If the Dodgers are patient, Kemp might prove more productive than Bay, Ordonez or even Holliday. But this is a team that has won only one postseason game in the past 20 years. Colletti needs to win. Manager Joe Torre wants to win. And Matt Kemp is one powerful chip.

The first sentence here describes perfectly why trading Kemp for any of those guys is nuts. Did Robothal come up with this idea himself or do you think someone asked him to float the idea?

Did Robothal come up with this idea himself or do you think someone asked him to float the idea?

I bet it's out there. For two seasons now, Jeff Kent has targeted Kemp as everything that's wrong with the kids on the Dodgers. Torre hasn't spoken well of him either.

I said about three days ago that every GM in baseball is waiting for Colletti to put LaRoche and Kemp on the block.

If Colletti did this, it would be the dumbass feather in his dumbass cap.

I haven't followed the Dodgers closely, but I don't think that they could get anything with Kemp that would improve them enough to contend with the Diamondbacks.

Revs up the mind control machine.

Targets Colletti.

Programs the mind control machine: 'Trade Kemp to the Pirates.'

Programs the mind control machine: 'Trade Kemp to the Mets.'

Fixed

"and the Pirates have pitching to spare"

Sure. Not much of it is any good, though. Duke, Dumatrait, and Maholm are back-of-the-rotation lefties, and Gorz is probably hurt. I guess you might see someone try to steal Snell on the cheap, but that's not the same thing as having a surplus.

Don't get me wrong, I'd gleefully blow a hole in the rotation if it brought back Kemp - send Bullington or whomever out there every fifth day to take his whuppin', then reload in the offseason. I just don't understand why he thinks there's this big surplus, when the rotation has been a patch job all year and there's nothing at AAA.

You know, my initial quick read of the headline was "Dodgers could deal KENT," to which my reaction was, "sure, that would be great, but who the hell would take him... But now I see the "plan" proposed is far, far worse than my initial reading.

"Programs the mind control machine: 'Trade Kemp to the Mets.'"

Knocks out Swoboda, buries him in concrete, and re-fixes the mind-control machine to target the Pirates.

What the hell would the Mets trade for him, anyway? Wright? Reyes? Santana? Y'all aren't exactly brimming with prime trade chips right now...

I was surprised that Rosenthal seems to imply the Tigers are still plugging along for 2008, I was under the impression that with 2/5th of their (theoritical) starting rotation either hurt or in single-A they would have given up the ghost by now.

I was under the impression that with 2/5th of their (theoritical) starting rotation either hurt or in single-A they would have given up the ghost by now.

What the hell else are they going to do? They have an old team, not many tradeable parts, and no prospects in the high minors.

It's really a shame the DBacks and Dodgers are in the same division.
Eric Byrnes for Matt Kemp would be a trade made in Colletti's heaven.
California playah and UCLA alum going home to inject life in Dodgers.
Cancer removed from Dodgers outfield and banished off to the desert.

Sigh

What the hell else are they going to do? They have an old team, not many tradeable parts, and no prospects in the high minors.

Well, the article was about a possibly-tradeable part (Ordonez) and indicated they weren't interested. That's contrary to the idea that they're done, which I'm pretty sure they are.

"It's really a shame the DBacks and Dodgers are in the same division."

So figure out a 3-way, right?

Jason Bay? Matt Holliday? Magglio Ordonez? Right now, Kemp's bat is somewhat inferior to those guys', but he's better defensively. You're not getting enough of an upgrade to justify trading Kemp's future.

But you know what? As long as Uncle Ned is running the show, Kemp doesn't have a future in Los Angeles. So he might as well be traded for whatever upgrade he'll bring. Uncle Ned just better make damn sure it's really a 2008 upgrade he's getting back.

Well, the article was about a possibly-tradeable part (Ordonez) and indicated they weren't interested.

But, this doesn't address what they'll do next year. Ok, they trade Ordonez. Are they getting a near MLB ready prospect that's going to contribute almost as much as Ordonez next year? They probably won't get a decent MLB player, because the team that gets Mags will fancy itself a contender, so what are they getting? Even if they are done this year, they aren't in any position to start rebuilding - they have an older team that is a few pieces from contending. You don't just blow that up.

