PDA

View Full Version : Orlando Hudson


rainbow6
01-17-2009, 04:48 PM
I just read an article on ESPN about how Hudson is top FA yet to be signed...I remember several threads/comments late last season penciling in Hudson as our second baseman in '09.

I'm as excited as anyone over the prospects of the core group of younger players (Getz) on the cusp of becoming big leaguers but Hudson seems like an ideal fit for a team with Championship aspirations.

Does anyone else think the Sox signing Hudson is still a posilbitly?

russ99
01-17-2009, 04:51 PM
I just read an article on ESPN about how Hudson is top FA yet to be signed...I remember several threads/comments late last season penciling in Hudson as our second baseman in '09.

I'm as excited as anyone over the prospects of the core group of younger players (Getz) on the cusp of becoming big leaguers but Hudson seems like an ideal fit for a team with Championship aspirations.

Does anyone else think the Sox signing Hudson is still a posilbitly?

I'd love to see it, since Hudson can lead off and is a better option than the 3 kids we currently have at 2B, but I don't think Kenny is budging from his offseason plan.

The only way it happens is if payroll is cut, i.e. Dye is traded, and I really hope that Kenny doesn't do that.

Craig Grebeck
01-17-2009, 04:56 PM
I'm somewhat concerned Hudson couldn't replicate his numbers or play enough to justify the kind of money he may receive.

WhiteSoxFan84
01-18-2009, 01:06 AM
I'm somewhat concerned Hudson couldn't replicate his numbers or play enough to justify the kind of money he may receive.

:rolleyes:

35th and Shields
01-18-2009, 03:13 AM
:rolleyes:

I'm not really sure why your dismissing his statement without any other reasons then rolling your eyes. Seems like a pretty logical concern to me.

Craig Grebeck
01-18-2009, 08:03 AM
:rolleyes:
Is it really that farfetched to think that his game might not be suited for our ballpark? If he played CF, I'd be all for it. He's also pretty fragile and has a huge home/road split. Sorry if I don't find your eye-rolling to be all that compelling in this argument.

WhiteSoxFan84
01-18-2009, 12:10 PM
I'm not really sure why your dismissing his statement without any other reasons then rolling your eyes. Seems like a pretty logical concern to me.


Is it really that farfetched to think that his game might not be suited for our ballpark? If he played CF, I'd be all for it. He's also pretty fragile and has a huge home/road split. Sorry if I don't find your eye-rolling to be all that compelling in this argument.


35th, my eye-rolling is justified when it comes to this guy. He loves to switch up which stats to use when talking about a guy just to support his side. As i said before, "Statisticians can play around with numbers to suit their needs". CG is an intelligent (others may use a different word there) human being with a statisticians mind. But i just find it funny that he once again doesn't provide us with his most famous criteria (career AVG/OBP/OPS) when discussing a players success. Could it be because Hudson's career numbers (.282/.346/.779) are actually good and his most famous criteria actually works AGAINST his argument here?

Throw in the fact that Hudson won 2 Gold Gloves (2006 and 2007) very recently, the guy will be worth every penny. Another thing to keep in mind is that if he hasn't been signed yet, which could mean two things; 1) he's asking for more than what he'll get & 2) he won't get as much as we think/thought he will/would. A lot of reports had him asking for 3 to 4 years at $10mm per. I think if the Sox can get him for $8-$9mm per for either 3 or 4 years, I'd be very, very happy.

As for the home/away splits, the guy didn't play his home games at Coors Field, Thillens Stadium, the HHH with the A/C on full blast towards the bleachers, or inside a phone booth.

CG, you probably have more resources than me, so if you could find the ballpark adjustment numbers for Chase Field and US Cellular, I'd appreciate it.

Craig Grebeck
01-18-2009, 12:25 PM
35th, my eye-rolling is justified when it comes to this guy. He loves to switch up which stats to use when talking about a guy just to support his side. As i said before, "Statisticians can play around with numbers to suit their needs". CG is an intelligent (others may use a different word there) human being with a statisticians mind. But i just find it funny that he once again doesn't provide us with his most famous criteria (career AVG/OBP/OPS) when discussing a players success. Could it be because Hudson's career numbers (.282/.346/.779) are actually good and his most famous criteria actually works AGAINST his argument here?

Throw in the fact that Hudson won 2 Gold Gloves (2006 and 2007) very recently, the guy will be worth every penny. Another thing to keep in mind is that if he hasn't been signed yet, which could mean two things; 1) he's asking for more than what he'll get & 2) he won't get as much as we think/thought he will/would. A lot of reports had him asking for 3 to 4 years at $10mm per. I think if the Sox can get him for $8-$9mm per for either 3 or 4 years, I'd be very, very happy.

As for the home/away splits, the guy didn't play his home games at Coors Field, Thillens Stadium, the HHH with the A/C on full blast towards the bleachers, or inside a phone booth.

