Please let it be Kemp or Kershaw. Please let it be Kemp or Kershaw. Please let it be Kemp or Kershaw.

Please let it be Kemp or Kershaw. Please let it be Kemp or Kershaw. Please let it be Kemp or Kershaw.


I wouldn't think Kershaw, but I'd think easily Kemp or LaRoche. If that's the case, the group that hates Colletti would finally get their dumb ass trade.

And Uncle Ned is stupid enough to seek such a deal.

If that's the case, the group that hates Colletti would finally get their dumb ass trade.

Huh? I hate Colletti because of exactly the possibility that he might make just this kind of a dumbass trade.

It's not going to be Kemp or Kershaw. Lu and McDonald, more likely.

-- MWE

I would think LaRoche would be the best the Pirates can hope for. It's simply impossible to see the Dodgers trading Kemp at this point -- not that they're enamored of him necessarily but because even they know an OF of Pierre, Jones and Ethier isn't going to get it done. Contending teams aren't willing to open new holes at the ML level to close existing ones.

Now if it's, oh, Wilson and Nady or Bay ... then Kemp is clearly on the table and I think the Pirates might want to push a deal along those lines.

I wouldn't give up any of those 3 for Jack Wilson. He's not even league average anymore is he?

A Dodgers source indicated that Los Angeles might be willing to deal center fielder Matt Kemp. The 23-year-old right-handed hitter, who has both power and speed, is considered a potential superstar.

Bill Plaschke should not be considered a Dodgers source.

Contending teams aren't willing to open new holes at the ML level to close existing ones.

Huh. The kids are tradeable, sayeth Ned:

"We're more open-minded to who we may have to move," Colletti said.

Asked if he were referring to the young players, Colletti said, "They're not really young kids anymore."

Colletti's comments echoed what owner Frank McCourt told me earlier in the week when asked about the possibility of trading some of the kids. He said the ones they will hold onto are "the ones who are prepared to put in the work, listen to coaches and get better every day." The kids who they would be willing to part with are "the ones that can't do those things."

This is code for Matt Kemp.

This is code for Matt Kemp.

Hell man, how about Bobby Crosby for Kemp. Make it happen Billy!

Jack Wilson as an offensive player looks kinda like a slower Juan Pierre....

A Wilson-for-Kemp trade would make me embarrassed to be a Dodgers fan.

And I'll believe it when it happens.

The Dodgers are surely willing to trade Kemp -- in a deal that will also replace Kemp. If it brings in Wilson and Bay/Nady, then obviously Kemp is on the table. I can well imagine they were willing to include Kemp for Sabathia (given the way pitching is valued).

But Kemp for Wilson or Kemp for non-embarrassing 3B option -- not going to happen. OK, maybe if Andruw Jones heats up, but so far he's 1 for 10 with 5 Ks since his return.

Colletti may not be the sharpest tool in the shed and he knows they have to find a decent SS solution so I have no doubt he's willing to overpay for Wilson, but even Ringmaster Ned knows that Pierre, Jones, Ethier every day is a death knell for the Dodgers' chances.

Colletti may not be the sharpest tool in the shed and he knows they have to find a decent SS solution so I have no doubt he's willing to overpay for Wilson, but even Ringmaster Ned knows that Pierre, Jones, Ethier every day is a death knell for the Dodgers' chances.

They have a 21 yr old strong defensive shortstop in AA with an OBP over .400. Bring him up and play him along with Nomar.

Or, if Hu's vision starts to clear up, DFA Berroa, DFA Maza, and play Hu/Nomar until Nomar's body explodes.

Anything is better than giving up anything of value for Jack Wilson.

How about Juan Uribe for Kemp :)

Bay and Wilson for Kemp, LaRoche and Hu.

Oh, the humanity!

That'd be confusing if the Bucs had both A. LaRoches.

Renteria for Kemp. Renteria is guaranteed gold in the NL (or something).

I can dream...man if there is one trade that the Tigers are re-wishing right now...

I think some people here are being too hard on Jack Wilson. He's not someone you should be trading Kemp to get, but he's a perfectly fine starting shortstop. 90 OPS+ so far this year, 105 last year, and he's a pretty good defender as well. That's better than the current version of Nomar, or anything else the Dodgers have in-system at the moment.

He's not a star, and he's not a great long-term bet, but he's not worthless, either.

Nomar just slammed a homerun as a shortstop.

Jack Wilson hasn't even done that this year!

In thinking about the Dodgers' infield needs (including need for infield defense), don't forget that they're playing a 40-year-old at 2B - and he maybe isn't what he used to be.

Let's remember this is a team that willingly traded for and started Angel Berroa the last month.

Let's remember this is a team that willingly traded for and started Angel Berroa the last month.

They traded a utility infielder from low A ball (who had been in the system for years, never getting time as a starter) for the right to pay Berroa league minimum (the Royals are paying the rest). And Berroa has outhit Hu - whom the Dodgers wanted to send down before his confidence was irrevocably shot. Not exactly the bad move you claim.

But the bad shortstop situation is why the Dodgers are considering trading for Jack Wilson, of course. Fortunately, the better Nomar plays the less leverage the Pirates have. Unless his body explodes before the trade deadline.

#23 -- yes, but Hu is the better glove, and could be reasonably inferred to have actual offensive upside given his youth. Even if that's only Cesar Izturis upside, it's worth something more than Angel Berroa, who by all the advanced metrics I've read is a terrible defender, his outstanding play in today's one-hitter notwithstanding.

Who would have guessed, back in 2003, that in five years the Dodgers would have Nomar Garciaparra, Rafael Furcal and Angel Berroa - and be in desperate need of a shortstop.

