Orlando Hudson
I know that u guys have been struggling with your second basemen and could very possibly become buyers going into the trade deadline. What type of prospects would u be willing to give up to get the ODawg? Would you do Bo Mills, Jeremy Sowers, and David Huff for Hudson? Who do you think you would be willing to give up? Would you be willing to give up anybody at all? Please share your thoughts....
0 recs |
49
comments
Comments
This ODawg does sound very likable. Since you put it that way…
Things haven’t looked so good for our team lately (the whole organization, really), so I haven’t given this much thought. I’ll be happy if in a months time we’re discussing trades from the standpoint of the purchaser.
I hear some good things about that Justin guy.
by jhon on Jun 10, 2008 6:18 PM EDT 0 recs
Hey, you seem like a pretty earnest dude, so I’ll be as even-handed as I can.
know that u guys have been struggling with your second basemen...True.
and could very possibly become buyers going into the trade deadline. ...Technically true, but less probable now than it once was. The Indians status over the next few weeks seems as though it will be determined by the division, not by the Indians. We’re…we’re not good.
What type of prospects would u be willing to give up to get the ODawg? Would you do Bo Mills, Jeremy Sowers, and David Huff for Hudson?...If my math is right, Hudson’s a free agent at year end, right? So you’re offering half a season of a league-average-hitting middle infielder. No disrespect to Hudson’s talents, but I’m not sure that the Indians would be willing to flip any one of the guys you mention for a rental.
Mills is one of our two legit power-hitting prospects. Sowers and Huff are both viable ML fifth starter-grade talents RIGHT NOW, and we’re suddenly hard-up for pitching. And even if we were dealing from a position of depth, this sort of package would be a huge deal, at least of the Haren caliber.
In summary, on the off chance that the Indians are buyers in July, start taking a look at our A-ball starters, and maybe our relievers.
by fleerdon on Jun 10, 2008 6:30 PM EDT 0 recs
Hudson is a free agent at year’s end. He arrived in AZ at age 28, the prime of his career. Combine his age with his ballpark, and he’s just had his best years. Away from Chase Field in the last three seasons he’s hit .274/.334/.403. But considering his whole game, he’s topped a 100+ OPS the last two years (102 and 106, respectively) and carries a 113OPS+ right now in 2008.
But for a half-season, Fleerdon’s got it right: a pretty decent hitting prospect and two major-league ready starting pitchers?
So what would be reasonable? For a half-season, the Dbacks would have to be happy getting two mid-level prospects, like Brad Snyder and maaaaybe somebody like Scott Lewis.
by xrickx on Jun 10, 2008 6:40 PM EDT 0 recs
I think it’d be more than Lewis (whose value is minimal given his injury history – despite his success) and Snyder (whose value as a trade commodity is close to zero). But Huff, Sowers and Mills would be way way way too much. One of those guys I could possibly see included as part of such a deal (and probably contingent on Hudson signing an extension)...certainly not all three.
by APV on
Jun 10, 2008 6:55 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Adding…I would actually love to combine Hudson’s defense at 2B with Cabrera’s at SS
by APV on
Jun 10, 2008 6:56 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Eh, well, it might be an improvement, but his RZR is just a bit above average for 2008, and near the bottom for 2006 and 2007. Oddly, near the top for 2004 and 2005.
by Jay on
Jun 10, 2008 11:32 PM EDT
up
0 recs
RZR, in a decade, will be known as an “idiot stat”.
