I think if he's on the field he can be fine. Maybe not elite, but a damn good hitter playing below average defense in CF. But it's him being on the field which is an issue
well, i'm thinking more of Crawford in the 8th spot in the order behind AJ. Puig would be leading off in front of Andrus, imo Puig Andrus Hanley AGon Guerrero Ethier Uribe CC that kind of order. good speed at the bottom. Juan Pierre wasn't the defensive factor that Andrus is at a prime position and we need defense up the middle to take advantage of our pitching. i mean i made it perfectly clear that i'd take the lesser bat to upgrade in other areas because Andrus would still be a valuable player for the Dodgers. he's still very young and Texas is a HR hitter's park. the gaps are a major part of Dodgers Stadium and his speed could prove valuable to us as well. Puig can potentially take 25-30 bags in a full year...i'd like to pair that with Andrus' 30-40 stolen bags at the top of the lineup in front of Hanley/AGon/Guerrero/Ethier
Kemp for Andrus would make me so so happy. Fills our biggest need without adding money, and then we could sign Tanaka.
one man's thoughts... Dodgers Would Be Insane and Foolish to Sell Low and Trade Matt Kemp Team Would Be Wise to Hang onto Kemp and His Talent By Greg Zakwin | Yahoo Contributor Network – 56 minutes ago The Los Angeles Dodgers should not sell low and trade Matt Kemp. COMMENTARY | The recent week has produced countless trade rumors from national baseball writers centering around Los Angeles Dodgers star center fielder and should-have-been 2011 National League MVP Matt Kemp. With the Dodgers possessing four MLB-caliber outfielders in Kemp, Yasiel Puig, Carl Crawford, and Andre Ethier on the 25-man roster and under contract for big bucks -- as well as a top prospect in OF Joc Pederson -- it's natural for rumors to come to fruition. The Boys in Blue have some needs as they seek to reach the World Series after falling two games short in 2013, namely a third baseman and at least one more starting pitcher. Their minor league system, while much improved, could use some beefing up as well. They are, in fact, likely to trade one of their five top outfielders if a trading partner can be found, particularly after L.A. eats a good portion of the contract that will be heading away from Chavez Ravine (assuming it's not Pederson who's dealt). However, that outfielder will not be the uber-talented but recently injured Matt Kemp, as the club's front office and management would be foolish and insane to part with its most talented offensive player when his value is at its lowest. Dodgers Would Get Nowhere Near Equal Value Trading a guy who's been injured with a variety of ailments for the majority of the last two seasons isn't exactly going to yield the same package that trading him following his near 40/40 season in 2011 would have. The Dodgers would effectively be saying they feel Kemp will never help the team win -- and Crawford and Ethier are better options (with Ethier in center) -- if they trade The Bison away for pennies on the dollar. You should never trade knowing you're going to majorly lose out with whatever package you get in return, but that's exactly what would happen if Kemp were traded. Trading Kemp for pennies on the dollar would be bad business, plain and simple. Kemp Is Still Elite Offensively When Healthy Matt's 2011 season is the stuff legends are made of: .324/.399/.586/.985, .413 wOBA, 168 wRC+, 39 HRs, 40 SBs, 8.4 fWAR. His 2012 season was shaping up to be even better prior to hamstring and shoulder injuries, and it was still a very good season with all things being considered. Kemp entered 2013 hurt but when he was his closest to being healthy down the stretch, he slashed .319/.388/.556/.944 over his final 22 games with nine extra-base this. Unfortunately, that 22-game period began in late-June and ended in late-September with multiple DL stints and injuries mixed in. There's Nobody Better for Center Field If the club trades away Kemp, its starting center-field options are not pleasing: Ethier, Puig, Crawford, or Pederson. Ethier is a platoon left fielder in actuality and has barely been a passable right fielder for much of his career; no, he wasn't great in center in 2013. Crawford doesn't have the arm or legs for center, Puig is best suited to be one of the game's premier right fielders, and Pederson has never played above Double-A and may have to move to a corner outfield spot down the road, according to some projections. Kemp is not a great center fielder by any means, but he has a great arm, experience playing the position, and I've always felt he wasn't nearly as bad as the numbers say. I would peg him as below average to average at best, and with his offense that's something you don't just readily give away. Center fielders who hit like he does do not grow on trees. Kemp, Even Reduced, Is Still One of the Best Players in the Dodgers' Lineup