Is Orlando Hudson a potential solution at SS?
by monkeyball on Jan 17, 2009 9:36 AM PST
93 comments
Nico made an intriguing suggestion the other day at the bottom of EddieVegas_NRAF's The bottom of the shortstop barrel post: that the A's should explore signing free-agent second baseman Orlando Hudson, and convert him to shortstop. WaddellCanseco did some yeoman basic research in that exchange (which exchange, I think, may have gotten overlooked at the bottom of that post; hence, my shamelessly ripping it off on a slow-news offseason Saturday elevating their good work to the front page for a thorough discussion).
The upshot is this: Cabrera Hudson (thanks, WC) has an established track record as a genuine, non-Michael Young/Rafael Palmeiro Gold Glove defender at 2B, and is demonstrably capable of putting up a .750-.800 OPS year in and year out that's heavily dependent on a .275-.300 AVG -- in other words, about the same or better batter than Orlando Cabrera, and with better defense -- albeit, of course, at a different position which (a) requires more range and a better arm, and (b) he's never played in the majors or minors.
He's also available, and likely cheap and undervalued. (And, yes, that undervaluing is as a second baseman, not as a shortstop; the position switch, if it worked, would make him less of -- though still likely -- a bargain.)
The biggest issue, to me (and as pointed out by several commenters in the initial thread) would be his range covering ground at SS. By all indications (fan projections plus the fact that he came up in the Blue Jays system playing both 2B and 3B) he has a decent arm -- and, heck, if David Eckstein can be a starting Major League shortstop ...
Personally, I think the idea is worth a shot -- as in, Beane should explore the idea with Hudson and Hudson's agent. Obviously, if Hudson isn't even interested in the plan, then it's a nonstarter. Given the lack of interest in him, though, I would have to think that he'd at least consider it -- not only would it give him a job more quickly for '09-10 (-11?), but it would help position him down the road for more and better offers, as he'd demonstrate the flexibility (psychologically and physically) to play SS, could increase his WAR if he plays competent defense at SS, and would instantly make him one of the leading SSs in the game, given (as we've all seen from beane's fruitless search to replace Crosby) the paucity of talent at the position right now.
And here's one last argument in favor of signing Hudson: he'd provide a massive insurance policy in the event that Mark Ellis isn't able to come back successfully at full strength at 2B. I know that all publicly disseminated signs point to Ellis rehabbing successfully after his surgery, and that Beane did indeed get a good value deal when he extended/re-signed Ellis, but ... I have a bit of a Jermaine Dye vibe myself from Ellis's extension.
In any event, what's the mass opinion: explore signing Hudson, or is it folly to try converting him to SS? I would think that, at this point, a reasonable 2-3 year deal at, say, $7M-$9M per (to give him a premium to entice him to switch positions) would do it.
0 recs |
93 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
I
like Hudson. I would like it.
They've done studies, you know. 60% of the time it works, every time.
by what_the_crap on Jan 17, 2009 9:44 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
I've heard him on radio and his personality seems awesome, he seems like an Eric Byrnes type
and would probably bring a lot to the clubhouse too.
I like the idea as an option, without getting hopes up that it will actually happen.
witty remark
by dtownmbrown on Jan 17, 2009 1:58 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
It's funny, because I originally made the suggestion non-seriously
but upon reflection, if you can just get “decent” defensive SS from him you are also getting a plus offensive player for the position – someone better than O. Cabrera and way better than Crosby, Pennington, or Petit.
And as you say, if Ellis has difficulties – and specifically, if he’s not ready Opening Day – you can just slide Hudson to 2B and go with a true-but-not-good SS (Crosby, Pennington, Petit, whomever you still have) and come out ok.
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
by Nico on Jan 17, 2009 9:45 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
That was kind of how I read it and felt myself
The more you think about it, the more it seems to make sense.
my internet search says i have nothing to worry about unless i have problems breathing, or bleed when i use the toilet @('.')@
by monkeyball on Jan 17, 2009 9:56 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I'm not in favor of playing Hudson at 2B if Ellis is unavailable.
