Kent? what if

[M2d]

he's off to a smoking start and the dodgers are atop the nl west. what if Kent goes on to win the MVP? what does that do to his hof chances? what if he wins it and the dodgers win it all? what if he doesn't win it (but has a good season, nonetheless) and the dodgers win it?

[Dead]

Kent is not going to win the MVP. He won't be in the HOF regardless.

[M2d]

[ QUOTE ]
Kent is not going to win the MVP. He won't be in the HOF regardless.

[/ QUOTE ]

hence the "what if" aspects of the post. I don't think you can discount him yet.

[jakethebake]

I hate to agree with dead but...

[ QUOTE ]
Kent is not going to win the MVP. He won't be in the HOF regardless.

[/ QUOTE ]

[BWebb]

He won't win the MVP, but I don't think HOF is out of the realm of possibility. 306 HR, 1220 RBI, .290 Career BA, .507 career SLG from a 2nd baseman. Those numbers all are better than Joe Morgan's career numbers already. If he can get to 400 HR and 1500 RBI, I think he has to be considered.

[andyfox]

Post-season appearances, especially World Series appearances, greatly enhance a player's reputation with the HOF voters.

[Dead]

Joe Morgan was excellent defensively.

Kent is good, but not that good.

[nolanfan34]

I think winning an MVP would be the ONLY way most likely that he makes the HOF. The problem is I think he needs like 3 more seasons at his past level to make a compelling enough case, and I don't think it will happen.

Nothing wrong with being remembered as a great 2B bat though.

[BWebb]

[ QUOTE ]
Joe Morgan was excellent defensively.

Kent is good, but not that good.

[/ QUOTE ]

Kent is excellent offensively, Morgan was good. Does defense weigh that much into the decision?

[M2d]

I think two MVP's and a ring would definately push him over the edge. two mvp's and a couple of post season appearances may get him in, as may one mvp and a couple of post season appearances. one and not much else may have him in jim rice mode.

problem is, his greatness is supposed to be judged against his peers, and this just isn't an age of great 2nd basemen, so he's at or near the top of that list.

[Dead]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Joe Morgan was excellent defensively.

Kent is good, but not that good.

[/ QUOTE ]

Kent is excellent offensively, Morgan was good. Does defense weigh that much into the decision?

[/ QUOTE ]

YES. Defense is much more important than offense at the 2B position. Same at SS. Why do you think that Ozzie Smith got in? Hint: it wasn't for his offensive skills.

[nolanfan34]

[ QUOTE ]
one and not much else may have him in jim rice mode.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think that's a perfect example/comparison.

I agree about the lack of other top 2B, but when you think about it, has there ever been a golden age for 2B? I can't really think of a time where there were a bunch of top players at that position. Just thinking out loud here.

2 MVPs would be hard for the writers to overlook.

Unfortunately for Kent, with Bonds being out, the MVP race is likely Albert Pujols' to lose.

[M2d]

not that I'm knocking Morgan or Smith, but Ozzie was so far ahead of his peers with his glove that his induction shouldn't have even been in question. the fact that he made himself into a decent hitter helped as well.
no way morgan compares to smith on the field (but no way does smith compare to morgan in the box, either).

[2planka]

[ QUOTE ]
Joe Morgan was excellent defensively.

Kent is good, but not that good.

[/ QUOTE ]

Kent is a stone at 2b. Has been for five years. Below average range at best. That said, defense matters little to the HOF voters.

[M2d]

when he was with the giants, I always prayed that they'd hit it to him (i'm a dodger fan).
btw, i still don't like him much. too much urban cowboy vibe. the went to berkeley, for god's sake. the only thing worse than a redneck is a reneck wannabe

[diddle]

the dodgers acquiring Kent feels like when the lakers got Malone.

2 players i hate playing for my teams--- just feels wrong

[PassiveCaller]

The Dodgers were severly underrated coming into this season by many analysts. This team is good one and one of the top ones in the NL... losing beltran or not. The sum of all parts added is greater and this team is better then last years Dodgers.

Kent has been one of the better second basemen of our era and he's often overlooked for it. Another MVP & postseason should greatly enhance the view of Jeff Kent but will it be enough I do not know...

[jesusarenque]

1. Joe Morgan was not "good" offensively. He was great.
2. Jeff Kent probably won't win the MVP award this, or any other year. The one time he did win it he didn't deserve it. (Bonds)
3. Jeff Kent is not a HOFer right now, but he could get in if he has a few more big years.

[jesusarenque]

[ QUOTE ]

YES. Defense is much more important than offense at the 2B position.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is not true.

[PassiveCaller]

Yo, like learn to hit the reply button to the right post.

[ QUOTE ]
I hate to agree with dead but...

[ QUOTE ]
Kent is not going to win the MVP. He won't be in the HOF regardless.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

I think John "I am not a" Kruk on Baseball Tonight last night called Kent a "sure" hall of famer.

The views expressed above are not necessarily those of the poster.

[diddle]

Kent should at least make the HOF for fighting with Barry Bonds

[bugstud]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Joe Morgan was excellent defensively.

Kent is good, but not that good.

[/ QUOTE ]

Kent is a stone at 2b. Has been for five years. Below average range at best. That said, defense matters little to the HOF voters.

[/ QUOTE ]

BP's defensive ratings say otherwise. He was worth a win last year and three years previous with the glove

[jesusarenque]

On a related not, the 2B Kent replaced in Houston last year (Biggio) is a lock for the HOF.

Kent still has a lot of work to do.

[BWebb]

[ QUOTE ]
1. Joe Morgan was not "good" offensively. He was great.


[/ QUOTE ]

He was great offensively for a 2nd baseman, he is good in the overall picture.

[jesusarenque]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
1. Joe Morgan was not "good" offensively. He was great.


[/ QUOTE ]

He was great offensively for a 2nd baseman, he is good in the overall picture.

[/ QUOTE ]

Joe Morgan is AT WORST the 3rd greatest 2nd baseman of all time. That is greatness.

[BWebb]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
1. Joe Morgan was not "good" offensively. He was great.


[/ QUOTE ]

He was great offensively for a 2nd baseman, he is good in the overall picture.

[/ QUOTE ]

Joe Morgan is AT WORST the 3rd greatest 2nd baseman of all time. That is greatness.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think that is what I said, great 2nd baseman offensively, good overall.

[jesusarenque]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
1. Joe Morgan was not "good" offensively. He was great.


[/ QUOTE ]

He was great offensively for a 2nd baseman, he is good in the overall picture.

[/ QUOTE ]

Joe Morgan is AT WORST the 3rd greatest 2nd baseman of all time. That is greatness.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think that is what I said, great 2nd baseman offensively, good overall.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think I misunderstood your post at first. I am not saying that Morgan is Ruth or Bonds offensively. He is not. But you don't have to be those guys to be called "great." I think what Joe Morgan did (.404 OBP .489 SLG in the 1970s) can certainly be called "great."

[2planka]

[ QUOTE ]
BP's defensive ratings say otherwise. He was worth a win last year and three years previous with the glove

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know how BP rates range, but Kent is consistently below average in the James book for RF. Granted, there is subjectivity involved in range ratings, but he clearly is not a Luis Castillo, Brian Roberts, or Alomar-in-the-day fielder. Couple that with the sinkerballers the Dodgers have and I'm sure we'll see lots of balls that "should" have been fielded squeak through for a base hit.

If the ball hits Kent in the glove, he's very sure handed. It's getting to the ball that's his liability.