Kemp's injury-plagued 2012 is proof positive of just how valuable he can still be. With hamstring issues and a severely torn labrum in his shoulder, which he played through as the year wound down, he still finished with a .303/.367/.538/.905 slash line, a wOBA of .383, and 47 extra-base hits. If Kemp were to produce that line in 2014, it would easily make him one of the top two or three offensive players on the roster. With a full offseason plus some extra time to heal from his ankle injury and move further away from his shoulder surgery, a return to even his 2012 level isn't farfetched in the least. Final Thoughts I would be remiss if I didn't state, for the record, that Matt Kemp is my favorite player. That being said, he is not untouchable or untradeable. His large contract and his recent injuries have indeed pushed him away from that untouchable label. However, the Dodgers would never get equal value in return nor anywhere close to it should they decide to deal him, especially with his recent health woes. Due to that simple and obvious fact in conjunction with his amazing ability at the plate and on the bases; the Dodgers' clear lack of center field options behind The Bison, as I detailed earlier this year; the team's struggles offensively at times with an aging group of hitters; and advances in modern medicine, trading away Matt Kemp -- the club's best offensive player when healthy - would truly be both foolish and insane. Greg Zakwin is the founder of Plaschke, Thy Sweater Is Argyle, a Dodgers' and sports card blog. He writes with an analytical tilt about The Blue Crew at ChadMoriyama.com. You can find and follow him on Twitter @ArgyledPlaschke. A graduate of UCLA in 2011 with a Bachelor's in History, he's been a follower of the Dodgers since birth and still mourns the loss of both Mike Piazza and Carlos Santana. __
Dude defense wise you can't compare Pierre and Andrus. The conversation is about what is a proper return for under performing Kemp at this point in his career. Adding a weak bat/fast/defensive specialist is too little in return for Kemp. My personal opinion is to keep Kemp and send Ethier packin. I would be ok with an Ethier for Andrus trade, but they would still need to throw in more. His OBP is no where near what it needs to be for a leadoff hitter. As well, Andrus's defense would not be a big upgrade over Hanley. I would sign Juan U for another and take his defense at 3b and keep Hanley at SS to keep Kemp in CF. It is not worth it for a Defensive slap hitter in Andrus. We had that back in the day in Alex Cora. Selling low on Kemp would be one of Ned's biggest blunders.
Given the past articles by Greg Zakwin, the opposite of what he says should probably be the course of action
i tend to side with spanky on kemp maybe it was just me, but i saw a couple flashes of the old kemp before he went down i'd hate to trade him and agree that we wouldn't get anywhere near fair value in return
Kemp is not going anywhere! Why does this conversation even come up. Freak shoulder accident and freak ankle, he's going to be fine and I personally would never use the word under performing in Kemp's case.
The last thing I want to see is Kemp traded for some mediocre return and then Matty becomes the player he once was again. His upside is too great to give up on at this point. Even if he doesn't return to 2011 Kemp, if he is something in between '13 and '11, we will all be thankful to see him batting 3,4,5 in the lineup.
you compared Pierre and Andrus 1st and i just told you what the Dodgers want from Andrus is basically everything they need. that has nothing to do with what an outfielder/Pierre brought to a past team. yeh, i think you're forgetting that Andrus has driven in 60+ RBI the last 3 years as well...i don't know if Juan Pierre's driven in 60 runs in his life, let alone 3 years in a row. Andrus' career splits are .296 AVG/.367 OBP with runners in scoring position ( think Dodger fans would enjoy some hitting with RISP?)...what it means is he'd be a decent bat to have at the top of a lineup that has AJ Ellis/Carl Crawford hitting 7th/8th. he's proven that he can drive in runs, so no his bat's not as weak as you're saying it is. there's a reason that LA was just talking to Texas about Andrus. i'm just doing my best to explain the reason. if we can get Andrus while keeping Kemp, great. if not, and they have to send Kemp...so what? we were 2 games from the WS without Kemp. so long as they get a young/valuable piece that can make an impact everyday, like an Andrus, i'm good with that. good return in my book. people need to stop acting like they're gonna be more willing to watch Kemp leave AFTER he has a great year and re-establishes his trade value. if Kemp were healthy and at his best, nobody's looking to deal him. but the reality is Kemp plays a position that's stressful on the body of a big guy like him, so it makes sense to think about moving him.