#23 -- yes, but Hu is the better glove, and could be reasonably inferred to have actual offensive upside given his youth. Even if that's only Cesar Izturis upside, it's worth something more than Angel Berroa, who by all the advanced metrics I've read is a terrible defender, his outstanding play in today's one-hitter notwithstanding.
Page 1 of 1 pages

Sure. But Hu was floundering pathetically at the plate, and it's not a bad move to be careful about the guy you hope will be the longterm answer at shortstop. As far as I can figure out, Hu had developed a mental block at the plate - so sending him down to get him right was appropriate. And Berroa was only supposed to be there for a couple of weeks, before Furcal was expected back. Unfortunately, Furcal had a setback, followed by back surgery, likely ending his Dodger career.

I find it amusing, that Ned did something to actually help a prospect, and he is being criticized, even though it was likely a win neutral move. Seriously, the Juan Rivera that was traded is about as close to the Platonic ideal of a warm body as I've ever seen. The salary taken on (pro-rated) was less than .2 percent of the team's payroll. There was a small chance that he would play well. Even as poor as he has played, he's been comparable at worst to Hu - who needed to be sent down.

Berroa hasn't worked out - but the trade was made with the idea that he could fill in for two weeks or so, at virtually zero cost. Unfortunately, after the trade, Furcal had a setback. But that's just not a trade that makes sense to criticize. If Furcal doesn't suffer the setback, and the Dodgers had traded something significant for a fill in, people would be ######## about that.

I find it amusing, that Ned did something to actually help a prospect, and he is being criticized, even though it was likely a win neutral move.

I didn't bring up the Berroa trade with Hu in mind. Yeah, Hu was struggling and they needed to send him down.

They didn't need to bring in Angel Berroa. Two different moves. I was pointing out that he brought in Angel Berroa, so that the door is plenty open for dumb ass moves. I think one of the only questions that the answer is Angel Berroa is "Who's one of the worst hitting and worst fielding shortstops of the last 10 years?"

They traded a utility infielder from low A ball (who had been in the system for years, never getting time as a starter) for the right to pay Berroa league minimum (the Royals are paying the rest)

They gave up more than a bag of balls, they paid too much.

They gave up more than a bag of balls, they paid too much.

No, they gave up something equal in value to a bag of balls. They paid the right amount.

Once again, just wanted to jump in and advise waiting until Ned makes this mythical disastrous trade before calling him stupid. I know we're all eager to rip him, but patience is warranted my friends.

They gave up more than a bag of balls, they paid too much.

They gave up a guy who could be easily replaced by trawling the roster of any Frontier League team. All they did for the Royals in exchange for Berroa was make it slightly easier for the Royals to find such a guy to fill out one of their minor-league rosters. Equivalent to a bag of balls, as DCA says.

They gave up a guy who could be easily replaced by trawling the roster of any Frontier League team.

All they got back was a guy who could be easily replaced by trawling the roster of any Frontier League team.

You can say that, but it isn't true. Plus, there is some value to having major-league experience when you're looking for someone strictly as a stopgap who won't embarrass himself. Berroa has better hitting stats right now than EVERY ONE of the Dodgers' pitchers! Can you truly say this guy would equal that performance?

I'm willing to wager a reasonable sum that the only way Kemp and Wilson are involved in the same trade is if there's another, better Pirate involved. That just makes no sense, even for Colletti. I think Mike E is right about the likely price, although given the way LaRoche has been treated by the organization recently I wouldn't be completely shocked if he was included (I don't think that's likely, however).

The issue with someone like Berroa is not how much he costs or what you gave up for him... it is how much playing time does he get. Everytime he is in a game you probably would have been better served with some minor leaguer getting a few hacks to get the feel of the majors.

How could they do worse than Berroa?

It will be interesting to see what they give up for Wilson.

Expect DeWitt to continue to face right-handed pitchers over LaRoche after last night's 3-for-3. Still, why give up LaRoche? Even if DeWitt stays at third, which is no sure thing, they'll need a second baseman next year if not sooner to replace Kent.

The only major leaguer that the Dodgers are likely to trade at this point is Kemp, and I could see them trading Kemp, Hu and a pitching prospect or two to the Pirates for Wilson and Bay.

What's Bay's contract situation with the Pirates, and would they look to move him?

What's Bay's contract situation with the Pirates, and would they look to move him?

Free agent after next season. I'd think the Pirates should look to move him. They'll get a decent amount for him, he's having a good year and his salary is pretty low. All that being said, he's 30 next season, so this is what you got. He's not going to get any better. If they truly are looking to stock up some talent, then the time to sell high is now.

The only major leaguer that the Dodgers are likely to trade at this point is Kemp

I still think that LaRoche is in the conversation. He's not getting any regular playing time, and DeWitt hasn't hit a lick since May. The Dodgers think LaRoche is probably a bit injury prone (that may be true), and Plashke probably doesn't think he's a "gamer" or a "grinder". Even if he is, he's nowhere near the gamer DeWitt is.

Of course, we're just talking about the Dodgers. This doesn't address the Pirates. If reports are to be believed, they have no intention of giving up Wilson (I don't believe it, I just think they're driving up value), which means there's not a snowball's chance they'd contemplate giving up Bay. I think the Drive for 75 is still in effect there.

Re: 35

A team could trade for any Pirate it wanted to acquire. The issue is the return the Pirates would take for that player. Since Littlefield and McClatchy are gone and individuals who seem competent now run the team, Pirate trades may not provoke the derision and belly laughter to which we've grown accustomed.

But the new regime lacks the track record we need to make detailed educated guesses about what it will do.

Bay is signed through 2009. He's due $7.5M next year. He's a bargain, I would say.

From Jayson Stark:


Clubs that have talked to them say it's not impossible they could trade both their corner outfielders if they get a young, big league-ready outfielder back in one of those deals.