I’d rather he spend all his energies learning his new position. If you have to play someone like Pennington anyway in the event of an Ellis injury, I’d just as soon have him play 2B. It’s not like Pennington is a defensive whiz at SS anyway.
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Jan 17, 2009 9:51 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
I don't think that would that much of a challenge for Hudson
Reverting back to 2B, that is. If Ellis is out (and I’m thinking of a substantial amount of time, not the A’s usual day-to-day-for-12-days) you probably want to field the strongest defensive alignment you can — which, to me, would be Hudson at 2B and Petit at SS. In the event of a shorter Ellis outage such as in my parenthetic, then, yes, I’d tend to agree with you that it might be simpler to maintain Hudson at SS.
Of course, as the A’s usually handle those situations, 2 days off turns into 12 days off turns into a stint on the DL turns into 3 months off …
my internet search says i have nothing to worry about unless i have problems breathing, or bleed when i use the toilet @('.')@
by monkeyball on Jan 17, 2009 9:55 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
The challenge for Hudson isn't reverting back to 2B. It's learning SS while playing 2B every third week.
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Jan 17, 2009 10:02 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I'm all for exploring the unknown but there are some issues here
Rosenthal just did a piece on Hudson and says he’s looking for a 3 year deal. I doubt he’d be agreeable to taking a shorter term deal AND switching to a position he’s never played before, there’s no upside for him to do so. If he signs a 1 or 2 year deal and then bombs as a SS it would hurt his value when he re-entered the market. So you have the very real potential of signing Hudson to his required 3 year deal and then finding out he can’t play SS.
Then what? If Ellis is healthy there’d be no place to play Hudson.
The monster at the end of this blog.
by grover on Jan 17, 2009 10:00 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
Hmmm.....too many healthy players. Interesting concept.....
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Jan 17, 2009 10:03 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Revolutionary when talking about this team
The monster at the end of this blog.
by grover on Jan 17, 2009 10:07 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I'm not really comfortable with change.
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Jan 17, 2009 10:12 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Then this whole Hudson discussion must have you anxious and tense
New player and a new position? Heck, the guy can’t even decide if he’s going to bat left handed or right handed!
The monster at the end of this blog.
by grover on Jan 17, 2009 10:18 AM PST up reply actions 1 recs
Then try to play him at third when Chavez blows up?
by thejd44 on Jan 17, 2009 10:16 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I guess the answer would be,
Why Hudson would sign: He would benefit from playing a more coveted position, and doesn’t have a lot of suitors right now anyway.
What the A’s would do if SS didn’t work out: Trade Hudson to a team looking for a 2Bman, now that he is signed to a reasonable deal.
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
by Nico on Jan 17, 2009 10:17 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
So there's no market for Hudson now
but there’ll be a market for his 2B services if he fails the experiment at SS and is stuck on the A’s bench. I don’t see the basis for a good deal there.
Hey, if Hudson is willing to give SS a go then this is something to consider. I just don’t see him agreeing to experiment without receiving financial compensation. Hudson was and is the elite 2B on the market and if there’s one thing we’ve seen this offseason its that the top guys get their money. I know things are slow for Hudson but this plan offers him all kinds of leverage to get a reasonable facsimile of the deal he wants.
The monster at the end of this blog.
by grover on Jan 17, 2009 10:28 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
It may be that Hudson is holding out for more money
than any team is willing to pay, but that if he signs a reasonable deal and fails at SS for Oakland, another team will want him at the deal he already signed. The A’s couldn’t ask much (i.e., really anything worth worrying about) in return, though, because they are essentially trading him as a FA.
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
by Nico on Jan 17, 2009 10:31 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I think in the second paragraph you meant to say "Hudson has an established...."