"the most vehement Yankee-hating guy I know" - Jay
by mauichuck on
Jun 11, 2008 6:48 AM EDT
up
0 recs
For now, I am going to go by whatever tells me Gutz and Sizemore are the top 2 outfielders in the league, because it sounds awesome
by Roger Dorn on
Jun 11, 2008 7:58 AM EDT
up
0 recs
Yea, me too. I have some problems with RZR but as long as the results are favorable to those two I don’t care.
by gahnki on
Jun 11, 2008 2:01 PM EDT
up
0 recs
I hope so. With no one publicly available defensive system being all that tried-and-true yet, we’re just making do with a mix and match of what we’ve got available. RZR is the best defensive metric as far as I can tell, at least among those that are readily available, but it’s still not as solid as OPS, which isn’t even among the best offensive metrics.
by Jay on
Jun 11, 2008 2:08 PM EDT
up
0 recs
What are the chances that 2OPS takes over for OPS in the future?
by gahnki on
Jun 11, 2008 2:23 PM EDT
up
0 recs
(OBP+OBP+OPS)
It’s almost as easy to use as OPS, but has a higher correlation to runs scored.
by gahnki on
Jun 11, 2008 2:39 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Wow, a new level of combination stats. One of these days, if not already, they’ll start with fractional coefficients and logs and crap.
Kinda like fluid mechanics – and just as accurate.
"the most vehement Yankee-hating guy I know" - Jay
by mauichuck on
Jun 11, 2008 2:45 PM EDT
up
0 recs
logs are definitely being used now.
And I like 2OPS. It’s nothing hard to grasp…just a better predictor of runs scored.
by gahnki on
Jun 11, 2008 3:04 PM EDT
up
0 recs
No, I don’t think that will ever catch on. It’s significantly more complicated and only marginally more accurate.
What may continue to gain traction is OPS+, which also corrects for the OBP/SLG imbalance, and also considers park effects, league norms, etc. It’s much harder to calculate, but much easier to understand.
by Jay on
Jun 11, 2008 3:31 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Truth is, almost no fans can even tell you the exact formula for OBP. I forget it myself sometimes.
I’m sometimes surprised that secondary average isn’t more popular. It’s a cool little stat.
by Jay on
Jun 11, 2008 3:32 PM EDT
up
0 recs
I just looked up an explanation for it. It is really simple and interesting to see.
The only problem I have with it is that I don’t have a way to tell the significance of the numbers. An SEC of .423 does nothing for me.
by gahnki on
Jun 11, 2008 4:13 PM EDT
up
0 recs
That’s just a problem of experience. The only reason .300 avg does anything for you is because you’ve learned over time how good that is relative to other players. I imagine most of us here had little or no context for a 900 OPS six or seven years ago, and many fans still don’t.
by Jay on
Jun 11, 2008 4:37 PM EDT
up
0 recs
The only problem I have with it is that I don’t have a way to tell the significance of the numbers
Quote of the season.
"the most vehement Yankee-hating guy I know" - Jay
by mauichuck on
Jun 11, 2008 5:41 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Somewhere in here it should be mentioned that he’s a pretty good defensive second baseman, which being a little better than league average hitter makes him quite valuable. With that said, this is a preposterous package Mr. Upton offers.
by ClarkM on
Jun 10, 2008 6:56 PM EDT
up
0 recs
As APV stated, there would have to be an agreement that the Indians be given a few days to sign him to an extension without which the deal would be voided (like the Santana deal). Without that in place, I’d see us trading either a low level pitching prospect or possibly a relief pitcher that Arizona may be eying.
by hans on
Jun 10, 2008 7:00 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Exactly…Cleveland is really not in a position right now to trade long-term value in the form of multiple prospects for the short-term gain of a rental player. That just doesn’t fit with Cleveland’s current organizational math.
by APV on
Jun 10, 2008 7:10 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Well, we did Lofton for Ramirez last year. I could see us doing something if we’re close, but it would probably be low scale, not superstar rental for top prospect.
by dgcambridge on
Jun 11, 2008 2:09 PM EDT
up
0 recs
I’d actually like to see Hudson in a Tribe uniform…at the beginning of 2009…on a 2 -year deal.
Maybe 3 years.
Likely? Not very, even if he is at the top of the Tribe’s FA at 2B list this off-season (which he is).
But I wouldn’t give up much for him right now.
by The DiaTriber on Jun 10, 2008 9:38 PM EDT 0 recs
I think it’s unlikely we’ll be buyers.
If we were buyers, I think Hudson would be a great pickup for us — in fact, I thought so in the offseason.
