The only guys I wouldn't trade for Hanley are Pujols and maybe David Wright.

Add that to the fact that he wanted to get an extension too, (in the range of 6 years 140+ million), you have a pretty small market of teams to deal with.

They get drafted out of Texas high schools...just like Kershaw.

No one disputes that Santana is a great pitcher, I looked at some stats the other night and if he continues to pitch like he has done so far, statiscally, he will be among the very best pitchers of all-time, at least in the last 30-40 years. (However, he does not even have 100 career wins yet so lets not put him in the HOF already)

Saying that, based on everything I have read, there was no way, Santana was going to ok a deal to a west coast team so its a moot point.

zero for 87 > 2 for 4.

How about Troy Glaus: 1.246 for him?

Heck John Rocker has a post season ERA of 0, give him a call.

http://www.mlb4u.com/profile.php?id=942

I was wondering what you meant by "our generation," and then you cleared it up. But then, "pitcher" became "player," so I'm confused again.

So let's go with just the least hyperbolic formulation from the above, which would be "best post-season pitcher in the last 20 yrs."

First, is that true? Anyone want to offer another candidate?

Second, is that enough to value him so highly? The post-season is short and uncertain (I won't say "crapshoot" because I don't believe that).

In general, I esteem elite hitters more than elite pitchers. Dominating one game in 5 is not necessarily better than having a chance to win every game. Just ask Steve Carlton.

Every player has value. Every position contributes to winning. And you make it sound like there's a huge insurmountable difference in value between a "marquee pitcher" and the rest of the population of baseball players (including theoretical "marquee hitters"). And that's not necessarily the case.

That's a mathematical falsehood. One team's offense is pitted against another team's pitching plus defense. So if defense matters at all, pitching must matter less than offense (in terms of contributing to wins).

What you really mean has to do with marginal improvements in one versus the other, but that requires assumptions about the state of pitching and offense on a team and on its competition, and cannot be covered with a general law.

So sometimes it might be true that a marginal improvement (by marginal I don't mean "small," but in the mathematical sense of "relative to the status quo") in pitching is worth more than a marginal improvement in offense, but that's team- and circumstance specific. For the Dodgers, it's pretty clear that losing a top offensive talent would hurt more than gaining a top pitcher would help. For the Mets, with offense to burn and pitching concerns, the opposite is true.

Tell that to the '03 Dodgers.

Hi, Perbole. How's it going?

No one will argue with that

Somehow they fall into quanity rather than quality in most cases.

Of course, no one knows if Santana would have signed off on those deals but I think the point is, with one really good prospect, you have an idea of what you are getting, when you start having to put packages together, you end up having to make lots of projections.

Okay, I need lunch.

Bring your opinions, back them up with facts, chill out on the defensiveness and we'll continue to have a good conversation.

If the Dodgers were not going to deal them (and others) for more years and probably less money for Miguel Cabrara, who had no say in where he went, why would they do it for one year (plus a whole lot more money) for a starting pitcher, as great as he might be.

Also, its true, that folks here have long waited to see a lot of these guys wear Dodger Blue and it looks like it will happen this year but I do think given the right deal, almost anyone is tradeable. There just hasn't been that deal presented yet.

The only real disagreement is over how much one would give up to get him, and in the end, it's kind of a splitting hairs conversation. You would give up a little more for him than most others here would. It's not a big deal.

I do feel that some of the comments are getting a little snide - maybe that's coming out of a feeling that we're going around in circles, but I'd ask everyone to watch the sarcasm.

He was comparing you to Plaschke. And that's just low.

they have a world series ring with him, wouldn't have won it last year without him

2-0, 38.3 IP, 20 H, 3 BB, 10 SV, 0.70 ERA.

Rivera: 8-1, 0.77 ERA, 93/16 K/BB, 72 hits in 117 IP.
Beckett: 6-2, 1.73 ERA, 82/14 K/BB, 40 hits in 72 IP.

Mo might be the best postseason pitcher ever, but Beckett's in the photo.

Bob Gibson, along with Sandy Koufax, was the most dominant pitcher in 1960's especially in the World Series (which is all they played until the following year).

The Tigers won that World Series in 7 games but not because of Denny McClain, Mickey Lolich, a good pitcher, won 3 games including game 7 against the best pitcher in baseball, Bob Gibson.

They made the playoffs in a cakewalk, and would have still made it easily without him.

They swept the Division Series. So even without Beckett they've got a 2-0 advantage.

So essentially, your entire argument rests on two games. The two games Beckett pitched in the ALCS. Would a different pitcher have been able to win the two games Beckett won -- in which the Sox provided 10 runs and 7 runs of support? Probably, yes.

In fact, the way things turned out, Josh Beckett contributed a lot to the Sox last year, but pretty much none of his contributions were strictly necessary. They would have very likely won without him.

So is all that worth Hanley Ramirez's career?

Bob Gibson started 9 games in 3 World Series, he went 7-2 with a 1.89 ERA, he pitched 81 innings with 8 complete games gave up only 55 hits and 92K/17BB ratio. The Cardinals won the first two series before losing the aforementioned 7th game to Detroit in 1968.

It's a bit of a reach, I realize.

But nobody's telling you that. You have no way of knowing. You're making the trade based on a hope and a prayer of winning the World Series, not a guarantee of doing so. Even in a rare case like Beckett where his team DOES end up winning the World Series, they didn't do it because of him.

The odds of such a trade actually making the difference in a WS championship are so low you need a microscope to measure them.

He is not scheduled at any of the Dodger Caravan events and right after that he goes with the rest of team to Florida.

I just find that very interesting for someone with as much cache as Joe Torre that the only time you see him in LA is on billboards or Prime Ticket commercials.

For the Dodgers, trading Kemp for a marquee pitcher means we're weakening our offense considerably, and that may end up hurting us more than helping us.

78 I think it's more of a matter of getting a marquee pitcher for more than what most anybody else would be willing to give up.

i love matt kemp i think he's going to be a star

i dont, i think kemp will be awesome

I get that. But the Dodgers could still trade more than most would be willing to give up and not include Kemp. This default of "let's trade Kemp for Bedard or Santana or (insert ace here)" is old and tired.

Which is why he should not be traded. End of discussion.

Okay. So the next question is, why don't you think he will be awesome? And what are you expecting from him in 2008 and in the future?

In light of that, nevermind the first question in 96 .

Okay, people, let's focus on the really important stuff: Mark Hendrickson is gone!!