What the hell else are they going to do? They have an old team, not many tradeable parts, and no prospects in the high minors.

Tear the entire thing down. Trade everyone except Miggy and Verlander for whatever he'll bring. Magglio has some value; Inge has some value. Polanco has some value. Renteria has some value. I'd even trade Granderson if I got enough back, but now's not the time; you'd be selling low. You have to wait for him to come around.

Suck for two or three years and rebuild the farm system. Miggy's definitely used to it by now, right?

The idea is simply ridiculous. Craig sums it up well:

If Colletti did this, it would be the dumbass feather in his dumbass cap.

They probably won't get a decent MLB player, because the team that gets Mags will fancy itself a contender, so what are they getting?

Kemp! This article is about how the Dodgers are thinking about moving Kemp! That's what they're getting. But they aren't interested at all, baffingly.

And I'm not sure the Tigers are a few pieces from contending, at least not a few small ones. I suppose their pitching could straighten itself out, but this team seems dangerously close to having its window of oppertunity close.

The first sentence here describes perfectly why trading Kemp for any of those guys is nuts. Did Robothal come up with this idea himself or do you think someone asked him to float the idea?

Colletti himself is pumping helium into this particular trial balloon, I'd wager. The Helene Elliott interview in yesterday's Times was enough to make me think he's playing coy but wants to move the kids, and now:

"It's part of the process of having young players, especially as many as we do. It's incumbent upon myself, it's incumbent upon Joe, it's incumbent upon the coaching staff to continue to implore them to be as good as they can be and to take every at-bat seriously."

That's as serious an accusation as a GM can make: essentially he's claiming the kids aren't taking AB's seriously. None of the kids gets more grief in the Dodgers organization than Matt Kemp.

trust ned to do the right thing. he's playing coy so that he can swindle the pirates out of matt morris.

:-)

If Ned wants vets I would encourage the Crew to offer Suppan and Cameron......

That's as serious an accusation as a GM can make: essentially he's claiming the kids aren't taking AB's seriously. None of the kids gets more grief in the Dodgers organization than Matt Kemp.

Juan Pierre and Andruw Jones, on the other hand, take their ABs seriously? I'd hate to see what happened if they didn't. Actually, who am I kidding? I would love it.

Dear Colletti: please trade Kemp. While you're at it, trade all of your other good young players.

Okay, this might be a dumb question, but IS Matt Kemp a clubhouse cancer? I mean, this thread seems to refer to rumors of his unlikeability (though when Jeff Kent is the guy who doesn't get along with you, then oh well)...has there been anything solid in the media about Kemp being a bad customer?

has there been anything solid in the media about Kemp being a bad customer?

Kent doesn't like him, Luis Gonzalez didn't like him, and Torre hasn't had nice things to say. Consider the three sources: a red-ass that everyone hates, a guy who lost his job because of Kemp, and a manager that threw one of the 10 greatest players ever under the bus.

Chris Dial would want me to point out that the obvious solution here is to trade Kemp for as much as you could get - something like Nate Robertson and Brandon Inge - then bring in Barry Bonds to play left for the Dodgers.

Jim Edmonds could be had as well.

The answer with Kemp is just to give him the ball. With Broxton, Billingsley and Penny out front blocking, he should easily get 4.5 yards a carry.

Tear the entire thing down. Trade everyone except Miggy and Verlander for whatever he'll bring.

I love how this is everyone's solution to any team that doesn't win 85+ games a year.

I think I would consider being hated by Jeff Kent a point of honor.

I love how this is everyone's solution to any team that doesn't win 85+ games a year.

So what would you do for a team that is on pace to lose 94 games and has an older roster than all but 9 teams?

So what would you do for a team that is on pace to lose 94 games and has an older roster than all but 9 teams?

Honestly? Probably not much. Yeah, there's a few guys that you look to move, but I wouldn't tear it all down. There's still next season. The White Sox are an older team, KC sucks, the Twins aren't anything great, and Cleveland's in the same boat as Minnesota. You see what happens over the offseason, you get your men healthy, and you have a go again.