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Jan 17, 2009 10:00 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
uh, yep
Thanks.
my internet search says i have nothing to worry about unless i have problems breathing, or bleed when i use the toilet @('.')@
by monkeyball on Jan 17, 2009 10:17 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Well, I think he probably got moved off of SS & 3B
for a reason back when he was in the lower minors. He probably doesn’t quite have the arm strength needed for the position, and his range would likely decline over the course of a 3 yr deal. He could probably play the position, but since he is a only a solid, not special, IF bat I don’t think the offensive contributions would outweigh the runs he cost as SS. You see quite a few guys moved off of SS once they reach their 30’s. I can’t think of any off the top of my head that moved over the other way.
"Errors of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it."
-Thomas Jefferson
by thinwhiteduke on Jan 17, 2009 10:11 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
It's certainly worth exploring
From the Rosenthal piece that grover mentioned, it looks like Hudson would like something in the ballpark of 3/25 which isn’t too bad a place to start. If Hudson is amenable to a change in position then I think this is a good deal for the A’s, especially given the paucity of SS options in the farm system and future FA classes . If Hudson succeeds then Oakland has their SS for the next 3 years and if he flops to the point where it’s better to play Petit, then the contract is small enough the A’s could likely find someone one needs a second baseman.
by JLeverenz on Jan 17, 2009 10:17 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
That's exactly my thinking
3/25 for a middle infielder who hits well, runs well, and plays good defense is awfully reasonable – someone who is insurance for Ellis and Chavez, and who might even be a candidate to play a decent OF. I’m having visions of Tony Phillips here, folks!
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
by Nico on Jan 17, 2009 10:21 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Tony wasn't a very good SS though.
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Jan 17, 2009 10:23 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Ick, I hope 'Hudson' and 'OF' don't ever get mentioned in the same sentence
Unless it’s "Orlando Hudson has such great range at shortstop, it’s like having a fourth player in the outfield.’
by JLeverenz on Jan 17, 2009 10:24 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
If it's between him and Cust?
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
by Nico on Jan 17, 2009 10:25 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Might be a tough sell
to convince him to sign on, however, to a UT role. Even a super UT role. I know this was said kinda in jest, but could you see this conference call unfolding:
Hudson’s agent: “So, where exactly do you see Orlando playing for you next season?”
A’s brass: “Whatever the position of the next player who happens to break down on our active roster happens to play. You know, like Tony Phillips.”
Hudson’s agent: “Ah, I see. I’m going to hang up now.”
"Errors of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it."
-Thomas Jefferson
by thinwhiteduke on Jan 17, 2009 10:26 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I see it going more like this:
A’s brass: “He would play SS, and if it doesn’t work out he’d play 2B, 3B, or be traded to fill a need.”
Hudson’s agent: “But he’d rather be someone’s everyday 2Bman, end of story.”
A’s brass: “And the team offering to sign him to do that is…?”
Hudson’s agent: “You know…”
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
by Nico on Jan 17, 2009 10:29 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah,
I get where you’re coming from. But the way you describe it, nobody gets to mention Tony Phillips, and that’s too bad.
"Errors of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it."
-Thomas Jefferson
by thinwhiteduke on Jan 17, 2009 10:31 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I'm sad about that too
Maybe as they are hanging up, it goes:
A’s brass: “OK, so we’ll fax over the paperwork. Bye now {Tony Phillips!!!!} Hmm? Nothing, I said ‘Bye’…”
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
by Nico on Jan 17, 2009 10:33 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
If it were to unfold that way
I guess I’d be willing to change my vote on the idea to a “yes”. But someone would have to tape it and play the audio file on AN.
"Errors of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it."
-Thomas Jefferson
by thinwhiteduke on Jan 17, 2009 10:37 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
No no no no
When he signs the deal and they do the press conference, that’s when you throw down.
Blindside the man. He’ll come over thinking he’s “Orland Hudson, the A’s new shortstop… eh maybe second baseman.” Then you throw down the “and here’s Orlando Hudson, the A’s new Tony Phillips.”
