Where Does O-Dog's Future Lie?
MLBTraderumors has a post discussing the possible future of Dodgers second baseman Orlando Hudson. The 31 year-old Hudson will be a free agent this offseason and should be paid handsomely considering his .291/.358/.425 hitting line so far, Hudson has been worth $11.1 million already this season according to Fangraphs.
The question is whether or not it will be worthwhile to pony up the significant amount of cash necessary to keep Hudson around. Blake Dewitt could be a cheap alternative if Hudson is let go and he may be able to provide similiar performance.
Would you rather the Dodger signed Hudson to a multi-year contract this winter or handed the second base job to a younger player, be it Dewitt, Ivan Dejesus, or someone else?
38 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Tony Abreu
I can’t believe you didn’t even mention him. Offensively, he has been fantastic at Triple A, where DeWitt has been quite poor this year. And Abreu is an excellent defensive second baseman. With Abreu on hand, giving Hudson the kind of contract he is going to command, both in terms of length and salary, would be the height of foolishness.
He has been great this year
But I don’t know, his BABIP is really high and he’s had like 650 AB’s the last 3 years so I have a hard time imagining him being the starter, the front office hasn’t seemed high on him either. There’s definitely a chance though.
by Brendan Scolari on Aug 24, 2009 7:46 AM PDT up reply actions
O-Dog
The Dodgers should bring O-Dog back. Dewitt and Abreu are fine players, but they are bench players not starters. Giv eup some $$$, bring O-Dog back and keep this infield together for a couple more years.
And on what grounds is Abreu being called a bench player?
I have compared Abreu’s minor league record Hudson’s. Abreu’s looks more impressive to me than Hudson’s. I suppose Dodgerfan 34 would have been calling Hudson a bench player back when Hudson was in Triple A. I see no reason to favour Hudson outside of the “proven veteran” malarky which if we consistently observed it would have kept us from ever giving serious playing time to the long line of young players we have now who have been so outstanding.
I voted for "Someone Else" and I had Abreu in mind
I am not interested in giving Hudson a long term deal. He has been great this year to be sure, but I don’t see the logic in paying for a multi-year deal after something of a career year for Hudson. His history suggests he is a liability as far as health is concerned. Couple that with the fact that the organization has significant depth in the middle infield, and I would be telling Hudson, “thanks and good luck.”
Brendan
Why is Hudson in line to be paid handsomely this winter when his numbers are the exact same numbers he put up for the last three years with Arizona? Is it because he proved his wrist is okay? I would think the fact his wrist is okay would be negated by his age as he hits 32 this December. Most of his numbers he put up in April/May, given his age GM’s might be looking at the lack of production since then. I guess it all depends on how you define handsomely but I don’t think he comes close to the money he was hoping to get last Winter. Times have changed and they aren’t going to revert back this winter. Expect another very cold climate for free agents on the wrong side of 30. JMO
I also agree with Canuck that Abreu should be in the poll as much as DeJesus should be. From where I’m sitting Abreu is on top of the depth chart right now for 2010 2nd baseman if Hudson is not in the picture.
I put Abreu in for "someone else"
Since that’s probably who those votes are for anyway. Sorry about that, I figured his odds of being the starter were slim, apparantly that’s just me.
by Brendan Scolari on Aug 24, 2009 7:50 AM PDT up reply actions
As for Hudson
The biggest reason is that he’s not coming off a season ending injury as long as he remains heathy this year, because he is a good player when he plays. Last year there was speculation that he would get a 4/60 or 5/75 deal, and while he won’t get that I think he could get say 3/30. I think the perception of Hudson around the eague is much better now than it was last offseason, but I guess we’ll see.
by Brendan Scolari on Aug 24, 2009 7:54 AM PDT up reply actions
He's more than a solid second baseman
for once the Dodgers clubhouse has a true off the field leader and mentor. I’m not keen on paying that much money either, however, he’s done alot for the young guys and continues on a daily basis to set a great example on and off the field.
Yes, he's well liked in the clubhouse
and I’d be more then happy to offer Hudson arbitration and pay him good coin in 2010 but I’d stay away from any deal longer then 2 years.
+1
I personally think “clubhouse leaders” are profoundly overrated.