CG, you probably have more resources than me, so if you could find the ballpark adjustment numbers for Chase Field and US Cellular, I'd appreciate it.
Hudson is a very good defender (citing gold gloves isn't proof of that though), but is he ever on the field enough to justify a three to four year commitment? No. I'd go two years at the very longest, and I'd want it to be incentive based, as he's played more than 150 games once in his career.

I love Orlando's defense, I really do, and I wish his offensive numbers weren't so deceptive. You said that I always cite the slash stats -- which I do, as sometimes they are indicative of a player's true ability. In this case, Orlando's are misleading. First, let's look at his career numbers using OPS, beginning with his first full season in 2003.

.723
.779
.727
------------
.808
.817
.817

The break signifies his trade from Toronto to Arizona. It was a pretty significant jump, and he happened to be entering his prime years, so it's not out of the ordinary that this would be a result of a player putting together his skills. Well, not so much. Basically, Hudson mashes the **** out of the ball in AZ and nowhere else. Looking at his home/road splits in graph form (focus on 2006-2008, obviously).

http://www.fangraphs.com/graphs/1307_2B_season__ha_full_0_20080930.png

http://www.fangraphs.com/graphs/1307_2B_season__ha_full_1_20080930.png

http://www.fangraphs.com/graphs/1307_2B_season__ha_full_2_20080930.png

Absolutely insane splits in terms of slugging. If he wasn't so injury riddled it'd be a gamble worth taking, but I just don't think it is. In terms of needs, the White Sox should be spending their money on a CF or another pitcher.

WhiteSoxFan84
01-18-2009, 12:33 PM
CG -

You couldn't find the ballpark adjustment numbers?

Craig Grebeck
01-18-2009, 12:51 PM
CG -

You couldn't find the ballpark adjustment numbers?
You've got to pay to get a full look at those over at Baseball Reference, but I'll just say he experienced about a ten point drop in both SLG and AVG. The problem is, when you adjust for ballpark, there are a lot of nuances that you can't quantify. The dimensions of USCF are so different from Chase that I don't think he could do it in a ballpark without large gaps.

WhiteSoxFan84
01-18-2009, 01:11 PM
You've got to pay to get a full look at those over at Baseball Reference, but I'll just say he experienced about a ten point drop in both SLG and AVG. The problem is, when you adjust for ballpark, there are a lot of nuances that you can't quantify. The dimensions of USCF are so different from Chase that I don't think he could do it in a ballpark without large gaps.

I think I heard on the Score that USCF is a +110. I'd like to see what Chase is. You make a lot of good points, I just would like to see where the two fields stand.

Chase: 330-L, 374-LC, 407-C, 374-RC, 334-R
USCF:: 330-L, 377-LC, 400-C, 372-RC, 335-R

Almost IDENTICAL.

Craig Grebeck
01-18-2009, 01:28 PM
I think I heard on the Score that USCF is a +110. I'd like to see what Chase is. You make a lot of good points, I just would like to see where the two fields stand.

Chase: 330-L, 374-LC, 407-C, 374-RC, 334-R
USCF:: 330-L, 377-LC, 400-C, 372-RC, 335-R

Almost IDENTICAL.
http://www.andrewclem.com/Baseball/Diag/ChaseField.gif
http://www.andrewclem.com/Baseball/Diag/USCellularField.gif

It doesn't look identical to me. Much larger gaps in AZ.

WhiteSoxFan84
01-18-2009, 01:56 PM
The gaps certainly are different. I was going to say that his "gap production" (mainly doubles and triples) didn't change much compared to his days in Toronto (2003-2005)...

Year-2Bs-3Bs (Games Played)
2003: 21-6 (142)
2004: 32-7 (135)
2005: 25-5 (131)
2006: 34-9 (157)
2007: 28-9 (139)
2008: 29-3 (107)

Averages:
2003-2005 w/ Toronto: 26-6 (136)
2006-2008 w/ Arizona: 30-7 (134)

But the Rogers Centre looks more like Chase Field than USCF...

http://www.ballparksofbaseball.com/rogersseat.gif


I also noticed that your claim about his injuries is way off. The guy had played at least 131 games since 2003 until he got injured last year. If he gave us 130+ games a year, I'd take it. Giving him 31 games off a year max/giving Getz, Lillibridge, Nix, etc., 31 games combined to show what they got at second isn't a bad thing at all.

Craig Grebeck
01-18-2009, 01:59 PM
The gaps certainly are different. I was going to say that his "gap production" (mainly doubles and triples) didn't change much compared to his days in Toronto (2003-2005)...