In search of a new signature. Say something funny and you may see your comment here!
by DMOAS on Jan 17, 2009 11:21 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Hudson’s agent: "You know…"
“That mystery team….”
by mrod on Jan 17, 2009 2:25 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Cabrera would have signed with the A's if it hadn't been for those meddling kids
my internet search says i have nothing to worry about unless i have problems breathing, or bleed when i use the toilet @('.')@
by monkeyball on Jan 17, 2009 3:34 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Will you play SS for ONE scooby snack?
How about for TWO scooby snacks?
"Camelot sure fell apart, didn't it?"-Steve McCatty
by 5Aces on Jan 22, 2009 1:28 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I kind of thought of this and mentioned it in another post
a while ago, but my thought was more to move Ellis to short since he played short in college and is well versed with the position.
by Tyler Bleszinski on Jan 17, 2009 10:24 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
But Ellis is not only GG quality at 2B,
he also can’t physically play SS due to the shoulder issues. Whereas in Hudson’s case, the issue would be his arm strength, but not that he would have to lob the ball or destroy his shoulder.
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
by Nico on Jan 17, 2009 10:27 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Hasn't Ellis said that he can't handle making the throws from SS?
The monster at the end of this blog.
by grover on Jan 17, 2009 10:28 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Yes - it's simply not an option
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
by Nico on Jan 17, 2009 10:29 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
You'd think the real Blez would know that...
The monster at the end of this blog.
by grover on Jan 17, 2009 10:32 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Let's ask him something else that only the real Blez would know
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Jan 17, 2009 10:47 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Well, the real Blez has met Cindi,
but his alter-ego hasn’t.
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
by Nico on Jan 17, 2009 11:01 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
So Blez is one of Cindi's Hotties?
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Jan 17, 2009 5:45 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
too bad he's never played SS
during his baseball career….add that he’s 30+ and with wrist injuries, i dont see it as a realistic position move for him
by Asfan4ever723 on Jan 17, 2009 10:45 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
Me neither - but it's fun to talk about!
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
by Nico on Jan 17, 2009 11:01 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I agree
And shortstop is not exactly a position where you want to put someone with no experience. I ready the article on the A’s site about Crosby getting hitting tips from McGwire. I can’t help but be a little optimistic after reading that one.
God, I love baseball.
-Roy Hobbs
by fremontian on Jan 23, 2009 3:31 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
eckstein for 850,000 to padres
but to only play 2b
by Asfan4ever723 on Jan 17, 2009 10:47 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
It's a fun idea, but I don't see how it would work.
The problem, as I see it, is that it presents the A’s with too many risks, and not enough outs:
First: if he is asking 3/25 right now for 2B, I think it would take a substantial amount of money to sign him at SS (1yr, 2yr, or 3yr). FanGraphs has OH valued as $8.7, $12.5, and $8.6 over the last 3 seasons. Regardless: for the A’s this is approaching the point of albatross if it’s sitting on their payroll and he doesn’t have an everyday position. They already had Chavez playing that role, and – knock on wood – you just never know if Chavez is going back to that role this season.
If OH doesn’t succeed at SS then the only out for the A’s is to trade him (or Ellis), and you are taking a gamble in assuming you can find a good partner (you’ll note that right now, nobody has signed him as a free agent).
I think I’m basically extrapolating on what grover said above
Save Rajai Davis
by oakinboston on Jan 17, 2009 10:50 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
If Hudson's OBP is low enough, there might be enough outs!
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
by Nico on Jan 17, 2009 11:02 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
So far, 71% in the poll say "yes" - and the public is never wrong!
Of course, it’s not as much of a landslide as NSJ’s poll, so…
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
by Nico on Jan 17, 2009 11:07 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
I voted yes that the A's should explore it...
I have no idea whether they should actually do it or not, though.
"I'm going to take a camera crew and march into Billy Beane's office and demand to know why instituting his newfangled cost-saving measures means that the run manufacturing plant had to get shut down." FJM
by Elvez on Jan 17, 2009 11:24 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
True that.
The wording of the poll makes the answer pretty obvious. Of course they should explore the idea.
