Huddy to sign extension

by jmoney on Feb 26, 2005 2:58 PM PST

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=2000669

It's not a done deal, but he says it's pretty close. The numbers ESPN gives are 3 years at $11 mil per, with 2 option years that vest based on innings pitched.

My reaction is, of course:

THAT'S IT! ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME? YOU'RE TELLING ME WE COULDN'T HAVE MATCHED THAT?

I will now go throw myself into the ocean.

Tweet Comment 24 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Huddy probably would ask more here...

because Atlanta was his home team, sort of speak, and the fact that he (and everyone else mind you) belives that the current (not nessisarly Wolfe) owners are cheap bastards that shunted all responsibility for winning onto Hudson, Mulder and Zito.

"I still stand firm that Johnny Damon is really Jesus, The Unfrozen Caveman Lawyer..."

by Zonis on Feb 26, 2005 3:05 PM PST reply actions

good thing

at least he won't end up in the AL

by xbhaskarx on Feb 26, 2005 3:13 PM PST reply actions

i think

they should at least give each player an offer just so they can say that they tried. i think sopme players dont need top dollar if they like playing somewhere. i would have offered Huddy 8-9 million a year for 4 years. plus maybe 2 option years at around 10 million each. if he turns that down than we know he wanted bigger bucks.

" Say it ain't so, Jose, say it ain't so"

by OakAs33 on Feb 26, 2005 3:41 PM PST reply actions

We already have a guy at $11 million

How the hell are we gonna add another long term? Cmon

by OaktownPower on Feb 26, 2005 3:41 PM PST reply actions

Careful

You don't want to pay a player for past performance. BB and co may have thought that Hudson was (a) going to decline, based on his strikeout rates or (b) be an injury risk.

I'm not necessarily saying I agree with (a) and (b), but from a risk management point of view, I can still see how 11 million a year would be pricey.

If this deal with ATL goes down, though, I would definitely applaud them for sticking to their guns and only going for 3 years. This also makes sense from a risk-management point of view; it's just that ATL has a very different utility function than OAK.

Manny is a NTAC

by salb918 on Feb 26, 2005 4:31 PM PST reply actions

pitchers are the highest risk

most fragile players, and Hudson has a track record of getting injured.

That said - this is the same kind of money we paid Kendall. Would you trade Kendall straight up for Hudson today?

by matthias on Feb 26, 2005 5:16 PM PST reply actions

NO QUESTION

I would!

I would trade Kendall for Hudson in half a heart beat. Who wouldn't?

by Eck on Feb 26, 2005 8:22 PM PST up reply actions

Good for Huddy

I'm glad Huddy's getting paid. He deserves it. I'm sure he's worth at least $13-14 million a year on the open market, but what difference is a couple million dollars really going to make?

Even if the A's could afford to give Huddy a deal like that, I'm not sure locking that kind of money up in a guy that's had trouble pitching an entire season is a wise move.

Go Beach.

by Dirtbag Pride on Feb 26, 2005 5:45 PM PST reply actions

You're all ignoring an aspect of this

Sure the first 3 years are at $11 million per, but think for a second where those two vesting options are.

If Hudson throws a certain number of innings those options automatically kick in, and they are probably more in the $15-$18 million range to backload the contract.

Its not a 5 year $55 million contract; its probably closer to a 5 year $68-$70 million contract.

by LiveAdam on Feb 26, 2005 5:46 PM PST reply actions

You also have to consider

that in the first three years he is likely to play well enough and stay healthy enough to get the last two vested but he is far less likely to stay healthy and productive in the last years when he is getting paid far more.

Relax alright don't try to strike everyone out. Strikeouts are boring besides that they're fascist. Throw some ground balls it's more democratic.

by devo on Feb 26, 2005 10:38 PM PST up reply actions

Vesting Options

That's pretty much true for any pitcher in his late 20's-early 30's with a brand new long term contract.

The protection for Atlanta comes in if Hudson gets seriously hurt during any of the first 3 seasons that prohibits him from getting to that magic number of innings to engage the vesting option.

The Braves' bullpen is good enough right now that it won't put any undue pressure on Hudson to go late into games.

Curt Schilling's contract had a vesting option for 2006 or 07 if the Red Sox won the World Series, so it automatically kicked in, regardless of Schilling's health in the next few years. It's just the risk you have to take to retain that quality of pitcher.

-Adam

by LiveAdam on Feb 27, 2005 1:25 AM PST up reply actions

I'm not saying it isn't what the market will bear

clearly it is.

