Another view of Hudson
Many believe that Orlando Hudson signing with the Nationals is a foregone conclusion, and perhaps it is.
Hudson's got a great reputation inside the game, and adding him to the top of the Nationals' lineup behind Nyjer Morgan seems like a great idea.
However, there are some in the game who feel that Hudson's year with the Dodgers - while solid statistically from all indications - is not beyond criticism. I spoke at length today with a prominent National League pro scout who knows Hudson quite well.
"Don't get me wrong, he's a good player," he said, "but I know the Dodgers were bothered by his constant fraternization with players on other teams. Joe Torre is kind of old school in that regard, and Hudson was always hanging out with opposing players before games."
But couldn't something like that be overlooked if the player puts up the numbers?
"Maybe, but Hudson's offense really slipped in the second half," he continued. "No one expected he'd hit .330 all season [Hudson batted about .332 in April and May], but his average dropped about 30 points the second half of the season."
Doing some basic math, from April through June Hudson hit .297; from July through the end of the season he hit .270.
A number of Nationals' players have expressed great affection for Hudson, and reports indicate the Nats are at the top of his preferred list. Money is obviously an object, and he's priced himself well above the other middle infielders who've signed free agent deals this winter.
With Orlando Cabrera off the market, the only other genuine option still unsigned would appear to be Adam Kennedy, a 34-year-old 11-year veteran. Kennedy played mostly at third last year for Oakland, but the former ALCS MVP (2002) has logged more than 10,000 innings at second in a career that has seen him play every position but pitcher and catcher.
The Hudson Watch continues.
 |
Categories (click for archive)Phil Wood |
Phil, I can always count on you and Tom Boswell to clarify a situation that has been made cofusing by akk the rumors and different people chiming in with their views...there had to be a reason the Dodgers switched to Belliard and did't "re-up" Hudson.
It's possible that so many other players speak so highly of Hudson because of the fraternization. Before they try to change everything in one season, they should take a deep breath and see how the in-house talent plays out.
Phil do you think the Nats should go for Kennedy instead or stand pat with Guzman and Desmond? ================= I like the idea of Kennedy short-term. Give Desmond another 300 minor league plate appearances, and start working him into the system in August or thereabouts.
Oh well. I can see Alberto Gonzalez getting 400 PA's. Do we rush Espinosa? ==== What gives you that idea? They'll pursue Kennedy at this point, but they don't need anyone there long term. Jeff Kobernus will be ready in a year and a half to take over second base for years to come.
Phil,
Ben is reporting that Hudson is going elsewhere (MN or Cleveland).
I was hyped for Dunn last year, and for Pudge this year. I was also a big supporter of bringing Nyger to DC. But I couldn't get fired up for Hudson.
This illustrates the paradox of the DC baseball fan: we love the team, but we see through the glass darkly. We watch the trade-talk shadows in the media dance, only half-aware that we are living in Plato's Cave. We wonder if the next trade prospect is more Sammy Sosa or Sammy Maudlin.
Was Hudson the tide that lifts all boats, or the winner of our discontent?
KM ================== Personally, I never saw Hudson as a difference-maker. A good player for sure, but not someone who was going to add another 3-4 wins. The PECOTA projections for the Nats right now has them 82-80. It's not something i take to the bank, but those people are remarkably on target much if the time.
Phil: The PECOTA rating has subsequently been modified to 76-86. Given that, O. Hudson is a 2.9 WAR, so we're dealing in incremental wins here. Would he be worth what he was asking (in terms of salary) from the Nationals, and would signing him make the Nationals a wild-card contender in the NL East? ====== No and no. There was no single player available as a free agent this off-season who would have made the Nationals an instant post-season candidate.
"Maybe, but Hudson's offense really slipped in the second half," he continued. "No one expected he'd hit .330 all season [Hudson batted about .332 in April and May], but his average dropped about 30 points the second half of the season."
That scout should probably check the box scores more often.
Hudson hit .283 pre all-star break, .284 post all-star break. ============ Just a quick check of Hudson month-by-month. April, May & June he was 92-for-310 (.2967); July, August, September & October he was 64-for-241 (.2655). Looks like roughly 30 points to me. The scout I spoke to never mentioned the All-Star Break, just the second half.
"There was no single player available as a free agent this off-season who would have made the Nationals an instant post-season candidate." Phil Woods
Semantic games.
Yet there were several players available as free agents this off-season who would have made the Nationals an instant post-season candidate.
But the Nationals professional baseball people decided to once again keep payroll under $69M. Because they have had a lot of success under the Lerners with that strategy. And they're smarter than the fans.