Year-2Bs-3Bs (Games Played)
2003: 21-6 (142)
2004: 32-7 (135)
2005: 25-5 (131)
2006: 34-9 (157)
2007: 28-9 (139)
2008: 29-3 (107)

Averages:
2003-2005 w/ Toronto: 26-6 (136)
2006-2008 w/ Arizona: 30-7 (134)

But the Rogers Centre looks more like Chase Field than USCF...

http://www.ballparksofbaseball.com/rogersseat.gif


I also noticed that your claim about his injuries is way off. The guy had played at least 131 games since 2003 until he got injured last year. If he gave us 130+ games a year, I'd take it. Giving him 31 games off a year max/giving Getz, Lillibridge, Nix, etc., 31 games combined to show what they got at second isn't a bad thing at all.
It's still a pattern. Guys don't get healthier as the years go on. Like I said, if he played CF, it'd be worth it.

WhiteSoxFan84
01-18-2009, 02:07 PM
It's still a pattern. Guys don't get healthier as the years go on. Like I said, if he played CF, it'd be worth it.

How do you explain the jump from 131 to 157 from 2005 to 2006?

Craig Grebeck
01-18-2009, 02:09 PM
How do you explain the jump from 131 to 157 from 2005 to 2006?
I should have said middle infielders entering their thirties don't get healthier as the years go on. 1-2 year commitment, I say yes. 3-4, no thanks.

Tragg
01-18-2009, 07:58 PM
If he played CF, I'd be all for it. He's also pretty fragile and has a huge home/road split. .
If he played CF, he'd cost another $5 mill and probably be off the market right now.

JermaineDye05
02-08-2009, 01:02 PM
A small snippet on mlbtraderumors has the white sox, along with 2 other teams, are lining up for Hudson. I'm still impartial about Hudson, I'd really like to see what Getz can do however Hudson is a proven veteran who can give us some offensive production at second and solid defense.

Link (http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2009/02/cafardos-late-1.html)

DirtySox
02-08-2009, 01:25 PM
Meh. I think the writer is probably a bit uninformed, but I read that earlier as well.

I would rather see what the kids can do, especially at the cost of our first round draft pick. No thanks.

kittle42
02-08-2009, 01:29 PM
I would rather see what the kids can do, especially at the cost of our first round draft pick. No thanks.

While I agree that it is probably pointless to sign Hudson given the direction the team is headed in, I wanted to point out again the most recent instance of this offseason's WSI obsession with draft picks!

oeo
02-08-2009, 01:35 PM
If we're going to sign a stopgap, I hope it's Grudzielanek. Either way, Beckham is the future at one of the middle infield positions.

jabrch
02-08-2009, 03:01 PM
If we could get Hudson cheap and on a short term deal - why not? But I wasn't much interested in him at his last known asking price. The rumor was that KW loved him late in the year - so who knows?

I just don't like his history of being not overly healthy

I wouldn't pass him up cheaply. His D up the middle would be nice. But I wouldn't break the bank on him. This is one that I am sure KW has a price in his head - and if OH wants it, he can have it. But I doubt he's going deep into that 3 year board on him.

gf2020
02-08-2009, 03:28 PM
The reference is actually on this page (http://www.boston.com/sports/baseball/redsox/articles/2009/02/08/a_tough_pitch_to_let_go_by/?page=5) of the article.

I am for it. This guy has gone from something out of price range to a bargin that would fill two needs (leadoff and second base) and ease a lot of uncertainty about our lineup. And then in one or two years, Beckham will be ready. This division is winnable. I'd give up the draft pick to give us a better shot at it.

kittle42
02-08-2009, 04:43 PM
They're not going to sign anyone until they get rid of more salary. They've said as much...why are we not listening?

SoxNation05
02-08-2009, 05:35 PM
The reference is actually on this page (http://www.boston.com/sports/baseball/redsox/articles/2009/02/08/a_tough_pitch_to_let_go_by/?page=5) of the article.

I am for it. This guy has gone from something out of price range to a bargin that would fill two needs (leadoff and second base) and ease a lot of uncertainty about our lineup. And then in one or two years, Beckham will be ready. This division is winnable. I'd give up the draft pick to give us a better shot at it.
The link says Abreau will get 3 mil. :scratch:

doublem23
02-08-2009, 05:41 PM
They're not going to sign anyone until they get rid of more salary. They've said as much...why are we not listening?

KW has a history of saying something and doing the opposite. :dunno:

johnnyg83
02-08-2009, 05:42 PM
They're not going to sign anyone until they get rid of more salary. They've said as much...why are we not listening?

I'd hope we realize they don't divulge all their actual plans in the press.

kittle42
02-08-2009, 06:41 PM
KW has a history of saying something and doing the opposite. :dunno:

I'm not holding my breath this time. I posted a few months back that I thought those who are waiting to unleash their bile until the season actually starts with the hopes that the Sox will actually make a splash are going to be spewing all over come April. I still think so.

Lip Man 1
02-08-2009, 07:00 PM
And with each day that passes I agree more and more with what Kittle is saying.