"Dispatch knuckleheadedness with Bond-like aplomb." –74mk
by iglew on Jan 17, 2009 2:45 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Arm issue aside,
I have a feeling that Hudson’s defense at SS would be pretty good, or at the very least, above average. Defense will be all the more important when the young pitchers come up, so I think this is a great idea.
by RenoTy on Jan 17, 2009 11:39 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
"Explore" any option
If all that is required to have genuine intrest is a simple question to Hudson and his agent, of course this option should be explored. Whether it will work is another question all together, but if Hudson is willing, why not? This was an excellent post, and with all of the stats brought up in it, I find it hard to see why anyone would be against this. What does everyone think the offer should be to Hudson? I would probably start at 3 yrs 18 mil. If we low balled furcal, have to do the same for Hudson.
by deathby9 on Jan 17, 2009 11:49 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
good idea but...
i doubt hudson would sign for more than a year. It might be a good try to give him a 9 million 1 year contract with promise of not offering him arbitration. It would allow him to play ss and 2b and retry free agency next year so if he does good then he can redo the free agent thing and get the long term deal he wants.
by Arcman on Jan 17, 2009 11:59 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
I say forget about shortstop
and focus on signing The Duke to a long term deal (3 years) and avoid arbitration. I’m sick of this crap! Crosby will have a very good bounce back year, as will Ellis. Just my 2 cents.
by A'sfansince1970 on Jan 17, 2009 2:31 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Crosby will bounce back?
To what? Do you mean “be good for the first time”? Snark.
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
by Nico on Jan 17, 2009 3:15 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Now now...he was good in June 2005
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Jan 17, 2009 5:46 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
How about two years guaranteed with an option for a 3rd?
2 years for 16 mill w/ option for 3rd year 9.5?
by mrod on Jan 17, 2009 2:32 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
I'd love it if that happened, too.
But there is this….posted it yesterday in another thread.
by mrod on Jan 17, 2009 2:34 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
I'm confused (as usual)
Regarding that “genuine, non-Michael Young/Rafael Palmeiro Gold Glove” second base defense you and Rob Neyer and everyone else keeps talking about:
The Fangraphs player page you linked to says Hudson’s defense has kind of sucked the past three years. Compared to his peers, he ranks a hell of a lot closer to the bottom than the top (lower than Dan Uggla!).
The Chone guy projects him to be average-ish (on defense) in 2009. THT’s metrics echo the chorus of “meh”.
On the other hand, Diamondbacks fans (and public opinion generally) think he’s awesome.
So what gives? Is the public wrong, or are the stats stupid?
by 74mk on Jan 17, 2009 2:38 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
I have no idea
I simply don’t believe any defensive stats — you can’t rely on a single stat, you have to look at, minimum, three-year patterns, they’re all dependent at base on subjective eyewitness assessments for their raw data …
So, who knows.
my internet search says i have nothing to worry about unless i have problems breathing, or bleed when i use the toilet @('.')@
by monkeyball on Jan 17, 2009 3:37 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
The three year UZR rankings on Fangraphs put him near the bottom of mlb.
I’m with you on the defensive metrics:
1. I don’t understand them very well.
2. I don’t know which one(s) to look at. Is there consensus as to which are the most reliable? And how would we know, anyway?
3. All the cool kids love to talk about defense these days, but it seems to me that the metrics are often plugged into value assessments with more confidence than they currently deserve.
These sorts of breezy (and increasingly common) mini-analyses exhaust me:
Hypothetical Commenter: “Player X is +10 on offense …”
Me (in my head): “OK. Makes sense. I agree you can say that with a high level of confidence.”
Hypothetical Commenter: “… but he’s -4 on defense …”
Me (still in my head): “Right, but we’re not nearly as sure about that -4 as we are about the plus 10. It’s useful information, but less reliable/certain than the offensive side of the equation. So please don’t confidently assert that he’s ‘+6 overall’.”
Hypothetical Commenter: “… which puts him at +6 overall.”
