Matt Kemp Might Have Arthritis
Hey, remember the Matt Kemp trade that happened last Thursday? Well, it didn’t really happen so much as news of a pending agreement was reported a week ago. For the last seven days, details have been getting finalized, which included having Matt Kemp take a physical. He did that on Tuesday. Apparently, it didn’t go very well.
SD in perfect position to squeeze LAD for more money in Kemp deal: Kemp's medicals ugly, LAD has cash and needs Kemp deal more than SD does.
— Buster Olney (@Buster_ESPN) December 18, 2014
The holdup in Matt Kemp trade is because the physical revealed arthritis in both hips. The #Padres continue to consult medical experts.
— Bob Nightengale (@BNightengale) December 18, 2014
Arthritis in both hips. This isn’t something you hear too often, and it brings back memories of Albert Belle, who was one of the game’s most dominant hitters until an arthritic hip ended his career after the 2000 season. Belle’s decline was swift, as he went from a 165 wRC+ to a 139 wRC+ to a 104 wRC+ in his final three seasons, finally retiring after his age-33 season when it became clear that he wasn’t going to be able to play through the condition any longer.
Matt Kemp is only 30, and looked fine at the plate in the second half of last season, so maybe it all sounds scarier than it actually is. Maybe he’ll be fine, and the Dodgers will just kick in some extra money to get the deal done.
But this already looked like a bad deal for San Diego, and Kemp was already a poor fit for their park. Arthritic hips seem like the kind of thing that would make a defensive bounceback less likely, and on the surface, it would seem to serve Kemp’s interests to have him end up on an AL team where he could spend the bulk of his time at DH.
But it’s probably not as easy as the Padres just telling the Dodgers they changed their minds. As Ken Rosenthal and others have noted, Kemp’s medical information is protected by HIPAA, and should not have been released publicly, even anonymously. It would be difficult for the Dodgers to prove that the Padres leaked the information, but at the very least, backing out of the deal at this point might serve to make other teams reluctant to trade with San Diego in the future. A.J. Preller already had a reputation as a polarizing executive who didn’t always play by the rules during his days in Texas, and leaving the Dodgers holding a bag of arthritic hips wouldn’t be a good way to show everyone that he’s changed his stripes.
We should find out today whether this deal is happening or not. No matter what happens, this might get ugly for San Diego, either on the field or off of it.
Dave is the Managing Editor of FanGraphs.
This is the best off-season in the history of the sport.
Hardly.
That doesn’t make a lot of sense to me. Isn’t the point of a physical to check if the player is ok, and then if they’re not ok, you don’t proceed with the trade? So how does not proceeding with the trade look bad for the Padres?
If it’s because there was a leak, and there’s no way to determine how it got out, then is it suddenly the Padres fault for this, even if it’s a situation they may have had no control over?
That’s absolutely unfair, it seems to me. If the guy is hurt / damaged, reject the trade. It isn’t suddenly the Padres problem in my mind.
Out of the people who would know this information, only the Padres possibly gain, it is a disaster for every other party. Everyone is going to assume it was them, and even if it is never confirmed publically, people in the industry will know one way or the other.
@#$! anyone who !$!@#$ing reneges on a deal because of a !#@$!#ing physical.
It’s not just that, because this is a different situation than Balfour last year. In that case, they backed out of the signing without specifically saying why, just saying his physical revealed some issues, and left it at that. The Padres could just refuse the trade; that’s not the part Dave/Rosenthal are reacting to. By releasing the information (if they did), they hurt Kemp’s trade market even more, and while a deal falling through would’ve indicated they saw something, naming a specific issue will make a lot of teams reluctant to even consider the idea. Thus the Padres are in a great position, as Buster Olney referenced, to squeeze the Dodgers. The analog would be if the Orioles refused to sign Balfour, “accidentally” released the results of his physical, and then tried to get him to sign at a lesser value because other teams would want him less.
Ah right, because no other teams are doing physicals.
Yeah I can’t imagine if the offense-starved Padres backed out of a deal for Kemp suddenly there wouldn’t be tons of teams jumping to swoop in and scoop up a player that left the Padres terrified and running quickly in the other direction?