Don't know if I missed this somewhere in here already, but Guerrero has not handled the Winter League well so far. Sounds like he hurt his hand which cost him the better part of 3 games and in his first game back, he injured his leg and has missed the last 2. Hopefully this is mostly precautionary and not serious, the guy needs all the work he can get.
Let's be fair to my name-giver, Koufax. I'm sure he'll tell you that a big reason for my nickname is the fact that I defended Billz for NOT retaliating in the playoffs, while everyone else on the Dodger board at the time was saying it was an indication that Billz had 'no heart', thus prompting Koufax to call him 'The Tin Man'. Not that I'm against retaliation, or even the occasional bean ball war, if done properly-just that there is a time and place for everything, and the playoffs wasn't the time or place.
Theres ppl on here (myself included) who have fought the fight on Bills and how he's unfairly underrated Wish you woulda been here earlier to help be on our side
i have advocated trading him since probably 07 when he had real value. if he started the season...oh wait he won't be starting the season. was that because he put off the surgery everyone knew he needed i can't remember? :stab: chad will always be chad. impressive at times and missing when it matters. he needs a sports psychologist imo. i think his whole persona is weak when it comes down to it. but if he does get off to a nice start i would take whatever deal i could get if it improved the overall team. tin man is a good nickname. the cbd thing made me chuckle thats all. speaks to clever back and forth. as far as the bean ball stuff i also tend to think you have to be ready to do that whenever wherever. i am one of those that thinks the hanley beaning was absolutely an intentional "accident". thats dirty stuff but it always seems to "happen" to us and never the other way around. beltran would have certainly been struck in most eras of baseball. just not this kinder gentler era of torre/dbb apparently.
The thing about Kemp is that yeah, theres a solid chance he plays 162 games and does well. I don't know how well at this point, it might not be 2011 status but still a top CF. But what if not? Look at Carl Crawford and Adrian. They both have the same type of injuries Kemp has had, and then also an ankle, and they aren't who they were. It might not be selling low on Kemp considering the Rangers might have the same thoughts some of us have, in that they have seen that he's great when healthy... but what if he's healthy next year and isn't elite? Than his value is even lower. Again, I'm not saying Kemp is gonna suck next year... I hope he's healthy nex year and if he is, I don't think he's gonna suck or anything. But theres still a realistic chance he declines even if healthy and we aren't selling low. If anything, I think the Rangers would be selling lower on Andrus and I think he has some great potential at a MLB-wide thin position.
I would say for the team to hold onto Bills if he comes back healthy. If this offseason is any indication, a healthy Bills would probably have a decent amount of teams that are willing to give him a multi year deal. Offer him arbitration and get the pick for the next draft.
1) If he put off the surgery, he still misses all of 2013 and we don't get him for a full 2014 anyways b/c of innings limit. And it wasn't just his decision, if these decisions was always left to the players it'd be insane I think the mental part of it has always been unfair and due to ppl believing what they want. I can find you plenty of high profile games, matched up against top pitchers, where he did great. And sure, you can find me a lot of high profile games where he faltered. I know I'm not going to convince anyone otherwise because people always believe it, but yeah. At the end of the day, here is this stat about Chad Billinglsey: in Dodgers history, 36 pitchers have more IP as a Dodger than Chad and he has a better ERA than 7 of those guys. Theres a LOT more factors to judge pitchers other than IP and ERA, but he has given the Dodgers substantial positive value as a 1st round draft pick and not getting paid a substantial amount.
speaking of Bills, I hope he comes back as a great reliever (but I do fear what any blowup is gonna do for the narrative) and then towards the end of the year makes some spot starts and we can keep him for the following year