That doesn't mean it's a good way for a team to sign a contract.

Relax alright don't try to strike everyone out. Strikeouts are boring besides that they're fascist. Throw some ground balls it's more democratic.

by devo on Feb 27, 2005 10:19 AM PST up reply actions

vesting contracts are excellent

I think signing a good contract ($11 mil) that becomes great ($13-14) if YOU are great makes a heckuva lot of sense. I think it's a very honorable way for the athlete (and agent) to sign a deal. Who wants to sit injured and make an exorbitant wage, while your buddies are out there playing their asses off for a lot less? Not Huddy.

The only problem I see logically with the incentive options is sometimes those numbers could become singular goals for an athlete to reach even to the detriment of the team.

by Brian in 317 on Feb 27, 2005 9:46 AM PST up reply actions

But he won't have to be great

he'll just have to be healthy. For the options to vest he'll have to do something like pitch 200 innings in 2/3 years or 450 total. Barring catestrophic injury, he makes it, easily. Nothing about it will ever necesitate greatness. It also does next to nothing to insure that teams are only paying for what they're receiving, since being mostly healthy for three years doesn't stop a player from getting injured when they are 3 and 4 years older.

Relax alright don't try to strike everyone out. Strikeouts are boring besides that they're fascist. Throw some ground balls it's more democratic.

by devo on Feb 27, 2005 10:18 AM PST up reply actions

Right devo, but

one thing that is a pretty good risk is the idea that if healthy, Huddy will be great. Nothing past or present suggests anything else.

Nico

by Nico on Feb 27, 2005 10:39 AM PST up reply actions

That's true

what I'd be more concerned is the likelyhood that his health, along with his prodcutivity will decline as his salary increases.

Relax alright don't try to strike everyone out. Strikeouts are boring besides that they're fascist. Throw some ground balls it's more democratic.

by devo on Feb 27, 2005 1:27 PM PST up reply actions

You're right

Do you think we could ask Jermaine for the money back so the A's could get Hudson?

The Braves got a helluva deal, considering that mediocre pitchers got 7-9 mil. this off season.

"The sun don't shine on the same dog's ass all the time." -Catfish Hunter

by kaweahkaweah on Feb 26, 2005 6:06 PM PST reply actions

I'm gonna go out on a limb

And say that Meyer outperforms Hudson over the length of that contract.

Maybe I'm just overoptimistic, but Hudson's declining K rate/health concern me, and Meyer just looks fantastic to me.

by walk off bunt on Feb 26, 2005 8:38 PM PST reply actions

Damaged goods?

Huddy could very well be permanently injured in some way.

But not in the same way as Mulder. Supposedly a fracture like his (at the top of the femur) is extremely difficult to totally recover from, and only if you treat it right away, which he (well, they) didn't.

by Mark H on Feb 26, 2005 9:45 PM PST reply actions

jeez

I sure hope not. I also want to believe this whole Hudson thing has been on the level. We couldn't afford him, so we traded him for abundant and inexpensive talent.

by Brian in 317 on Feb 27, 2005 9:37 AM PST up reply actions

I agree

I think it was strictly a financial decision, also considering who they wouldn't have been able to sign had they kept him

by OaklandSi on Feb 27, 2005 10:09 AM PST up reply actions

Atlanta had leverage

... because Huddy lives in the area and clearly wants to be there. He made the decision that he'd rather be in ATL at $11-12 million per than with, say, the Orioles or Mets at $13-14 million per.

If Wolff steps up to the plate and locks up Zito with a three-year extension on his current deal, then I can live with the A's not making an offer to Hudson. But if Zito gets away as a free agent or gets traded for another grab bag of prospects, then this sucks.

MJB

by MJB on Feb 27, 2005 12:52 PM PST reply actions

uh...

even if it zito turns out to be an average pitcher this season?

by xbhaskarx on Feb 27, 2005 2:49 PM PST up reply actions

History and outlook for the future

If we assume a choice had to be made between the Big Three after last season -- I'm not necessarily agreeing with that, but if we assume -- then I'm fine with having chosen Zito based on history and likelihood of future success.

Whatever actually happens, there are no guarantees. All I'm saying is that I'm fine with making Zito the first priority out of the three, as long as the A's actually keep him. I'm not necessarily fine with only keeping one of them.

MJB

by MJB on Feb 28, 2005 12:05 PM PST up reply actions