Me (red faced, screaming): “No! No no no no! Stop! Don’t do that! That +6 is not really +6, because the -4 might not really be -4! It is not that simple! You are embodying intellectual apathy! You are manufacturing certainty our of uncertainty! On the other hand maybe there’s lots of super smart egghead higher math stuff going on that I don’t know about, making that +6 more solid than I think, which frustrates me because it means I can’t bitch about this stuff without making an ass out of myself! I hate that! Ahhhhhhhh!”
by 74mk on Jan 17, 2009 5:32 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
They are less precise than offensive figures, no question about it.
Saying someone is -4 on defense is more like saying “he’s somewhere between +1 and -9 on defense.” It’s one of the reasons my opinion of the A’s offseason has swung towards the positive side. If you’re going to pursue real upgrades, with the intention of competing, it’s better to keep guesswork at an absolute minimum.
by CapgrasDelusion on Jan 17, 2009 6:06 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
are you feeling OK? Did someone hijack your account?
No numbered list?
my internet search says i have nothing to worry about unless i have problems breathing, or bleed when i use the toilet @('.')@
by monkeyball on Jan 17, 2009 3:38 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I am occasionally motivated to prove to myself that I am capable of tying together thoughts via actual writing rather than bulleting.
by 74mk on Jan 17, 2009 5:34 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
At this point
anything is better than Crosby. Every year people have been saying this will finally be his break out season and it has yet to come…I like the idea. Do it
by Oakland is part of the A's on Jan 17, 2009 3:23 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
i'm confident cabrera on a 1/2 yr deal will happen
by Asfan4ever723 on Jan 17, 2009 3:57 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
A 1/2 year deal -
I like that! A whole year is too much.
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
by Nico on Jan 17, 2009 5:57 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
With which team? And which Cabrera?
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Jan 17, 2009 6:25 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I said last week:
My impression is that Hudson’s defense has declined over the past several years, so that his range is now only slightly above average at second. If true, that’s not going to translate well to short.
Still, the fan scouting report still likes him, ranking him higher than Brian Roberts, Placido Polanco, and Dustin Pedroia (but worse than Mark Ellis, Brandon Philips, and Asdrubal Cabrera). However, the fans agree that his arm isn’t strong at all, and I would guess that alone would preclude a move to SS.
I’m of the opinion that and that
Reasonable people can disagree on this issue, but most of the body of evidence suggests that:
- his arm would be pretty badly exposed at shortstop
- his range is not what it was in its heyday
My guess is that his defensive wizardry may be a thing of the past.
The larger problem, and one I find unlikely to be solved, is that I doubt very much that Hudson would want to learn a new position as a FA. In that way, the idea is a nice thought experiment but practically a non-starter.
Children, until we have taught them better, will be perfectly happy with a seasonal round of games in which conkers succeeds hopscotch.
by salb918 on Jan 17, 2009 5:58 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Ultimately, Hudson at SS might be a lot like Eckstein (circa, say, 2004-07 or so)
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
by Nico on Jan 17, 2009 6:06 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Good. A World Series title in 2011.
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Jan 17, 2009 6:26 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Amen Sal...
I bet that it would take a boatload of money for Hudson to agree to learn a new position. He can get a job somewhere else without doing that.
by IM4Oakgal on Jan 17, 2009 6:49 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
i swiched from 2nd
to SS my freshman year to me it wasnt that difficult
by robbo650 on Jan 17, 2009 6:14 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
OK, but you were still improving as a player then. You weren't a thirtysomething.
Or were you?
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Jan 17, 2009 6:27 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, to me the reality is that this idea
would have been a much better one five years ago.
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
by Nico on Jan 17, 2009 6:47 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Can the A's sign you then?
Can't get enough of the Oakland A's? Visit Oaktown Awesomer's
by iamawesomer on Jan 17, 2009 8:00 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I just voted "no" in the poll
The Neekster flippeth and the Neekster floppeth away!
