Nats interested in Hudson
FoxSports.com's Jon Paul Morosi wrote this afternoon that the Nationals are interested enough in second baseman Orlando Hudson to possibly make him a two-year offer.
It wouldn't shock me if this gets done; the Nationals were interested in Hudson last year, and he would give them the defensive upgrade they so desperately need in the middle infield. Plus, they signed another Greg Genske client--Adam Dunn--to a deal late in the winter last season.
The price will be the key, though, especially since they owe Cristian Guzman $8 million this season. But I don't get the sense the Nationals have necessarily shut their checkbook yet.
Between Austin Kearns, Dmitri Young, Nick Johnson, Ronnie Belliard and Wily Mo Pena, the Nats cleared more than $20 million in salaries or dead money from last year's payroll.
They've spent about $14 million of that on Matt Capps, Jason Marquis and Ivan Rodriguez, so even if they only were spending money they've cleared from last year, they've got some cash left.
I still think it's possible the Nats will make a couple more moves--maybe to add another veteran pitcher, in addition to a middle infielder--and if the payroll goes up, it seems like they're prepared to deal with that.
You can play against everyone or create your own league - and it's Free!
 |
Categories (click for archive)Ben Goessling | Nationals News |
Question Ben....Why are so few Nats playing any significant about of Winter Ball? Look at PIT or OAK....they have significant innings and AB's going to both farm and 40 man roster players (A's have mostly American players as well, not just Latin). We hear so often that Nats prospects are "young" players have specific holes in their games. Why would People like Maxwell, Roger B, Guzman (2nd B), Chico, Mike Morse on the 40 man and Burgess types on the low end NOT be playing winter ball somewhere? I understand the Nat can not make them but other teams get it done and our Farm System is so behind it seems like a way to speed up development. Side note....Dukes is really going to be hurt by not getting any work in this winter. He has specific holes in his approach at the plate. I understand the personal issue he had but he needed the work.
Comment....Seems like Chapman carries very little risk for $30 over 5 years.....Look at all the bad contracts that Nats have given out over the past 5 years...that Chapman contract seems like a no brainer for an organization that paid Kearns, Young, Lopez, Lo Duca, WMP, Johnson, Estrada, Cabrara all many millions of dollars for next to no production. I know old news but man signing Chapman with SS could well have been the key that unlocked the potential of Washington as a major Baseball market. They should have done it.
------------------------
JayB: I don't have a good answer for you as to why more Nats players aren't playing winter ball, and I do agree it's less than previous years. I'm not sure it's a cure-all, though; we heard quite a bit about all the at-bats Anderson Hernandez got in winter ball last year, and he bombed out of the second base job after essentially being handed a starting role last spring. As for Dukes, I think it's clear he's got some holes in how he handles pitchers, particularly with the curveball. But I don't think anybody's going to push him to get back to work when his dad just died. The Nats are pretty happy with the progress he's made, and they might be afraid of upsetting that progress.
As for Chapman and the contracts you mentioned--do you see a common theme with those? I'll give you a hint: The guy who awarded every single one of them shares your initials. All those guys are gone now, and there's been a much more sensible approach to contract extensions with Mike Rizzo in charge. In fact, he's only given one: to Ryan Zimmerman, who everyone knew was going to get one anyway. It's very possible Chapman turns out to be a star. But his numbers in Cuba aren't exactly stellar, and there have been plenty of Cuban pitchers who didn't pan out. The one question I have with the whole process is, if you're planning to spend $25 million on an unproven pitcher--which is already $10 million more than you spent in a similar case last winter--why not just go a little further? But if Rizzo believed they had the highest offer, maybe they didn't see the need to go further, or maybe they didn't get the chance. It's hard to know. But I don't think you can compare the current philosophy on long-term deals to the previous regime's take on it.
Ben
Ben - I read somewhere that the money for Chapman was not an across-the-board payroll bump, but a special fund that if not used on Chapman would not be made generally available for other use. Can you corroborate? If so, that would be an interesting model for setting payroll and give us fodder for supposing who else may be worth such an exception.
The Lerner Payroll Formula:
Take the total debt load and divide by gross attendance
Then subtract front office payroll, stamps and paperclip expenses.
Then multiply the difference by Pythagorean wins
As of May 24th before the bullpen tailspins
And convert this to yuan at today's prevailing rate
Then compare to Kansas City's budget - doesn't ours look great?
The Shiny Object Clause:
If it's shiny and expensive, and our fans will eat it up,
Let's make a phantom budget, bid, then come in runner-up.
PS - "Nats" and "back" do not rhyme. That was an example of near-rhyme using the concept of assonance. Very highly regarded in songwriting.