(The ol’ swoop n’ scoop!)
If anything, it should make LAD look bad, for offering to give up a bad player while withholding information on his health problems for an unreasonable price. I’d rather not do business with them than the Padres.
Pretty much every team does this; it’s part of the reason players who are traded perform worse than their projections.
They Dodgers didn’t “withhold” anything. Each team has their own medical staff look at the player in question and then makes the decision for themselves, so SD will ultimately have all the relevant info. No one is keeping anything from them — that’s just how trades work. Besides, do you honestly expect any team to start a negotiation by actively driving down their own guy’s value by saying something like, “Here’s a list of all the things that terrify us so much about player X that we’re desperately trying to pawn him off onto you”?
Very much agreed. I don’t think it makes either team look bad; Dodgers are just looking to make a trade and it’s incumbent on each team’s medical staff to assess each player received, at which point the team shouldn’t feel under any obligation to complete a deal for a broken-down player.
Anyone remember Mike Sirotka. Went 15-10 in 2000 and never played another game. Traded Jan 2001 by the White Sox to the Jays who lived up to their reputation as cheapskates by choosing not to get a physical. One of a number of blunders made by Gord Ash.
So two things. First of all, what will happen is that the Padres WILL reject the trade, and then go back and re-negotiate the terms. They will demand more money, or more talent, but they’ll get more out of the Dodgers. And that’s just fine.
The point around the Padres not looking good is probably not that they leaked the fact that there were health concerns, but that they leaked that it was arthritis. It’s a no-no to disclose health ailments of other teams, so by declaring that it’s arthritis (and thereby satisfying their own fanbase in the event that they can’t fleece the Dodgers any further), they’re doing something they’re not supposed to do. Of course it’s possible that the Padres aren’t the ones leaking this, but why anyone else involved might leak it is beyond me.
If Kemp really wants to stay in LA it would benefit him to leak it. There’s also the possibility that the doctor was a Giants fan and didn’t want the Dodger to get out from under Kemp’s contract.
See? There’s lots of people that could benefit!
/s
There’s absolutely no reason for the Dodgers to leak it and no reason for his agent to leak it. The Padres are the only ones who stand to benefit from this information being leaked.
Somebody broke the law. Hard to say who, but someone in the Padres organization seems like a likely culprit. Hard to know whether any legal action could or would come from this, and whether it would succeed. But somebody broke the law.
How do you know it wasn’t Matt Kemp’s people that leaked this info? He’s already got the long-term deal and likely wants to stay in LA. It’s not illegal to disclose your own health information, especially if said person wanted to remain on the Dodgers.
Anyone could have leaked this medical information. I am just throwing out a more cynical perspective on the matter.
How is it in his best interest for the entire world to know that Kemp has arthritic hips? He’s going to want another contract after this one ends. If it was his agent who leaked it, he should be sued for malpractice.
We don’t know it was the Padres who leaked the information, but they’re the only ones who gain from the info being leaked.
“He’s going to want another contract after this one ends”
Whether he does or doesn’t (and maybe a 35-yo with arthritic hips doesn’t much care to play baseball anymore, anyway) it’s not like this will be a secret when he’s 35. If anything, maybe it *helps* — now the industry knows he has this affliction, and if he can still perform through 35 it won’t be a big deal. If it only comes up when he tries the market at 35 (because it would, because there would be physicals at that point in time) perhaps a team wouldn’t think he played 2014-19 dealing with same.
And frankly the extent to which the Padres benefit is not so clear. Sure, this makes the Dodgers hesitant to back out and try the market again, because now the market will react to his health issues quickly rather than after each individual team has had opportunity to give him a physical. (Though that assumes word wouldn’t spread in the league as to why the Padres backed out.) This might give the Padres more leverage than the physical results as such.
But it also could help the Dodgers in that they can quickly survey the market in light of this news and push back against the Padres when they try to negotiate new terms. It also helps Kemp as I discussed just above (and as others have mentioned).
