Orlando Hudson is on the clock
by meercatjohn on Feb 19, 2009 9:01 AM PST
Email
PrintTony Jackson mentions the interest in Orlando Hudson in his blog but he leads off with the story in the Daily News column so it is getting lots of play. The comments at Tony's place show both support and disdain by fellow readers of this blog.
You can easily see both sides of the equation. Hudson was asking for the moon back in November but now it looks like he will be lucky to get a one year deal between 3-5 million and that is with St. Louis having terrible alternatives at 2nd base.
Why, because any team will have to give up a 1st round pick. Just for fun a few weeks ago I took a look at the 15th - 20th 1st round picks in this decade ( we have the 17th pick). Some hits and misses. If a number one pick was not involved I'm sure Hudson would have found a home by now.
So the question is, would the incremental improvement in offense from Hudson, plus the large improvement in defense be worth losing the 17th round pick? The money at this point is inconsequential.
To me it comes down to this. If the Dodgers sign Manny then I'd go for it and sign Hudson. The difference between Hudson and DeWitt could be the difference between the postseason. If we don't sign Manny then it would be a waste of a draft pick and losing a year of DeWitt gaining experience to sign Hudson.
|
Hudson |
THT |
Pecota |
HQ |
|
BA |
.289 | .279 |
.281 |
|
OBP |
.360 |
.348 |
.352 |
|
Slug |
.434 |
.402 |
.415 |
The worse projection is quite a bit better then the best DeWitt projection. Not that many of us agreed with the DeWitt projections. The THT projection is sweet for a 2nd baseman with the defense that Hudson provides.
15 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
All-Time Team?
No one ever announced the final All-Time LA Dodgers team (was that Eric’s?). It looked like Beimel got the LH Setup position by the end. Was that the last position, or were there to be more pitchers? Anyway, such a long lead-in needed a final announcement, celebrations, final arguments, and so on, no? What happened to it? Lost in the mists of time?
re:
That was Eric’s baby and it got interrupted by his move. I think he’s still having intermittent internet connection problems. I believe he wanted to get Right and Left handed pinch hitters along with a utility player before closing the deal. He should be along shortly to answer your question but we haven’t dropped the ball on it, just delayed it.
by meercatjohn on Feb 19, 2009 10:41 AM PST up reply actions
Sorry about the delay
I’m getting the internet in bits and pieces but I should start those up again this weekend.
by Eric Stephen on Feb 19, 2009 11:07 AM PST up reply actions
Definitely an odd deal
I’m not really keen on giving up the 17th pick for Hudson (especially only for one year), but I could be talked into O-Dog coming aboard with Manny. It wouldn’t be the worst thing in the world for DeWitt to play everyday in AAA.
Even though it seems like there are too many IFs (if Hudson is healthy, if the money is low, if we sign Manny, if Hudson’s defense is still very good, etc) but screw it. I’m going against my own first thought and green lighting the Hudson deal if Manny signs.
No thanks
It might be a wash offensively and defensively. God knows Hudson wasn’t good last year after his injuries. And his injuries are another thing…
DeWitt's defense is the wild card
With his very limited time at 2B we just have no real way of projecting his defense.
But, in regards to Hudson’s injury-proneness, I’d argue that if he were to sign a one-year deal even if he got hurt we could just plug in DeWitt at that time. I think the 2009 club is better with Hudson, probably by a win or (MAYBE) two. The question is simply is it worth giving up the #17 pick to upgrade…that’s really the only question in my mind, and of course that’s a huge cost.
by Eric Stephen on Feb 19, 2009 12:19 PM PST up reply actions
Yeah, it's a big pick.
It’s just that I know the Hudson signing would be an upgrade to the 2009 team, but if it’s a marginal upgrade, then it’s not worth the downside to me.
The only way it makes sense for me is if Hudson plays 2nd, DeWitt plays 3rd, and Blake plays left, but then that would mean not signing Manny and I will weep anyway. :o
DeWitt isn’t good defensively at 2nd, with the limited sample size we have, but over the past 3 years (which is generally an sufficient sample size for true talent), Hudson is like -3 runs defensively anyway. Of course, if DeWitt is -10 runs defensively at 2nd, then that’s an improvement, but still.
I guess that’s sorta my point though. That we know Hudson is a slightly below average defender, who can hit above average, is declining, and is slightly injury prone. DeWitt is a rather unknown with some promising upside. Between the two, I know which path the Dodgers usually go down.
Ned Colletti loves known quantities. That’s why he loves Luis Gonzalez, Juan Pierre, or any other veterans. Because he thinks he knows.
PS-I was thinking about it. I really don’t like the Blake signing the more I think about it. I was on board at first, but I think DeWitt would be worth more at 3rd than Blake given defensive considerations.
by Chad Moriyama on Feb 20, 2009 1:15 AM PST up reply actions
Gotta agree with El Lay Dave here...
I could justify sacrificing the first round pick to sign a premium pitcher. However, the Dodgers already have a second baseman. There is no reason to throw away the first round pick to fill a hole that does not exist.
Keep #17.
In Logan We Trust…
Just leave Heidi Androl alone!
by DodgerBlueBalls on Feb 19, 2009 12:25 PM PST reply actions
"In Logan We Trust…"
That’s certainly another factor in this. I wonder if signing Hudson would anger Logan White to the point that he would leave the organization. White, one could argue, would lose on two fronts:
1) One of his draft picks, with about 2/3 of a season of MLB experience, would be temporarily blocked for 2009
2) He’d lose his first round pick in 2009, a spot from which he has drafted most of the Dodger core players.
I would love to know what White’s opinion of a potential Hudson signing is.
by Eric Stephen on Feb 19, 2009 12:31 PM PST up reply actions
I think the only reason he's still here is because
he knows Ned is a lameduck GM.
by Chad Moriyama on Feb 20, 2009 1:17 AM PST up reply actions
I willing to bet Jamie McCourt's Malibu mortgage payment that...
All the people voting in favor of the Dodgers signing Hudson are actually ’Backs fans coming over here from AZsnakepit.com
Just leave Heidi Androl alone!
by DodgerBlueBalls on Feb 19, 2009 2:10 PM PST up reply actions
I would be much more certain of what to do if we could sign him for mor ethan one year.
I voted No, but that’s only because I think he’s going to get a 1 year deal. If it was a cheap 2 year deal, or a 1 year deal with a cheap option, I think its more justifiable because at least you are getting multiple years of service out of the 17th pick, but just 1 year? Not worth the pick in my opinion. Of course, its a pretty close call so I wouldn’t be too upset either way. But signing Hudson is definitely a win now move.
by Brendan Scolari on Feb 20, 2009 12:08 AM PST reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
In Association With
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- The Cardinals Hall of Fame can now be found at Bill Clinton’s library in Arkansas (Huh?)
- Will Bryce Harper start the season with the Nationals?
- Mitch Mustain puts football behind him, signs reported rookie deal with White Sox
- Robinson Cano and Denzel Washington face off in Jay Leno’s Yankees trivia contest
- Shane Victorino lands role on ‘Hawaii Five-0′
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