----------------------
I believe you're correct on Chapman; I think it's similar to what the Nats decided to do with Mark Teixeira last winter. They were willing to spend on him because they consider him a special case, but were quick to say it didn't mean they'd spend that much money on other guys. It's obvious the budget isn't set by what the team can afford; it's set by what they feel is prudent, and in extraordinary cases like Teixeira, Strasburg and now Chapman, they've deemed it appropriate to spend more. I've been reading some stuff this afternoon about how the A's were actually second in the Chapman race; I bring that up to point out that just because the Nats thought they were second doesn't mean they didn't have plenty of company. In the end, though, none of it matters. Being second is free.
Ah, yes, assonance--very handy literary device when you can't find an exact rhyme. Kind of like "attendance" and "expenses," no? And I'm still good on "pat" and "Nats," right? :-)
Ben
I really think the Nats need a more developed young core of players before they start blowing their wad. This team reminds me of the Orioles before MacPhail took over. Seeing as how the the Nats recently just risked $15M on Strasburg...it would have been foolish to risk another $30M on Chapman. Both could have short careers due to the wear and tear a triple digit heater puts on the arm.
------------------------------
Fair point, though I'd say two things in response to it. First, the number of veterans they're adding this offseason suggests they're not waiting for their young players to completely develop before spending money. And second, I don't think you can take a pass on a Chapman or a Strasburg because you feel you're two or three years away. Both of these guys could be busts or injury risks, but talents like that don't come around often. And if you're the first one in on them, and they pan out, it means you control them for six years before the market truly catches up to their talent level. If Strasburg is as good as advertised, his next six years could cost 10 times what his first six years cost. If you want to make a step forward, you need an ace, and for all the carping about the cost of draft picks, it's actually an extremely cost-effective way to get an ace, provided they pan out. Now, I realize that's a big if, but I haven't talked to anybody who doesn't love Strasburg. These are the risks you take to get a guy with his reputation.
Ben
Question Ben,
Hudson got beat out by Belly last August and Sept.....He is a type A.....if they do this move I think they really misplayed the Off Season options they had back in October/November time frame. Why have they waited so long to do a MI move?
----------------------------------------
Well, Hudson wasn't offered arbitration, so the Type A thing doesn't matter. It is a little ironic, though, that he got beat out by a guy they decided they didn't want, and in fact traded for a reliever they just took off the 40-man roster. I still think it depends on the price, but there were certainly some guys now off the free agent market that could've been attractive options. I don't think a middle infielder was at the top of the shopping list, and they needed to see what a pitcher would cost before tossing money at a middle infielder who might not start.
Ben
Thanks for you comments Ben.....How much pressure is Stan and Lerner feeling to win now. Isn't the 3 year lease up this year on those high dollar seats and suites. They are really going to have trouble getting anyone to resign unless the put a above .500 team on the field and to do that they need a second and third proven starter more BP help and a proven MI and a corner OF with Power if Dukes does his normal year. What do you think they need to get above .500 this year?
--------------------------
I think you outlined it pretty well, though there's a possibility someone will emerge. I still don't trust this rotation to get them above .500, or even get them that close. And if their defense isn't markedly improved, it's just going to hurt the rotation that much more.
Ben
Ben
I simply want to say thanks for the info and welcome to MASN, you did a great job with the Times and I am glad you landed here. Go Nats.
It has been reported that Adam Kennedy is a candidate that the Nats might sign. There does not appear to be a significant difference in Kennedy and Hudson stats from last year. Kennedy is only two years older than Hudson and young enough to have a few more productive years. Is there any validity to the reports that the Nats are pursuing him?
Ben--welcome!
I think the key here is what they think about Desmond. I know they're thinking he needs to develop defensively. Understood. What I want to know is what they think about his power.
I was at his debut game when he hit the 3-run bomb. I mean that thing was a shot--the farthest homer I've seen by a RH hitter in two years at Nats Park. He hit another terrific shot in one of the final games at Atlanta.
Is there any discussion in the front office that Desmond might be a significantly bigger power hitter than people thought a year ago?
NatsDNA
---------------------------
Significantly bigger? Based on four homers? Sorry, but I don't see how their evaluation of the guy is going to change because of a couple impressive shots in September. Desmond has been in the organization longer than almost anyone with the team; the Nats have had the chance to evaluate him through two general managers and three major-league coaching staffs. Yes, he has some pop, but scouts also have quite a few issues with the way he leaks to his front side too soon in his swing. He never hit more than 13 homers in a minor-league season and this year, at Harrisburg and Columbus, he hit seven. He's got the tools to be solid offensively, but I don't think the Nats are sitting on the next Hanley Ramirez here.
Ben