I mean these are all grown men, being paid a lot of money (even Kershaw will make mid 6 figures, more than I think 99% of the TBLA board members) to play a game for 3 hours a day, for 7 or 8 months a year. I don’t think these people need motivation or “chemistry” nearly as much as the Bill Plashkes would have you believe. This isn’t a team of college kids listening to Knute Rockne or even Nick Saban. These are all vets who have been playing baseball for at least 15 years, at least 5 at a professional level of some sort.
by Seanny Rotten on Aug 25, 2009 3:06 PM PDT up reply actions
OK thanks. I voted for Abreu, even if he might be a long shot, because I think Hudson declines arbitration and gets a 3/4 year deal somewhere.
by Eric Stephen on Aug 24, 2009 7:57 AM PDT up reply actions
I agree
I’d love to see him remain in Dodger blue, but I don’t see Ned taking another gamble on another player with injury issues.
by Seanny Rotten on Aug 25, 2009 3:07 PM PDT up reply actions
who will be 32. almost left that out.
of course … Ned will never cease to surprise me. So anything’s possible.
by Seanny Rotten on Aug 25, 2009 3:11 PM PDT up reply actions
Hudson is having a good, but not outstanding year
but I think the evidence that his injury is behind him is going to give him a large, 3-5 year contract somewhere, and that should not be for the Dodgers. I’d love to have him back for another year (ideally) or two (if need be), but 3-5 is not going to be good for the Dodgers. Ned might be able to put him on a Furcal plan (shorted, though) and overpay him for one year. I’d support that, but if I were Hudson, I don’t think I’d take it unless the money was at elast half of what I could get over 3-5.
My guess is DeWitt will end up being the starter for ‘10. I think Abreu would be the better choice, but I don’t see teh Dodgers giving him the permanent promotion of DeWitt (whom I still think is the future plan for the Dodgers in ’12 (or ’11 if the beard weakens) at 3B.
Used to be outstanding at 2nd base.
As Kensai said, back in the AA days of HU/Abreu(2006) they were an acrobatic act in the middle infield. His arm is strong enough for SS.
The Dodgers were willing to go into 2009 with DeWitt as the stating 2nd baseman, with no real veteran backing him up until Hudson fell into there lap. In 2010 if they don’t sign Hudson we will be looking at Abreu, DeWitt, and possibly DeJesus. They must not have any faith that Loretta can play 2nd base so I don’t think he’s the backup option.
I really wonder if they would go into 2010 with such question marks, my guess is that they would sign a cheap veteran who can play 2nd base like Grundy but time will tell.
I also think the big contracts for middle age infielders on the wrong side of 30 who are not elite players will not happen again for a while. I doubt that 2009 was an aberration going forward, the owners can use the economy as an excuse but when they look back at 2009 they really should use it as a learning experience.
you dont give up first round picks for 1 year of a player unless you get one back
unless you are the dodgers…
Except
They could get one back to compensate for the loss of Hudson.
by Brendan Scolari on Aug 24, 2009 7:46 PM PDT up reply actions
they wont offer him arb
they are scared that if he accepts, they would have to pay him 10 mill + for an average player
Maybe.
I wouldn’t be so sure though. He’s been a lot better than average this year.
by Brendan Scolari on Aug 24, 2009 8:41 PM PDT up reply actions
he did what juan did
have a GREAT start and then start sucking….
i voted abreu
i think the dodgers will be cheap and not even offer him arb because they are scared he will acept and they would have to pay 10 mill +
plus i think hudsons a little overrated… hes not that great
I wouldnt’ be surprised if the Dodgers pull the plug on the DeWitt at 2nd base experiment now that they have traded Josh Bell.
all his value on 3rd would be on his defense
and as we can see, the dodgers need offense to win games
by matthewmafa on Aug 24, 2009 11:17 AM PDT up reply actions
I'm not worried about our 2B depth
It’s our 3B “depth” that is nightmarish. If age catches up to Beard, we’re pretty much screwed.
when we traded away bell
everyone was like whatever theres something called free agency….
by matthewmafa on Aug 24, 2009 11:26 AM PDT up reply actions
they are like to decline just like bletre
by matthewmafa on Aug 24, 2009 11:37 AM PDT up reply actions
How much would Beltre command?
3/30? No way he gets the same deal he got at Seattle. I would be content w/ offering him 3/30 and keeping Blake as a backup 3B/1B.
We then let Loretta go. If we can’t keep Hudson we platoon Abreu and DeWitt at 2nd, and then use the other as the backup middle infielder. Will we keep Ausmus next year? He’ll be 39, right? If we ditch him, will we use Ellis as the backup catcher or spring for a vet?
How much is set to come off the books next year – salary wise? Will we be done with Schmidt’s contract? Pierre is signed through ’10, right?
by Seanny Rotten on Aug 25, 2009 3:22 PM PDT up reply actions
I look at him like Wolf
If they want long contracts, which they probably will, then I say turn elsewhere.
Remember, you take your chances to find the bargains for a year, you don’t stick around once those bargains cease to be bargains anymore. :o
Its like finding Tommy Boy special edition DVD on sale for $5 somewhere, then enjoying it so much, going back to Blockbuster and buying Black Sheep on VHS for $20.
by Eric Stephen on Aug 24, 2009 4:13 PM PDT up reply actions

by 





