A package of Mills, Sowers and Huff would be akin to the Colon deal, where we got Phillips, Lee and SIzemore (they weren’t all borderline stars back then, just prospects). Hudson is a solid everyday player and a fringe All-Star, not an elite player. He also would be a three-month rental player, where Colon had a full 1.5 years left under team control. Very different valuation.
Sowers, while not a potential ace, is a quality major-league pitcher, and Huff is well on his way to being a Top 100 prospect, which Mills already is (on some lists). I think a team would be lucky to get any one of those three guys back for three months of Hudson, possibly with a B-list prospect thrown in. Prospects are more valued than vets these days, and with good reason.
by Jay on Jun 10, 2008 11:30 PM EDT 0 recs
Would you guys consider Fausto Carmona and Travis Hafner for Orlando? Remember ya gotta take both of ‘em.
"the most vehement Yankee-hating guy I know" - Jay
by mauichuck on Jun 11, 2008 6:49 AM EDT 0 recs
“Hello, police? There’s a crazy person on my lawn yelling about somebody named Fausto Carmona. Send help.”
by NickFantana on
Jun 11, 2008 9:08 AM EDT
up
0 recs
Man, Ryan, you just love that pun. I think you must have pulled it out 60 times by now.
by Jay on
Jun 11, 2008 1:19 PM EDT
up
0 recs
For just a second I thought it said “Meg Ryan” and wondered who was throwing the No-No.
"the most vehement Yankee-hating guy I know" - Jay
by mauichuck on
Jun 11, 2008 1:34 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Ha ha, when I read it thought “Uh oh, here comes Jay. He hates that pun.”
by dgcambridge on
Jun 11, 2008 1:49 PM EDT
up
0 recs
http://www.instantrimshot.com to everyone in this little tree.
by gte619n on
Jun 11, 2008 5:33 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Sorry, I’ll try to be a little more creative with my puns. I’ll have to brush up on the Sicillian Wars to see if I can come with something for Asdrubal.
by Ryan on
Jun 12, 2008 10:52 AM EDT
up
0 recs
It never ceases to amaze me how little most people know about value in baseball terms.
-Erik
by drerikbrady on Jun 13, 2008 8:21 AM EDT 0 recs
ehh…it’s hard to judge value on a team that you’re not familiar with. I’m sure he isn’t too familiar with our system beyond a name basis. And the player he offered us is someone we would be interested in so it’s an improvement over others.
by gahnki on
Jun 13, 2008 12:37 PM EDT
up
0 recs
That’s true, but such suggestions typically work out to the proposer’s advantage. If it proceeds from an ignorance of Cleveland’s farm system, it somehow finds three pretty good players.
Just like mistakes at the cash register typically favor the merchant, not the customer.
by odradek on
Jun 13, 2008 1:15 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Yeah but any 3 decent prospects for Orland Hudson idea is absurd. I mean, a 3 for 1 with Orlando Hudson as the 1 is pretty hard to imagine.
by afh4 on
Jun 13, 2008 1:24 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Two years ago, when you would’ve gotten a young player with a nice salary AND two more years of control, then you have value. Now he’s a rental. And anyone who thinks that they’re getting prospects for a middling rental, just doesn’t understand value in today’s baseball market.
-Erik
by drerikbrady on
Jun 13, 2008 2:10 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Hudson is better than middling, but the point is still taken.
Some folks take this stuff to a pessimist extreme. You’ll have on the one side, you’ll have to give up two good prospects for Orlando Hudson, and then on the other, you can’t expect too much for C.C. One or both of those statements is wrong.
The problem may come when we are faced with trading C.C. for a younger player, cheap and under control for years, but therefore not nearly as significant of a talent. That’s a tough PR sell even if it’s a great move.
by Jay on
Jun 13, 2008 2:55 PM EDT
up
0 recs
In a heartbeat. But it’s the same kind of ludicrous suggestion as this one, sadly.
by Voltaire on
Jun 16, 2008 3:20 PM EDT
up
0 recs