Edit: Few guys to move: Robertson, Rogers, Todd Jones, Rodney, even Zumaya if someone will give you something good. If you aren't getting something that won't help next season, then it isn't worth it.

It would never happen, but a Manny for Kemp deal intrigues me.

The answer with Kemp is just to give him the ball. With Broxton, Billingsley and Penny out front blocking, he should easily get 4.5 yards a carry.

Kemp is one of the most exciting players to watch. I'd take him in a second.

I don't see how you can blow up the Tigers. At least take the chance that Rodney and Zumaya can come back and not be shelved again (at least one of them). Then trust that Granderson won't continue to have a .242 BABIP and see if Cabrera can get back toward normal.

Didn't he have some absurd number of babies with women while on the road?

Trade him.

For all the shots Colletti takes, he hasn't given away Ethier or Kemp (even after he signed Andruw). And the fact is the Dodgers can absord bad deals like Pierre and Jones. The team pissing away talent in the NL West is Arizona, not Los Angeles. Less than a year after giving away Quentin and Hairston, it took one injury for Chris Burke to receive regular PT in LF.

I love how this is everyone's solution to any team that doesn't win 85+ games a year.

Yeah, look how terribly trading their two best players worked out for the A's.

(EDIT: Kneejerk reaction. That's dumb. The guys the A's traded had much, much, much more value than anybody the Tigers might reasonably want to trade.)

I don't know... on one hand, they're 10 games out, but on the other, they're 10 games behind the White Sox, and a Tigers partisan might find reason to be optimistic the White Sox could collapse. If that's your premise, keeping it together and seeing what happens could work. But they're already down Bonderman, and Rogers and Rodriguez are done.

Add Sheffield to the list of useless Tigers.

"I implore each and every one of you to be as good as you can be and to take every at-bat seriously. And no more Arnold Schwarzenegger impersonations in the batter's box."

I don't know... on one hand, they're 10 games out, but on the other, they're 10 games behind the White Sox, and a Tigers partisan might find reason to be optimistic the White Sox could collapse. If that's your premise, keeping it together and seeing what happens could work. But they're already down Bonderman, and Rogers and Rodriguez are done.

Although I'm a Sox partisan, you're right -- the Sox could collapse. But the problem is that, at this point, the Tigers have to believe they can...

make up 10 games on the Sox;

make up 3.5 games on the Twins; AND

make up 2.5 games on the Indians.

On the other hand, everybody laughed at Kenny Williams for taking a "win now" attitude this past off-season.

EDIT: Kneejerk reaction. That's dumb. The guys the A's traded had much, much, much more value than anybody the Tigers might reasonably want to trade.)

Exactly -- Swisher (signed through 2012 at less than 7M per year) and Haren (signed through 2010 at about 5.5M per year) are young players with great contracts. By contrast, even the Tigers' best players are signed for a bunch of money. Is Ordonez really so valuable that you want to give up a bunch to pay him 16M per year through 2011? The only contract that looks really good is Polanco (4.5M this year and next).

matt kemp is a clubhouse cancer to the pinhead sh!tstirring writers for the l.a. times like plaschke and simers who had nothing better to do so they basically went from kent to gonzalez to kemp last year like a couple of high school gossips while grady little decided to take his name seriously and sat on his ### and watched the dodgers drop out of contention.

that's a bit harsh, i realize, and maybe blame should be apportioned more judiciously, but the fact remains management just doesn't seem to know what to do with the talent they've got, and sometimes it seems like they actually worry about what the writers have to say. its weird.

I'm never one to defend the Phillies' minor league talent, but somebody has to explain to me how the Cubs will not be denied in the quest for Sabathia, yet the Phillies don't have the horses to get into the conversation.

Hey, you know what, though? Plaschke runs the Dodgers. Everyone knows this by now. So like it or not, the Dodgers have to try to win the ol' fashioned way. It's just that Ned isn't the guy for the job. He's not the guy for any job that involves running a baseball team.

I'm never one to defend the Phillies' minor league talent, but somebody has to explain to me how the Cubs will not be denied in the quest for Sabathia, yet the Phillies don't have the horses to get into the conversation.