Thank you! This could be the pinnacle of Cameron’s insanely stupid statements: “leaving the Dodgers holding a bag of arthritic hips wouldn’t be a good way to show everyone that he’s changed his stripes.”
So Preller & Co. should just suck it up and deal with it because they already agreed to it in theory? Cameron’s line of thinking here is so, so bizarre.
The argument isn’t that the Padres should have to suck it up and go through with the deal. The argument is that leaking the “arthritic hips” detail, in addition to being a violation of HIPPA regulations, is far more damaging to Kemp’s trade value than the nebulous “failed physical”, which could mean just about anything; if the Padres intentionally leaked the specifics of Kemp’s physical in the press in order to torpedo Kemp’s trade value and squeeze the Dodgers for a better deal, that comes across as an underhanded move by the Padres’ FO. And of the various parties who could be aware of the contents of Kemp’s physical by the Padres’ medical staff, the Padres have the most to gain by anonymously leaking the info, unless you believe Kemp thinks it’s worth telling the whole world he has arthritic hips if it helps his chances of staying in LA.
The Padres shouldn’t have to suck it up and deal with the contents of the physical, but they are legally obligated to not tell the whole world exactly what the physical revealed, unless the player specifically authorized the team to release the information publicly.
Good thing there are so many teams that if something doesn’t get in the press it will never get out! To say nothing of the fact that no other teams have physicians. Whoo-ee if the Padres didn’t bollocks this one up for everyone.
How is this any different than what happened with Aiken and the Houston Astros?
I must have missed the outrage over Lunhow allowing medical information on Aiken to leak. Or how they shouldn’t be able to change their deal with him because the information leaked.
You actually did miss the outrage over Luhnow allowing medical information of Liuhnow to leak; it was all over the place..
If I’m the Dodgers, I’d rather trade Kemp for nothing to someone else rather than cave to any adjustment demands by the Padres. You can’t open the door for all trades to be renegotiated after the physical.
Why not? Makes perfect sense.
Really? Guessing your a Dodgers fan.
If you trade a player and the physical shows the player to have a health concern, you have every right in the world to reject the trade. Or, possibly, in this case, readjust the trade.
Yeah, otherwise, why even have a physical?
The door is open and has been. Trades are able to be renegotiated after physicals; that’s part of the purpose of a physical.
Would you buy a house without an inspection? How about a $100MM house?
Dave Cameron showing everyone why he’s not very smart.
Apparently SD should not care about physical abnormalities.
What do you think is the entire point of a physical, you dolt?
Releasing health information to the public is a big no-no. Only the teams, doctor and Kemp will know the truth, but if the Pads leaked the information, it could have been to make sure no other team would come in and top their offer. It gives the Pads significantly more power in re-negotiating the deal.
Perhaps the Pads aren’t guilty. Perhaps Kemp doesn’t have arthritis and it’s just a hoax. But as previously said, only the Padres can benefit from this inforation being leaked, and it will not help their image if the Dodgers and other teams believe the Padres are guilty.
My goodness, I’d like to see you try to analyze hundreds of players/transactions without getting ever being wrong once in awhile.
And X is showing everyone he lacks the ability to read or process information above a 3rd grade level.
-1 for idiocy, +1 for “dolt”
It’ll all come out in the wash
So the Pads GM will look bad for not dealing for a player with arthritic hips? Spot on Cameron.
Do athletes either explicitly or implicitly give up some of their HIPAA rights? It seems like their medical information is constantly being discussed in the public and the initial info rarely comes directly from the player.
Explicitly, in the CBA. But it’s not abundantly clear that HIPAA would even apply to disclosures by the front office, or any non-medical personnel. But other stuff might.
And I don’t see why it wouldn’t just be tampering.
Does the leak actually affect anything though? Any team that traded for Matt Kemp would give him a physical and find out about the arthritis anyway. The same applies for any future free agent contracts Matt Kemp would sign.
otm
And even if news wouldn’t go public, I don’t have doubts that said news would circulate around the league as to the specifics of why a team balked on a deal after a physical.
