Some online are questioning why Ned Colletti gave Hiroki Kuroda a no-trade clause. The answer is that it has value, just like money. Without the clause, Kuroda would have been much less likely to stay with Los Angeles as opposed to going elsewhere, such as back to Japan.

It's not clear at all that Kuroda would have taken a higher salary in exchange for not having a no-trade clause, but even if he had, what you then end up doing is paying him even more than he is worth, based on what at the start of the season was a relatively unlikely scenario of the Dodgers' wanting to trade him. Plus, the added salary itself be an added impediment to getting a trade done.

So no, the Dodgers don't end up getting X players in exchange for Kuroda, and on some level, as Mike Petriello of Mike Scioscia's Tragic Illness argues, that's certainly a shame. But what they did get was four months and counting of a quality pitcher that they otherwise might not have had. Back in the offseason, when they were still trying to win in 2011, that's a good deal.