- it's like this: trading 'potential' - unrealized - for productivity - 'proven'. A speculative gamble like market 'futures' may result in windfall or downfall. In baseball, tis: what 'is' for what 'might be'... or 'might never'.
The Dodgers could use an Adam Dunn or a like-player's pop, but not at the expense of a Pierre who offers via his game what little excitement this team of veritable paint-drying baseball spirit brings. An ethier is very expendable because he offers the least ability and potential of any of the current Dodgers OF's - write Delwyn Young's name in the lineup (as Torre has done more so of late) and at minimum there's 'no' dropoff in production from an ethier. That speaks to Young's game as well as ethier's - be it that Young is 'so' good or ethier is 'so' average, to the extent the reviewer believes.
Kemp is boom or bust/Heaven or He11...right now, he is in a purgatory of his own making. 'If' Kemp never becomes more than what he is today, is he a keeper? Not including the pitcher, would a team of 8 Kemp's make for winning baseball? My sentiment? No. So how great 'might' he become? No one knows. But the evidence is even now being written- with quite mixed results. If the Dodgers wish to wait - and what's another few decades among long-suffering Dodger fans - what brings tomorrow?
Personally, shy a Kemp becoming more than a Pedro Guererro or Raul Mondesi type via production (his ceiling, my opine), he's not close to an untouchable - far better players have been traded. If it were my choice I'd give him no more than another two years of play - but, if some other MLB team was willing to trade LA a 'proven' bat in the non-relic age category for a Kemp, I would jump at the deal...today, right now. There are 'no' untouchables, none. Martin, Kershaw, Kemp, Billingsley - any player is up for consideration.
I've proffered this before: in each player's prime, would you trade a Sandy Koufax for a Willie Mays? A Don Drysdale for a Willie McCovey? A Tommy Davis for a Juan Marichal? Back in the 1960's LA had two 'the next Willie Mays' types (hyped) under contract: OF's Willie Davis & Willie Crawford. As well, the Houston Astros had a future 'Willie Mays': OFr Cesar Cedeno. For various reasons none of those guys became a Mays (who would've imagined.) Skeptic will go out on a not so short limb here & say Kemp is not & will never be a Mays...a Jeff Leonard type more likely (former Dodger & Giant.)
So for a Dunn or Holiday or whomever who has already 'dunn it' in MLB, any trade would take more than the mere Dodger 'hype' of which a Kemp has received plenty - it would take at least two other Dodgers prospects to get Dunn or Holiday (Holiday being traded in division less likely while for Dunn who is at risk of being lost as a free agent a straight up deal for Kemp might fly for both teams. Still, I don't see the Dodgers trading Kemp right now. Pierre straight up for Dunn or other considerations? A possibility, but again I don't see it as likely.)
Too, a Holiday is a step up defensively from Dunn, who is perhaps a half-step step up from a Delwyn Young. If Dunn is in LF, Jones in CF & Kemp in RF, where does that leave Young and ethier? If Pierre stays where does Dunn play? Does Young become a Sweeney off the bench? Still too many OFs. The Dodgers may need to unload 2 OFs if they do add 1 - otherwise, despite a hoped for power addition, they are no better off. Yet, if Pierre goes, ethier still grabs pine - HEY! - come to think of it, skeptic could live with that!