No. Dave is linking two separate issues and it’s not clear why.
That the information leaked doesn’t change what SD can or can’t do. This is no different than when Aiken’s medicals leaked out of Houston (which I must have missed the similar suspicions about). The medical informaiton allowed Houston to change their bonus offer – that they likely leaked the info to get public cover while doing so doesn’t change their right to adjust the offer based on the medical findings.
You missed the suspicions about Houston, and the fallout that’s still going on.
Don’t agree- to imply Preller either leaked or condoned the leaked report is reckless, and if he were really so shady, LAD and others would not be trading with him in the first place.
If Preller takes the deal for the selfish reason of preserving some small aspect of reputation he is doing San Diego a great disservice
Rosenthal et al. push hard for insider info like this, they are as guilty as anyone in regards to alleged HIPAA breach.
The only way Rosenthal knew about the information was because someone leaked it. He has no obligation not to report it.
I agree with Matt about “insider’s” scoops. These reporters know that these leaks break the law. The reporters are the ones making this news public for the sake of their twitter account.
Quick question, can a player refuse a medical exam when they are traded? I mean, why should Matt Kemp agree to one when something like this can happen? He’s not signing a new contract, so there’s no change of money and he probably didn’t want to go to San Diego either. Taking a medical exam is a lose-lose scenario for him. Before anyone says it’s good for him to know that he has arthritis, he could have made his own doctor’s appointment without everyone else knowing it too.
I imagine there is something in the collective bargaining agreement that prevents a player from refusing a physical. Otherwise every player who didnt want to be traded would just refuse a physical in the hopes the other team would back out.
I have zero evidence to back that up though.
Almost all trades are made pending physical. Kemp would have no say in that. If he refused a physical, it would mean there’s probably a serious problem, and the team trading for him would not want him.
No, the CBA and the UPC (uniform player’s contract) require players to consent to a medical examination as a condition of a trade. The disclosure of the health information produced from the physical is also covered by the CBA and UPC.
HIPAA laws would not extend to the Padres or Dodgers, so any executive blabbering about Kemp’s medical conditions to the press would not be in violation of HIPAA. And the CBA and UPC mandates that players waive HIPAA so that the covered entities (doctors, trainers, etc.) can disclose their findings to the teams.
The language in the UPC forbids teams from disclosing the results of a medical examination conducted as a requirement to complete a trade to anyone but the parties involved in the trade. However, the player can give written consent to disclose this information to the public.
So, in a nut shell, Kemp has no HIPAA claim. If Kemp did not give written authorization to disclose this information to the public, then he has an actionable grievance for a violation of the CBA and UPC.
I suspect that Kemp authorized this disclosure, because if the Padres backed out of the trade, the Dodgers would be required to disclose the results of the Padres physical to any other team that requests it. Therefore, it’s probably better for Kemp to have this information out there rather than go through the same process again and again.
So, yes, Ken Rosenthal is wrong. Big shocker.
It doesn’t seem as simple as just that. From the UPC:
“I acknowledge that HIPAA may not prevent the recipients of medical information pursuant to Paragraph 3 above from re-disclosing that information. However, under Paragraph 6(b) of the UPC, these recipients may not disclose that information to any other person other than as provided therein without my express written consent.”
“than provided therein” is referring to the list in Paragraph 3, which specifically spells out those who can access this info. Media members are not among those listed. Releasing PHI to a member of the press seems like a no-no.
That’s what I wrote.
Hence, my comment that if Kemp did not authorize disclosure, then he has an actionable grievance for violation of the CBA and UPC.
HIPAA doesn’t protect Kemp. The CBA does.
Thanks for that, BRH. Quality comment.
This. People think HIPPA is vastly more broad then it is.
“The Privacy Rule does not protect your employment records, even if the information in those records is health-related. Generally, the Privacy Rule also does not apply to the actions of an employer, including the actions of a manager in your workplace.”
http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/privacy/hipaa/understanding/consumers/employers.html
Wouldn’t the first call by any other team interested after a rejected trade be to the agent saying “before we do anything we need to see the results of that physical? So the damage to his market gets done, just quietly rather than publicly.
