My exact reaction when Rosnethal tweeted it.

ahh the whole “they should stop thinking like us” argument.

Inconceivable!

I just changed the headline to “Hudson,” seeing as how no Cabreras are mentioned.

Yes, yes. Sorry. Swimming + Newcastles + Reading nonsensical rumors = all kinds of errors. Thanks for cleaning up my mess, Jay.

Personally, I don’t think it makes a lot of sense in terms of the context of where the Indians are right now.

2010, by most accounts, is likely going to be a long year. The only real chance we have is if we could emerge from a weak AL Central, and while it is weak, I’m still not sure we can be consistent enough under a new manager and coaching staff, plus several notable new players who are still trying to establish themselves (LaPorta, Brantley, Marson, Carrasco, etc.), plus hoping that some players will be back to or close to 100% (Westbrook, Hafner, etc.) – that’s a lot of ifs. In all likelihood, we aren’t going to win anything of consequence in 2010 (including the AL Central).

Usually, when you sign a veteran who is arguably past his prime (or at best in Hudson’s case, at the end of his prime), you do it to bolster your team for a significant playoff run and to address the one main weakness your team has. We have SEVERAL weaknesses and/or question marks about this team, so in my mind, this signing makes little sense.

Furthermore, I know some fans (and I believe some people on here as well) have complained in the past about not allowing our young players play, adapt to the ML level, and be given a legitimate opportunity to prove themselves. Andy Marte was probably the last example given. At that time, the Indians were believed to be in the middle of a stretch of competing for the postseason (around 2007 and beyond) – that’s one of the reasons why the Indians likely didn’t turn toward Marte for too long to man 3B, then he got lost in the shuffle. The Indians don’t have that reason now, as they are not expected to compete for the postseason until 2011 or even 2012. Why would we sign a past-his-prime veteran to block Valbuena, a guy we were willing to acquire to eventually become our starting 2B, who has played well above-average defense at 2B, and who has shown flashes of being very solid offensively?

He’s not going to get any better by sitting on the bench several times a week, filling in at 2B/SS/3B. Plus, don’t we have Jason Donald to eventually fill that role? Add to that that Valbuena just turned 24-YO in November and has just 417 total ML ABs (368 with Cleveland), less than a full season’s worth, and it makes absolutely no sense to relegate him to a back-up role for 2-3 years based on that small of a sample size. Even relegating him to the bench for 1 year in a season we’re not expected to contend makes no sense, since he’ll just be a year older and with not much more valuable experience than he has right now.

Additionally, why would we want to trade Carmona when he’s signed relatively cheaply, we need pitching, he’s still one of our most established starters even with his struggles, and he still has the potential to be pretty good even if he only recovers 75%-80% of his ability. Even if Carmona is only 75-80% of what he was in 2007, that’s still at least as good as 100% of Laffey or Huff, neither of whom is probably better than a #3 starter, and Carrasco at best might be a #1, but is more likely a #2-#3 starter, and is also the furthest away of those three from being established in the Majors. Again, to me, this makes no sense for a team that is 1-2 years away from seriously contending and who is in desperate need for pitching, arguably the team’s greatest weakness. Carmona has had his struggles, granted, but you’re not going to get much for him right now, he’s signed relatively cheaply, and he’s still one of your most established starters, accomplishing more than Laffey, Huff, and Carrasco have done combined. That too makes no sense.

To me, this rumor is either just “hot air” or is an attempt to make it look like the Indians are doing something “constructive” for the fans who don’t get the philosophy of what Shapiro and company are doing long-term. Didn’t many here just complain about the Royals doing that and Paul Hoynes lauding them for it and chastizing the Indians for not doing it (to this point)? Why do that now, which is what this move seems to indicate to me?

Even if what the general fan base thinks would factor into who we sign (and it doesn’t), do you really think they are going to be impressed with Orlando Hudson? I wouldn’t be surprised if some ask, “Who?” Most fans would probably complain, “Why didn’t we just keep Martinez and Lee for 2010 instead of signing Hudson?” So, certainly, Hudson’s signing wouldn’t appease the fans anyway, and as mentioned before, what the fans feel about the signings or non-signings shouldn’t and doesn’t come into Shapiro’s decision-making.

Reading your post again, the Phillies are in prime position to compete for a WS now, which is a major reason why they added a veteran like Polanco. We AREN’T in the same boat – in my mind, signing Hudson makes absolutely no sense for a team that needs to continue developing the young talent we have, living through the “growing pains” they will likely experience when we’re not expected to contend so that when we are ready to contend, they are well past the “growing pains” and are ready to contribute fully.

If this did happen, I, like APV, would be less than thrilled (fuming would be more like it).

We’d sign him as an everyday starter. These aren’t the numbers of a utility guy.

Yes, you’d figure one of Wood, Westbrook or Peralta would be moved to free up cash.

I can’t make sense of this rumor, and I think it’s just that … a rumor. It wouldn’t surprise me if such a deal was explored earlier in the offseason, but fell through for whatever reason and we no just hear about it.

I think it only makes sense if its a multiple year deal for Hudson. He’s a consistent very good offensive player based on position, his defense is below average at this point in his career, I would say its a result of aging. If he worked his ass off on conditioning he might be able to make up for that and get it closer to average (if he was so motivated too that is).

Selling Carmona at this point would in fact be selling low, and unless the return is markedly better than what you’d get for Peralta (which isn’t much considering the market and other recent trades for similar players), I don’t see why you wouldn’t “dump” Peralta’s contract over Carmona’s. There’s upside with Carmona and control for far more years than with Peralta.

This is how I read this as well

Yep.

Rec for “smooshed.”

Tony’s sources aren’t always privy to the inner circle’s thinking.

Obviously they would trade Carmona, but at this point in his career, they would be trading him for something between nothing and Mitch Talbot, and they’re not going to do that.

If you didn’t give up on Cliff Lee after 2007, why would you give up on Carmona now? Carmona is younger, cheaper, under control for a lot longer, and has put up at least one far better season (2007) than anything Cliff Lee had done through 2007.

Elsewhere, we’ve been calling for the FO to do something crazy, outside of the box. This would qualify.

You know what? I’m anxious to see Fausto pitch in ST. I think that he might do a Cliff Lee and turn in around 180 degrees. I’d love to get that kinda surprise this summer.

It doesn’t make sense to sign an aging veteran, when we have potential talent already in the system that needs a sustained shot at the big league level, when we aren’t planning to compete in 2010.

Frankly, for that matter, we’d have to see sustained progress along a number of fronts, most notably in the rotation, to compete next year, too.

Dolan has displayed willingness to eat salary to get a better return in the past, so, unless attendance returns to 1970s figures and we’re losing money in great big bucketfuls every time we open the gates, I would say that we would eat Wood’s salary if the return justifies it.

The better question: If Fausto reemerges as a usable starter, if two or three other guys among Laffey, Huff, Carrasco, and Rondon appear at that stage as well, and if the Indians, despite being pretenders in 2010, think they stand a chance in 2011, do they deal Wood?

If by miracles the team is out front at the break, Wood stays. What happens if the team is hanging around enough to inspire confidence in 2011 despite not being there in 2010? That’s the interesting question…

GAHHH! Did anyone else see this in their URL box:

http://www.letsgotribe.com/2010/1/28/1282414/tribe-trying-to-sign-cabrera#comments

Hudson. My b.