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
by Nico on Jan 17, 2009 8:18 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
no
i just don’t think its that easy, hudson probably has 27 years of muscle memory from throwing from 2nd…
If you had a lineup of 9 Jack Custs who hit(Cust career average) .239 AVG, .382 OBP, and .475 SLG, then your team would score 6.12 runs per game-totalling to 991runs a season.The 08 rangers lead the majors in runs score with 901.
by 9Custs on Jan 18, 2009 7:31 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
Not going to happen
for a variety of reasons that have been pretty well fleshed out. Maybe the A’s can put the intern on it, but the time of the FO is better spent exploring options with a non-zero chance of working out.
In other words, I voted “no.”
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
by PaulThomas on Jan 18, 2009 5:01 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
has anybody
mentioned the fact that Hudson is a type A free agent, thus we’d be forced to part with our second round draft pick if we were to sign him.
Not sure that Beane would be willing to forgo a 2nd round pick for a one or two year solution that isn’t a sure thing in the first place because he’s A) switching to a new position B) coming back from an injury plagued season
by oakballnack on Jan 18, 2009 7:44 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
i voted no
as much as i’m dreading another year of crosby either injured or trying to stay above .230, giving up that draft pick and the $$ its going to take for hudson isn’t worth it. im very interested to see how petit or pennington perform in arizona if they’re told they have as much a chance at SS as Mr. crosby
"That team runs on Bobby Crosby being healthy. This guy is amazing. If he's healthy, they could go a long way. He's the key"
-Johnny Damon
by jnm on Jan 18, 2009 9:10 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
As much as this idea sounds fun and intersting
Is there any history of a player making a move to a more difficult position on the defensive spectrum in their 30’s with any sort of success? I have not researched it yet but I suspect the answer is no.
More Rajai Davis & less mount Davis
by Athletics fan and runner on Jan 18, 2009 9:27 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
That's why the A's can be...pioneers!!!!!
I too also vote no as well.
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
by Nico on Jan 18, 2009 9:35 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I'd be interested
to see what Pennington could do if given a full time opportunity and placed in the #9 spot in the order. I have a feeling his bat will limit him to utility work, but with the potential punch we now have in the middle of our lineup, I think we could afford to carry a .250-.265 range hitter (that may be optimistic in Cliff’s case) at the bottom of the order as long as he takes his walks and gets on base occasionally – we know he’s got plenty of speed and good baserunning instincts. He also provides a solid glove at SS, maybe not as reliable an arm as Petit, but easily as good range wise as Crosby. Best case scenario, and I mean BEST, Pennington becomes an Eckstein-esque hitter at the bottom of the order, and maybe eventually could lead off. I think that’s pretty unlikely, though, given his offensive track record in proffessional ball.
by oakballnack on Jan 19, 2009 12:03 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
In a way, I'd be more interested to see Petit,
since I think both are severely limited offensively, but that Petit might be a plus defensive SS (whereas I suspect Pennington’s best position is 2B).
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
by Nico on Jan 19, 2009 4:45 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Pennington/Petit
I’m am not advocating Crosby as the SS solution.
BUT I would caution against thinking that a .220 Ba/.290 OBA SS with above average defense is something a contender can carry.
I’ve watched the Blue Jays go with a heavy dose of John Macdonald the past two years, it doesn’t work. He has gold glove defense, but you can’t be giving away a out 3-4 times every game in the AL and expect to contend.
Now perhaps my read on Pennington/Petit ‘s offensive talents are off (and please correct me if I’m wrong) but my read on those two is that they will not come close to even league average offense. And I know they won’t come close to John Macdonald’s defense.
Having said that, I don’t see any real solutions. A type A free agent named Hudson isn’t going to be worth a draft pick…PLUS the money.
by LBDirtbags on Jan 19, 2009 4:46 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
I think among Crosby, Pennington, and Petit
you have three .230-.240 hitters with slightly varying OBPs (Pennington highest), slugging (Crosby highest), and defense (Petit’s best). So given three bad choices, I’d reluctantly take the best defense. I agree they are all insufficient options.
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
by Nico on Jan 19, 2009 5:04 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2009 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.
