I don't quite understand it, because one bad half season doesn't particularly make me lose complete confidence in anybody. However, it seems a lot of people are already done with him, otherwise Jon Weisman and Eric Stephen probably wouldn't have already written posts addressing the issue. I would argue the case for keeping Billingsley, but Jon and Eric have already done it for me.
But I ask you, which of the following is most logical?
1) Billingsley's six sub-par starts in the final three months of the 2009 season -- plus, if you must, his two poor starts in the 2008 National League Championship Series -- represent his true ability, a distance so far from Halladay that the Dodgers must make it a mission to acquire the Toronto star.
2) Billingsley's body of work outside of those six starts better represents his true ability, and he remains a bona fide asset who, at age 25 compared with Halladay's 32, is much more likely to get better -- while allowing the Dodgers to avoid a trade that would be costly in both players and salary.
Trading Billingsley and others for Halladay doesn't solve the Dodger pitching depth problem -- in fact, the trade might worsen it if another pitcher is included in the deal, or if Halladay's $15.75-million 2010 salary in the final year of his contract prevents the Dodgers from signing a free-agent arm.
And though acquiring Halladay might make the Dodgers stronger at the front of the rotation, the difference, based on the evidence, is not a substantial one -- unless you are willing to use only Billingsley's six poor starts in the second half of 2009 as evidence.
The Dodgers are bound to get a lot of grief this off-season if they don't acquire a star pitcher -- a perceived ace -- with the assumption being that they are too cheap and/or too chicken to make a move. But a trade for Halladay that involves Billingsley (and don't even mention the even sillier idea of including Clayton Kershaw) seems most likely to create more problems than it solves. It is doubtful that it would bring the Dodgers closer to a World Series title.
You want to get Halladay? Leave Billingsley out of it.
My rebuttal, in brief for time's sake:
1) Billingsley performed well down the stretch in 2008 (2.86 ERA in the second half, 3.24 ERA in September) and in the 2008 NL Division Series, so there's plenty of evidence that he steps it up in pressure situations.
2) It's not like Billingsley had Steve Blass or Rick Ankiel disease. He wasn't incapable of pitching well or crazy bad – he actually strung together several good innings at a time. His problem was typically a single bad inning in a game that undermined him, and I don't see why that's something you can't recover from.
Look, there have been some big situations where Billingsley has let us down. I get it. What I don't get is why one would be so sure that this is a terminal condition or one that renders irrelevant the majority of good outings Billingsley has had, including in pressure situations.
Despite the occasional psychological horror story in baseball, I believe talent usually wins out in the end.
Billingsley holds up pretty well in this comparison to Lee. Now ask yourself, who is more likely to improve -- a 25-year old or a 29-year old? The Indians didn't give up on Lee, and all he did was win the Cy Young in 2008 and put up a 1.56 postseason ERA in five starts for the Phillies in 2009.If you want to give up on him, that's fine, but you should remember that you likely would have jumped off the Cliff Lee and Zack Greinke bandwagon as well.
I'm not telling you to put your money down on Billingsley for the 2010 NL Cy Young award, but it wouldn't be out of the question. Billingsley still has time and room to improve, but his established baseline is already pretty good. To think otherwise is foolish.
Remember, it doesn't take a genius to get down on players who are coming off terrible seasons, and it doesn't take a genius to fall in love with players who are coming off outstanding seasons. However, I think it takes a great deal of courage and intelligence to predict a different future performance than the recent historical performance would seem to indicate. As such, I suppose my main problem with trading Billingsley is that his value has never been lower as a major leaguer, and selling low isn't really something the Dodgers can afford to do right now.
What are your thoughts on trading Chad Billingsley?
By the way, i'm probably just going to delete any answer involving mental toughness or whatever else. I feel that kind of crap only serves to derail actual discussion. Whether you agree with that policy or not, I don't really care. Nobody is stopping you from getting your own site.