It's frankly pretty dumb for the Cubs to want to pick up Sabathia. They're going to run away with the NL Central without him, and he requires a mega-contract. If they want him, just sign him off the FA market. His usefulness this year is very limited (in this case, strictly limited to the we-need-a-dominant-starter-to-win-in-the-playoffs idea.)

<strike>sometimes it seems like</strike> they <strike>actually</strike> always worry about what the writers have to say.

Fixed.

Don't worry, C.C. Sabathia is going to be pitching for the Tigers next season. I don't think the Tigers should blow it up-Guillen, Maggs, Miggy, and Granderson will all be above-average next season again, Polanco should be close to that, Renetira should be decent. They do need to decide where they stand-but that can wait near the trade deadline to see if they can ship off a Robertson or Todd Jones for anything. But the team is not going to be afraid to spend money (thank you NHL salary cap), I kid a little about Sabathia-but I bet they go after some sort of pitcher with bags full of money.

Justin, your analysis is correct, but your conclusion is wrong. If his usefulness is limited to we-need-a-dominant-starter-to-win-in-the-playoffs, then bring him on.

It's frankly pretty dumb for the Cubs to want to pick up Sabathia. They're going to run away with the NL Central without him, and he requires a mega-contract. If they want him, just sign him off the FA market. His usefulness this year is very limited (in this case, strictly limited to the we-need-a-dominant-starter-to-win-in-the-playoffs idea.)

I totally disagree. The Cubs are essentially a lock for the playoffs, but who are their dominant starters? Who's going to match up with Haren and Webb if Arizona makes the playoffs, or Beckett and Matsuzaka if Boston plays them in the WS? Dempster? Lilly? I don't think so. I'd rather give up a few prospects for a half-year of Sabathia than wait until the off-season and pay him 20M per for 5+ years. I'm not a Cubs fan, but it sure as hell looks like '08 is their year -- it's time for them to go all in.

I still think Ned takes too much abuse around here. He still hasn't traded the blue chip prospects for pennies on the dollar. Pierre and Schmidt were awful, but taking a flyer on Jones and Furcal with short term contracts wasn't a bad idea. He's done some good stuff. Really! We all keep waiting for him to dump LaRoche and Kemp and Kershaw and Loney so we can tear into his soft, savory flesh with just a hint of sweetness to tingle our palates, but he won't give us the satisfaction. Why, Ned, why? Let us have our fun!

I can buy that. It's not like the Cubs are ever going to use Pie, anyway. May as well cash him in.

I'm not a Cubs fan, but it sure as hell looks like '08 is their year -- it's time for them to go all in.

The last time the Cubs were worth a crap Dusty the Arm Buster went all in and thereby destroyed Mark Prior. I hope Hendry learned some things since then, although he did hire Dave Littlefield in the off season.

When I think dominant starter available in trade, I think Rich Harden.

When I think dominant starter available in trade, I think Rich Harden.

Think harder.

I still think Ned takes too much abuse around here.

Tim Marchman was talking about this recently. It isn't so much that guys like Coletti or Sabean are bad historically speaking. It's just that their competition lately is so good that they look bad by comparison. Baseball execs aren't conducting trades after three martinis anymore, AFAICT.

Zack Greinke and Mark Teahen for Matt Kemp and Chin Lung Hu

Mark Teixeira would look good in a Dodger uniform.

When I think dominant starter available in trade, I think Rich Harden.

Think harder.

What, you want Harden to get hurt again?!?!?

When I think dominant starter available in trade, I think Rich Harden.



Think harder.

Not if you're an A's fan hoping to cash in on Harden.

This is the worst Imaginary Trade Fanboy Mass Masturbation Thread for a long, long time.

A 5.5 game "playoff" lead abut a month before the All Star Break is hardly a lock. This is the Cubs we are talking about. 1908.

This is the worst Imaginary Trade Fanboy Mass Masturbation Thread for a long, long time

indeed. my pants hit the floor after just the headline.

"Zack Greinke and Mark Teahen for Matt Kemp and Chin Lung Hu"

Nothing says "stable veteran leadership" like a guy who had to walk away from the sport to be treated for depression.

Matt Kemp = Lastings Milledge.

-- MWE

It's lonely out here. I'll never understand the Kemp devotion that seems common here.

Mark my words: Matt Kemp will never be a star.

