Author Topic: O-Dog (Orlando Hudson) (Read 32051 times)

KnorrForYourMoney · « **Reply #625 on:** February 05, 2010, 01:43:41 am »

Quote from: PANatsFan on February 05, 2010, 01:40:35 am

http://twitter.com/Ken_Rosenthal/status/8663870729

There is the reason Hudson wasn't signed. Because Rizzo is a good GM.

WTF? He would only take a deal if the team refused to offer him arbitration? Why does that matter for the player? Couldn't he just reject their offer?

Good move by Rizzo if that was the reason. That's pretty weaksauce if you can't even get the comp for a type A.

PANatsFan · « **Reply #626 on:** February 05, 2010, 02:02:13 am »

Quote from: KnorrForYourMoney on February 05, 2010, 01:43:41 am

WTF? He would only take a deal if the team refused to offer him arbitration? Why does that matter for the player? Couldn't he just reject their offer?

Good move by Rizzo if that was the reason. That's pretty weaksauce if you can't even get the comp for a type A.

If the team offers, then he's Juan Cruz'ed into a corner. No team wants to give up that #1 pick.

HalfSmokes · « **Reply #627 on:** February 05, 2010, 07:24:11 am »

Quote from: KnorrForYourMoney on February 05, 2010, 01:43:41 am

WTF? He would only take a deal if the team refused to offer him arbitration? Why does that matter for the player? Couldn't he just reject their offer?

Good move by Rizzo if that was the reason. That's pretty weaksauce if you can't even get the comp for a type A.

I think a lot of guys on one year deals have this built in

The Chief · « **Reply #628 on:** February 05, 2010, 08:21:33 am »

How does offering arby to a Type A player hurt the player?

Evolution33 · « **Reply #629 on:** February 05, 2010, 08:27:29 am »

Quote from: Dunnkey on February 05, 2010, 08:21:33 am

How does offering arby to a Type A player hurt the player?

A lot of teams don't want to give up their first round pick to sign a player that they don't believe is good enough to warent giving up a first round pick for. 2nd base is a pretty weak position around baseball right now. After Chase Utley and Ian Kinsler the talent level falls off a cliff. And a type A free agent is ranked compared to the top players at their position so for players at a weaker position some mediocre players can backdoor their way into being a type A free agent.

The Chief · « **Reply #630 on:** February 05, 2010, 08:36:06 am »

But how does it hurt the player if we offer him arby? I thought only the team losing him loses a pick?

HalfSmokes · « **Reply #631 on:** February 05, 2010, 08:43:03 am »

Quote from: Dunnkey on February 05, 2010, 08:36:06 am

But how does it hurt the player if we offer him arby? I thought only the team losing him loses a pick?

When teams value free agents or decide whether or not to sign them, they factor in the loss of the pick. So player A who is a type A is worth less than the same Player A without arb being offered.

Evolution33 · « **Reply #632 on:** February 05, 2010, 08:45:42 am »

Quote from: Dunnkey on February 05, 2010, 08:36:06 am

But how does it hurt the player if we offer him arby? I thought only the team losing him loses a pick?

The team signing him would give up their first round pick to his previous employer. Just look at the Juan Cruz situation from last offseason where no team wanted to sign him because they felt a middle reliever wasn't worth giving up a first round pick for. If Hudson is not a type A free agent he can probably comand more money because a team signing him is only giving up money. If he is a type A free agent the team signing him will weigh the draft pick they are giving up into their decision and may decide that he isn't worth as much money and a draft pick thus lowering the value he can command.

tomterp · « **Reply #633 on:** February 05, 2010, 10:09:35 am »

Quote from: Dunnkey on February 05, 2010, 08:36:06 am

But how does it hurt the player if we offer him arby? I thought only the team losing him loses a pick?

No, the team SIGNING him loses a pick, the team losing him GAINS a pick. Since he's more expensive to sign (costing a pick + $) it diminishes his attractiveness, and thus amount of $ a team is willing to offer.

KnorrForYourMoney · « **Reply #634 on:** February 05, 2010, 11:12:20 am »

Quote from: PANatsFan on February 05, 2010, 02:02:13 am

If the team offers, then he's Juan Cruz'ed into a corner. No team wants to give up that #1 pick.

Ah, yeah, didn't think of it that way.

Nice move by Rizzo.

JMW IV · « **Reply #635 on:** February 05, 2010, 03:01:37 pm »

http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2010/02/orlando-hudsons-other-offers.html

Nats offered 1 year 4m with an additional 1m in incentives.

Indians offered 2 years, 10m, backloaded.

Hudson signed with the Twins for 1 year 5m.

imref · « **Reply #636 on:** February 05, 2010, 04:22:31 pm »

So what happens to Desmond now?

PANatsFan · « **Reply #637 on:** February 05, 2010, 04:30:28 pm »

Quote from: JMadIV on February 05, 2010, 03:01:37 pm

http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2010/02/orlando-hudsons-other-offers.html

Nats offered 1 year 4m with an additional 1m in incentives.

Indians offered 2 years, 10m, backloaded.

Hudson signed with the Twins for 1 year 5m.

He must have really wanted to go to the Twins, because that Indians deal is clearly better.

HalfSmokes · « **Reply #638 on:** February 05, 2010, 05:01:36 pm »

Quote from: PANatsFan on February 05, 2010, 04:30:28 pm

He must have really wanted to go to the Twins, because that Indians deal is clearly better.

he might have enough (unreasonable) confidence in himself to think he can play himself into a big contract. We'll know this time next year if he made the right call

KnorrForYourMoney · « **Reply #639 on:** February 05, 2010, 05:12:17 pm »

Quote from: PANatsFan on February 05, 2010, 04:30:28 pm

He must have really wanted to go to the Twins, because that Indians deal is clearly better.

