you need to get your arse over to the Dodger forum and write about them there.

Man, you are saaaalty. Shockingly I've talked to Braves fans, Rangers fans, Red Sox fans, Blue Jays fans, Rockies Fans, Yankee fans, and others without the world exploding. Who would have thought?

[DMVol]

I think trading for Matt Kemp, or any other high priced older player, is the last thing we need to do right now...

[ivdown]

2 hours ago, Brent Maguire said:

Matt Kemp still has plenty left in his bat but he's a DH all the way. With the Angels employing Albert Pujols at DH, there's really no fit with the Angels. Kemp in left field is an abomination at this point so this doesn't really work well. 

Is Pujols completely done with 1B? That would definitely be less of a plus in regards to adding Kemp, but even with the abysmal defense in LF, the Angels have had absolutely no value there in the last 3 seasos. They have had a 61, 73, and now 95 wRC+ out of the position from 2015 till now. They have had -1.5, 0.1, and now 0.5 fWAR in the same time. As I mentioned in the article Kemp has been worth 2.5 fWAR in the last 365 days, even with the defense. 

I'm not trying to convince anyone that he will be an MVP or a savior of a team, but there is certainly a good amount of value left in him because of his bat. 

The question for the Angels is who would they trade, and would it be worth it. Based on my article yesterday, my feelings are that they should sell. However, if they want to try to compete, Kemp would be very helpful in working towards that goal. I don't know the Angels farm all that well, onlya  few names here and there, but I would be interested to see what you believe would be fair in a deal for Kemp, Brent. I also believe the Braves would have to eat money in any deal, probably 10-15 million, maybe as high as 20.

[ivdown]

8 minutes ago, DMVol said:

I think trading for Matt Kemp, or any other high priced older player, is the last thing we need to do right now...

I actually believe this as well, because I think the Angels should sell and rebuild, but I don't believe they will even consider it.

[ivdown]

2 hours ago, ThomasSutpen said:

$21.5 million per season through 2019 for a soon-to-be 33 year-old outfielder known for injuries and rapidly deteriorating athleticism? And the Angels have to get rid of prospects they can't afford to lose for the pleasure? Uhh-uhhh. Plus his entire career has been in the NL so he'd undoubtedly crater hard on this team. Hard pass.

The last part is incredibly debatable. The NL has better pitching than the AL, so that really wouldn't matter much. The cost of his contract is definitely a concern to any team trading for him, but as with both deals he's been in so far, the team trading him has sent money to the other team to compensate for some of the contract, so I believe the same thing would happen with any future trade as well. I agree the Angels need as many prospects as they can afford, but since they are so bottom of the barrel in that regard right now anyway, it really likely wouldn't be that big of an issue for a team that needs MLB help.

That's how I feel about it anyway. Thanks for the feedback.