He K's 1 per 3.7 AB. That's not horrible but it's not good. He's shown no interest in taking walks yet. His BA is 299 this year on the basis of an unsustainable 414 on-contact BA which is nothing compared to last season's 442. His career BABIP (not on-contact) is 395.

He is young of course. There's plenty of room for power growth. He'll be an average or slightly better hitter for a corner OF and maybe he brings enough else to the table to be a good all-around player. But I won't be surprised if he never has a higher OPS+ than last year (125).

Kemp isn't anything that special and if I could trade him to guarantee a playoff spot, I'd probably do it. And given Bay is only 29 and Holliday 28, it's not like the Dodgers won't likely get a few more good years out of those guys.

On the other hand, I'd tell Kent to keep his mouth shut while he's putting up an 80 OPS+.

Matt Kemp = Lastings Milledge.

-- MWE

These days, I'm not sure if that's a compliment or an insult.

Milledge has been playing better of late.

--

I think the top starters available are (in order) Sabbathia, Ben Sheets, and Harden. You'd have to be crazy to count Harden out - sure, he's a risk, but he's lights-out when he pitches. Someone will take a chance on that.

But I won't be surprised if he never has a higher OPS+ than last year (125).

Interesting take on it. I guess we shall see. I'd prefer to roll the dice with him at his cheap cost than pick up the huge cost of some of the mentioned guys for what amounts to not a big upgrade.

His BA is 299 this year on the basis of an unsustainable 414 on-contact BA which is nothing compared to last season's 442

There's no particular reason to think that a .380-.390 range value for a hitter would be unsustainable, and 1 K per 3.7 AB, while on the high side, isn't outlandish. What Kemp doesn't have is the power production that is necessary to be productive at those levels - there are far too few doubles and HRs in the mix. Kemp's on a pace where he'd hit about 30 doubles and 10-12 HRs in 500 PAs, and he'd really need about 10-15 more doubles and twice as many HRs.

-- MWE

My Kemp=Milledge comment was more about the way that the players have been handled by their teams, rather than any sort of direct comparison of the talent (although they are not dissimilar in that respect, either).

-- MWE

Markakis doesn't strike out as much, but he hits for about the same amount of power, so why does he get love?

Markakis doesn't strike out as much, but he hits for about the same amount of power, so why does he get love?

Markakis's SLG is 39 points higher than Kemp's, and his ISO is 44 points higher. That's hardly "the same amount of power".

-- MWE

Actually, Kemp=Milledge is a good comparison.

Kemp is a better player, but both arrived like they were already star players -- that is what has irked the Kents and Gonzalezs -- both guys who had to prove it first, and who have never adopted star attitudes during their careers.

Kent's an a-hole, but the guy's got a good shot at the HOF (or should have).

The real problem isn't Kent or Torre or even Kemp, but an LA media that expects a World Series title already. The fact that Kemp and Loney are in their first full ML seasons, that they're breaking in an even younger player at third, their best player is injured, and their free agents busts doesn't matter, they won't accept that this season is one of transition for the Dodgers.

If Colletti continues to hold onto his young talent (which he has) and makes one decent FA signing in the offseason, the Dodgers will be set for years to come.

Otherwise, burn Hollywood burn.

Markakis doesn't strike out as much, but he hits for about the same amount of power, so why does he get love?

I guess I missed the part where Kemp was among the league leaders in walks...

The real problem isn't Kent or Torre or even Kemp, but an LA media that expects a World Series title already. The fact that Kemp and Loney are in their first full ML seasons, that they're breaking in an even younger player at third, their best player is injured, and their free agents busts doesn't matter, they won't accept that this season is one of transition for the Dodgers.
Which is exactly Jon Weisman's point, made over at Dodger Thoughts.
Jon said the media focuses on the kids while ignoring Coletti's screwups, such as paying through the nose for Pierre, Jones and Schmidt.

Yeah, but Kemp actually WAS a star player from the moment of arrival.

Milledge has been playing better of late.

.278/.333/.472 in June...
Seriously, this is how bad the Nats OF is:
Milledge at .251/.318/.377 on the year, is EASILY there best hitting OF ytd...