How do you know the Indians didn't say the same thing (no guarantee of no arb offer) we said? The Tribe have a smart GM too.

PANatsFan · « **Reply #640 on:** February 05, 2010, 06:40:07 pm »

Quote from: HalfSmokes on February 05, 2010, 05:01:36 pm

he might have enough (unreasonable) confidence in himself to think he can play himself into a big contract. We'll know this time next year if he made the right call

Quote from: KnorrForYourMoney on February 05, 2010, 05:12:17 pm

How do you know the Indians didn't say the same thing (no guarantee of no arb offer) we said? The Tribe have a smart GM too.

It's one or the other.

Five Banners · « **Reply #641 on:** February 05, 2010, 07:12:57 pm »

Quote from: KnorrForYourMoney on February 05, 2010, 11:12:20 am

Ah, yeah, didn't think of it that way.

Nice move by Rizzo.

It's not a nice move if you wanted a current Gold Glove shoring up 2nd at a rate the Nats could afford. If you're looking for a quality guy for a reasonable price on a one-year deal, worrying about getting a top pick for him should be a low consideration.

If you've targeted Hudson and he wants to come on board, your main consideration should be production over this season with a chance to keep him in place [at 32, he could have a few serviceable season left] after this season. Getting compensation for such a free agent on a one-year deal should hardly be a factor when a guy could be the fit on this team that Hudson projected to be. I betting Rizzo wasn't the compensation issue factor in as much as the availability of another vet -- Kennedy -- at a fraction of the price.

(I'm just waiting for Boswell to hint in a chat that Hudson failed another Nats physical.)

The Chief · « **Reply #642 on:** February 05, 2010, 07:35:50 pm »

Oh yay, another one.

JMW IV · « **Reply #643 on:** February 05, 2010, 07:44:41 pm »

Quote from: Dunnkey on February 05, 2010, 07:35:50 pm

Oh yay, another one.

I told you Chief, they've been just waiting, and waiting, and chomping at the bit for the Nats to not get a guy so that they can finally talk.

They've had nothing to talk about all offseason, because Rizzo has been doing his thing.

they'll stick around for another day or so, and then crawl back into their holes. they'll be hoping that the Nats have a terrible April, just so that they can crawl back out to crow about it.

KnorrForYourMoney · « **Reply #644 on:** February 05, 2010, 07:52:01 pm »

Quote from: Five Banners on February 05, 2010, 07:12:57 pm

It's not a nice move if you wanted a current Gold Glove shoring up 2nd at a rate the Nats could afford. If you're looking for a quality guy for a reasonable price on a one-year deal, worrying about getting a top pick for him should be a low consideration.

If you've targeted Hudson and he wants to come on board, your main consideration should be production over this season with a chance to keep him in place [at 32, he could have a few serviceable season left] after this season. Getting compensation for such a free agent on a one-year deal should hardly be a factor when a guy could be the fit on this team that Hudson projected to be. I betting Rizzo wasn't the compensation issue factor in as much as the availability of another vet -- Kennedy -- at a fraction of the price.

(I'm just waiting for Boswell to hint in a chat that Hudson failed another Nats physical.)

Like PANats has said, the minimal difference between Hudson and Kennedy is offset by the fact that we could get a sandwich pick for Kennedy.

PANatsFan · « **Reply #645 on:** February 05, 2010, 07:55:14 pm »

Come on guys, the Gold Glove is voted on by the players and coaches. It's a very objective measure of a players worth. Greg Maddux is the best defensive pitcher EVAR.

tomterp · « **Reply #646 on:** February 05, 2010, 07:59:30 pm »

Quote from: Five Banners on February 05, 2010, 07:12:57 pm

I betting Rizzo wasn't the compensation issue factor in as much as the availability of another vet -- Kennedy -- at a fraction of the price.

Bingo. $1.25m for Kennedy surely put a drag on whatever Hudson could get.

PANatsFan · « **Reply #647 on:** February 05, 2010, 08:01:39 pm »

Quote from: tomterp on February 05, 2010, 07:59:30 pm

Bingo. $1.25m for Kennedy surely put a drag on whatever Hudson could get.

So Bib Loopertino was blowing smoke up everyone's asses? They were using Kennedy as leverage on Hudson, not the other way around. They had an agreement ready to go if Hudson flaked.

tomterp · « **Reply #648 on:** February 05, 2010, 08:06:00 pm »

Quote from: PANatsFan on February 05, 2010, 08:01:39 pm

So Bib Loopertino was blowing smoke up everyone's asses? They were using Kennedy as leverage on Hudson, not the other way around. They had an agreement ready to go if Hudson flaked.

I'm sure they percieve Kennedy to be of lesser value than Hudson, but he was so much cheaper that it frees up $ for another transaction. Now if they go the rest of the year without spending any more, than yes, they were cheap. But if they do more deals where they take on $, then this one may have been the enabler.

PatsNats28 · « **Reply #649 on:** February 05, 2010, 10:30:08 pm »

Quote from: KnorrForYourMoney on February 05, 2010, 05:12:17 pm

How do you know the Indians didn't say the same thing (no guarantee of no arb offer) we said? The Tribe have a smart GM too.

he and manny acta cancel out then