As much as I appreciate patient confidentiality, I’d like to know where the line is with regards to what can and cannot be disclosed about a player’s injury history. We freely talk and speculate about Tommy John surgeries, among a wide range of other player maladies. BP tracks every injury a player has ever suffered.
How is ‘degenerative hips’, which you cite above as something that has been disclosed about at least one other MLB player in the past, not in the same category? It will certainly affect Kemp on the field.
Legally, maybe there’s a difference – I truly don’t know. But morally, isn’t there a gigantic difference between this information being public knowledge and, say, herpes or some other tangential condition?
I dont really know either but I would have to think that the difference is that the info we get from injury reports, DL time, etc etc is part of the CBA where as a physical performed by a doctor is a more private matter and is more subject to confidentiality.
But thats just a guess. I would like to hear the actual answer.
The actual answer is that HIPPA binds medical providers and certain business associates that they contract with. It does not bind employers, the public, the media, or anyone else.
Even assuming that Prellar is an underhanded asshole, the leak does nothing for him that he can’t do better by standing up for his interest privately with Friedman. The Dodgers wouldn’t have know about the arthritis any more than Napoli knew he had a degenerative hip before his exam in Boston. But this is a game changer, no doubt about it. Inconvenience is what it is. It was clear enough before the trade that Kemp needed to go to the AL, or at the very least learn 1B.
And why is it that nobody suspects that the leak came through Kemp, a relative, or a girl friend with a big mouth?
Matt Kemp have a girlfriend with a big mouth? Seems unlikely.
Come back to me. I may be broken and alone, but I still have a very large house.
The Padres are not going to back out of trading for Kemp because they realize it is not a good trade. They wanted Kemp, and the comment sections of various baseball blogs are not going to make them rethink their decision. But they are essentially now negotiating for a completely different player, so perhaps while healthy Matt Kemp is someone they wanted, not-healthy Matt Kemp is not.
Arthritis is the new market inneficiency
One “n”, and (like the 1988 Fleer Bill Ripken) two F’s.
I think it’s performance art: mocking, challenging, criticizing, and yet embracing the oft-used phrase. Is it a “market inefficiency” or is it “market inneficiency”? And what is the difference when the former is beaten into the ground? Perhaps we need a new paradigm, a new approach…the “inneficiency.”
Get out of here idiot
fleer sucked and you know it
I don’t understand the 2nd to last paragraph at all. All trades (and signings) are generally conditional on a physical. If they have new information which changes their valuation of a player (based on the medicals) they have a clear good faith reason to either renegotiate or reject the deal.
That the information leaked is irrelevant (that’s a separate issue) – I have no idea why Dave would link their ability to refuse the trade (or renegotiate the terms) with the information leaking.
“leaving the Dodgers holding a bag of arthritic hips wouldn’t be a good way to show everyone that he’s changed his stripes.”
What in the shit I don’t even
Nearly every asset acquisition or swap deal is contingent on physicals, and more than a few have fallen through after the acquirer’s discovery of relevant medical data. Whether or not Preller is an easy guy to play ball with, this deal was made pending a physical and it seems pretty obvious that the Padres reasonably don’t love the results. The appropriateness of leaking this or lack thereof (if, indeed, the Padres are the culpable party) really has nothing to do with him “leaving the Dodgers holding an asset they already had and were only giving up pursuant to a universally-used part of deal-making that appears to have reasonably made the deal go south.”
Cameron really missed on this one.
Nothing much new to say, aside from what’s already been written in these chats.
In the long run doesn’t it benefit Preller’s reputation and the FO of the Padres to not accept this trade.
I would think that FOs throughout baseball have to engage in deals and interactions that rely on integrity.
Being willing to walk away from a trade or renegotiate isn’t a hit to his perceived integrity. Neither is a leak. The leak doesn’t impact Kemp’s trade value because every other team would get a physical as well. Preller doing what he’s doing may put him in better standing with his peers. Other GMs would relate to his dilemma and maybe applaud the way he handled it.