Pluses:
Kemp is just 23 and is hitting .307/.344/.479 after 721 MLB at bats (OPS+ 108)
Kemp hit well in the minors,

Negatives:
Kemp is hated on by his organization and the local media

I'd be surprised at this point if he isn't traded

Why wouldn't Markakis get love?

Year Age OPS+
2006 22 106
2007 23 121
2008 24 138

Plus, his walk rate has increased significantly this year.

Kemp actually WAS a star player from the moment of arrival.

Welcome Dave Stewart!

Kemp isn't a great player now, but he's got the exciting athletic ability and he has shown an impressive power stroke before. A .263 ISO in the FSL, even in a hitter's park in the FSL, is impressive. Yeah, his power has been disappointing thus far in his big league career, but I think plenty of people believe he's got that potential still in him.

If Colletti continues to hold onto his young talent (which he has) and makes one decent FA signing in the offseason, the Dodgers will be set for years to come.

see, that's what he did this past winter: didn't trade any of the good young guys, rolled the dice with andruw jones, who he thought had upside. i'm not defending the jones signing, just pointing out that colletti has tried the formula. now, what's going to happen is that plaschke et. al. will correctly rag on the jones deal but then they will somehow still decide that kemp is still the problem, that juan pierre is misunderstood blah blah blah, and mccourt will read their bilge and let it get inside his head. if i was a deep dodger fan i'd be really worried.

I still think Ned takes too much abuse around here. He still hasn't traded the blue chip prospects for pennies on the dollar. Pierre and Schmidt were awful, but taking a flyer on Jones and Furcal with short term contracts wasn't a bad idea.

The BIG problem I have with this argument is fundamentally that

1) it says we should praise Ned for not doing something egregiously stupid, i.e. it lowers the bar for success to ridiculously low depths, and
2) it ignores the idiocy that Ned has beset the team with. Andruw Jones was a mistake from the moment the deal was announced, Jason Schmidt was a risk the Giants were unwilling to take (with good reason, as it turns out), and Juan Pierre was not worth the multi-million dollar contract he did get. The Dodgers DL is currently north of $40M. This is not an accident, but by design — Ned's design.

If Colletti continues to hold onto his young talent (which he has) and makes one decent FA signing in the offseason, the Dodgers will be set for years to come.

See, the problem is that 100% of the deadweight on the payroll is Ned's free agent signings. He has shown absolutely no ability to discern from free agent talent. None, zilch, nada y nada y nada.

now, what's going to happen is that plaschke et. al. will correctly rag on the jones deal but then they will somehow still decide that kemp is still the problem, that juan pierre is misunderstood blah blah blah, and mccourt will read their bilge and let it get inside his head.

Since Plaschke is a de facto team consultant, you can bet Colletti is hatching a similarly stupid plan back at Chavez Ravine.

Mark my words: Matt Kemp will never be a star.

I watch him bat and think of two people: Dave Winfield and Derrek Lee. Matt Kemp will most definitely be a star. He's going to hit around .300 with 25+ HR numerous times.

They're going to run away with the NL Central without him, and he requires a mega-contract. If they want him, just sign him off the FA market.

I think they want him more for this year than future years. Sabathia would make the Central that much more winnable, and would make the Cubs significantly tougher in a short series.

Andruw Jones was a mistake from the moment the deal was announced,

I still don't think this is true. He's signed to a very short deal, so the risk is low. This is the kind of moves more GMs should make.

And, did Ned sign Furcal, because besides this season, that's been a huge boon for him. Not that I'm defending him, because I think his signings have gone to great lengths to block the young players, and that's a huge strike.

I think of Kemp as being/becoming what everyone expected Wily Mo Pena would eventually turn into.

The BIG problem I have with this argument is fundamentally that

1) it says we should praise Ned for not doing something egregiously stupid, i.e. it lowers the bar for success to ridiculously low depths

No, it doesn't -- no one is talking about praising the guy for not giving away valuable young players for next to nothing (also known as "pulling a Josh Byrnes").

All the poster is saying is, "feel free to criticize the guy WHEN he does something stupid, but not before."

It's really a shame the DBacks and Dodgers are in the same division.

You'd think Colletti'd want to make this deal BECAUSE they're in the same division. Steal that stud Byrnes from a division rival, and weaken said rival with the addition of Cancer Kemp. Do it, Ned!

Andruw Jones was a mistake from the moment the deal was announced,

I still don't think this is true. He's signed to a very short deal, so the risk is low.

Plus Andruw was only 30, his age 27-29 seasons he'd hit 112, 136, 126 before putting up a stinker 88 in 2007. He'd put up a 94 in 2001, bracketed by 125 and 127 seasons.

Going into 2007, the "odds" were better than 50/50 that Jones would bounce back.
Given how horrible Jones started... I now think the odds are better than 50/50- that Jones is on the Jim Fregosi career path, but hey the Dodgers just gave up $ (and a pick?), nt a young Ryan.

On the other hand, Carlos Delgado, being a 36 year old DH type, having lost 60 OPS+ points in 3 years, was more likely than not to continue his decline, making Omar's failure to have a contingency plan in place a better example of GM malpractice than Ned's signing of Andruw.

'Trade Kemp to the Mets.'

Way too unproven for the Mets.

There's no particular reason to think that a .380-.390 range value for a hitter would be unsustainable, and 1 K per 3.7 AB, while on the high side, isn't outlandish. What Kemp doesn't have is the power production that is necessary to be productive at those levels - there are far too few doubles and HRs in the mix. Kemp's on a pace where he'd hit about 30 doubles and 10-12 HRs in 500 PAs, and he'd really need about 10-15 more doubles and twice as many HRs.

We're in agreement (mostly) Mike. I even mentioned that his K-rate isn't horrible, just not good.

A 380-390 on-contact BA is potentially sustainable, though pretty rare. But at 1 K per 3.7 AB, 380 on-contact translates to a 277 BA. The guy doesn't walk (at least not yet) so that's a 320ish OBP. He'll need about 200 points of ISO just to be about average for a corner OF (obviously his value is higher if he can stick in CF with average or better defense). As you point out, the big power hasn't shown up yet ... and to be a "star" with a 280 BA, he's gonna need an ISO in the 250-300 range. So we seem in agreement that he's not likely a 300 hitter going forward and, for a corner OF at least (don't know your feelings on his defense), a 280 BA isn't "star material" unless it comes with a good mix of walks and power.

And if the lack of power is for real, it's very unlikely he'll maintain a high on-contact BA because it will all be BABIP. Even guys like Gwynn and Boggs only had BABIPs in the 345 range. I've never gone looking too hard, but Cobb's the best I've found at just over 370. As I noted, Kemp's BABIP to date is 394 ... that is unsustainable. Take 50 points off his BABIP and you're looking at Kemp 2006.

Anyway, I don't mean to say the guy will be a bust. I think he'll probably end up around an average hitter for a corner OF, I just seriously doubt he'll be a star. If he develops power and begins to take a walk then his upside as a hitter is, oh, Pat Burrell? Not quite ... let's call a realistic upside 280/350/480 with a prospect for more power. Without the walks, he's got a chance to be Alfonso Soriano's career line (a "star" but also "just" a 116 OPS+ career which is about average for a LF, especially a low-OBP one).

Now I have no opinion on Kemp's defense or chances of sticking in CF. It seemed coming into this season the consensus was he would not stick in CF ... but I see they are playing him there over Pierre who used to be pretty good defensively. If he is actually a plus defensive CF, then a 115 OPS+ is fantastic. And I'm confident he'll be no worse than an average CF unless his defense is well below-average. It's Kemp as a corner where I start to get concerned.

But ... I hate when I focus on one piece of the question while ignoring the main question. If I could _guarantee_ myself a playoff spot, I'd deal him. But of course no player available in trade guarantees that and the upgrade to Holliday, Bay or Ordonez isn't that great (for half-a-season at least). Then you get into questions of money and future value. Holliday is probably the only one that would really intrigue me. He's still only 28, he's got one more year before FA, he's been consistent, I think he's supposed to be very good defensively, the Dodgers can afford him. You could say the same about Bay except he's a year older, had that one bad year and I don't think he's supposed to be good defensively.

Still, either of those trades would be somewhat reminiscent of Lee for Choi. A lot of folks here, including many Cub fans, didn't like that trade for the Cubs. But I loved it. Choi had a good chance of being average or better, a fair chance of being good and a small chance of being Jim Thome. Lee was already very good and still in the prime years (and his first deal with the Cubs was a bargain!). I'm almost always willing to trade potential for established goodness that is a good bet to stay good. And Kemp-Holliday/Bay would strike a good balance between short- and long-term goals (if you resign them at "reasonable" prices); Kemp-Ordonez not so much.

Anyway, I put the chances that Kemp has as good a career (as a hitter) as Holliday, Bay or Ordonez at pretty low. His chances of out-performing them over the next 4 seasons is obviously a lot higher, but I'd definitely put it below 50% with regard to Holliday or Bay and probably even below 1/3. Ordonez is getting old, and I've been expecting a collapse for a while :-), but he's starting to look like Moises Alou. Still I'd rather "gamble" on keeping Kemp than Ordonez.

If Kemp is an average or better defensive CF (or a top defensive corner OF), then I just keep Kemp.

Zack Greinke and Mark Teahen for Matt Kemp and Chin Lung Hu

Interesting, AG1F, but would you still do this trade?

Mark my words: Matt Kemp will never be a star.

He K's 1 per 3.7 AB. That's not horrible but it's not good. He's shown no interest in taking walks yet. His BA is 299 this year on the basis of an unsustainable 414 on-contact BA which is nothing compared to last season's 442. His career BABIP (not on-contact) is 395.

Well, I don't know about stars, or about Fangraph's metrics, but Kemp has been the best outfielder in the NL so far this year
http://www.fangraphs.com/leaders.aspx?pos=of&stats=bat&lg=nl&qual=y&type=6&season=2009&month=0

And shockingly, Kemp is doing a lot better than Milledge is. Who would've thunk it?
It's a shame, just a few years ago a Mets fan was telling me Milledge had much brighter future than anyone in the Dbacks system. He must've meant that Milledge would have more bling-bling than anyone the Dbacks have these days...

Holy ####, 1k5v3L. Don't ####### scare me.

Oh, I stumbled in this thread by accident... but it was a fun read.
What a difference a year makes... Ned should've traded Kemp when he had a chance

I haven't followed the Dodgers closely, but I don't think that they could get anything with Kemp that would improve them enough to contend with the Diamondbacks.

Sadly, you were right. They got Manny with a couple of much inferior players

Wow. I was reading this thread and was like "are all these posts satire?" Then I saw that it was a 2008 thread.

Ha. That explains the slightly overstated fear of Boston's "second-best" pitcher here:

The Cubs are essentially a lock for the playoffs, but who are their dominant starters? Who's going to match up with Haren and Webb if Arizona makes the playoffs, or Beckett and Matsuzaka if Boston plays them in the WS?

I read half this thread before realizing it was a year old. It was weird.

I was reading this thread and was like "are all these posts satire?" Then I saw that it was a 2008 thread.

Try reading a USS Mariner thread about Yuni Betancourt from last year or the year before. It's high comedy.

It's probably unfair to quote this, but there was this post:

Trades I’m Rooting For

July 12, 2008

Yuniesky Betancourt to the Dodgers for Andre Ethier and Chin-Lung Hu

[snip]

Why The Dodgers Should Do This: The Dodgers production from SS since Furcal got hurt has been as bad as the M’s DH production. They need a guy who can fill that gap while they make a playoff run, and Betancourt would be the best SS on the market. Yes, they lose Ethier, but they’re committed to getting at-bats to Pierre and Jones, so he wasn’t going to play enough in LA as is, and if they need to pick up another OF to replace his loss, that’s easier than finding a shortstop.

Yikes.

Actually, reading the entire post reveals the following is also included

Betancourt’s defensive reputation hasn’t matched his performance the last few years, and his swing-at-everything approach is too repetitive in this line-up. Betancourt’s not going to develop into the star the organization hoped he would, so trading him now before other teams realize that is the right way to begin rebuilding a bad group of position players.

But that might just make it worse.

I was like "what, huh, WTF" but didn't realize this was an old thread until I got to the part about the Cubs trying to get Sabathia.