I think Kenny means what he says this time. He's rolling the dice on the biggest gamble of his career in Chicago.

All you can do is sit back and hope it works out.

Lip

Noneck
02-08-2009, 08:36 PM
And with each day that passes I agree more and more with what Kittle is saying.

I think Kenny means what he says this time. He's rolling the dice on the biggest gamble of his career in Chicago.

All you can do is sit back and hope it works out.

Lip

Lip,

I remember early in post season you mentioned that your sources were expecting Figgins and or Hudson to be obtained. Have you received any updates on this or were they also just caught in the early post season smoke and mirror show?

doublem23
02-08-2009, 08:38 PM
I'm not holding my breath this time. I posted a few months back that I thought those who are waiting to unleash their bile until the season actually starts with the hopes that the Sox will actually make a splash are going to be spewing all over come April. I still think so.

I have no idea what KW or the Sox ever seem to be thinking, so I won't be shocked either way. If this were a normal off-season with veteran guys getting the usual bloated contracts they don't deserve, then I'd agree with you that the Sox are going young and not looking back, but every day that goes by these guys are going to be more and more desperate to get what they can and it wouldn't shock me to see the Sox swoop in and nab a guy like Orlando Hudson on the cheap for a year.

I just think if you take what KW says to the press as being carved in stone, you're in for some surprises. :cool:

Craig Grebeck
02-08-2009, 08:45 PM
I have no idea what KW or the Sox ever seem to be thinking, so I won't be shocked either way. If this were a normal off-season with veteran guys getting the usual bloated contracts they don't deserve, then I'd agree with you that the Sox are going young and not looking back, but every day that goes by these guys are going to be more and more desperate to get what they can and it wouldn't shock me to see the Sox swoop in and nab a guy like Orlando Hudson on the cheap for a year.

I just think if you take what KW says to the press as being carved in stone, you're in for some surprises. :cool:
*Thread hijack!*

This offseason is so perplexing. How Raul Ibanez gets a sweet contract and so many other guys are on the outside looking in is beyond me.

doublem23
02-08-2009, 08:48 PM
*Thread hijack!*

This offseason is so perplexing. How Raul Ibanez gets a sweet contract and so many other guys are on the outside looking in is beyond me.

Just like in life, it's all about timing.

Zisk77
02-08-2009, 09:55 PM
Hudson is a very good defender (citing gold gloves isn't proof of that though), but is he ever on the field enough to justify a three to four year commitment? No. I'd go two years at the very longest, and I'd want it to be incentive based, as he's played more than 150 games once in his career.

I love Orlando's defense, I really do, and I wish his offensive numbers weren't so deceptive. You said that I always cite the slash stats -- which I do, as sometimes they are indicative of a player's true ability. In this case, Orlando's are misleading. First, let's look at his career numbers using OPS, beginning with his first full season in 2003.

.723
.779
.727
------------
.808
.817
.817

The break signifies his trade from Toronto to Arizona. It was a pretty significant jump, and he happened to be entering his prime years, so it's not out of the ordinary that this would be a result of a player putting together his skills. Well, not so much. Basically, Hudson mashes the **** out of the ball in AZ and nowhere else. Looking at his home/road splits in graph form (focus on 2006-2008, obviously).

http://www.fangraphs.com/graphs/1307_2B_season__ha_full_0_20080930.png

http://www.fangraphs.com/graphs/1307_2B_season__ha_full_1_20080930.png

http://www.fangraphs.com/graphs/1307_2B_season__ha_full_2_20080930.png

Absolutely insane splits in terms of slugging. If he wasn't so injury riddled it'd be a gamble worth taking, but I just don't think it is. In terms of needs, the White Sox should be spending their money on a CF or another pitcher.



OMFG can't you just watch a player play and tell if he's good or not? I'm sure you can create a graph that shows how crappy Roberto Clemente was and how Mick kelleher should be a HOF if you wanted to.

Craig Grebeck
02-08-2009, 10:18 PM
OMFG can't you just watch a player play and tell if he's good or not? I'm sure you can create a graph that shows how crappy Roberto Clemente was and how Mick kelleher should be a HOF if you wanted to.
No, I probably couldn't. I didn't manipulate anything -- the statistics are just presented in a more accessible manner.

doublem23
02-08-2009, 10:22 PM
OMFG can't you just watch a player play and tell if he's good or not? I'm sure you can create a graph that shows how crappy Roberto Clemente was and how Mick kelleher should be a HOF if you wanted to.

:scratch:

They're just home and away splits.

WHILEPITCH
02-08-2009, 10:29 PM
OMFG can't you just watch a player play and tell if he's good or not? I'm sure you can create a graph that shows how crappy Roberto Clemente was and how Mick kelleher should be a HOF if you wanted to.

If a person's against getting info, I cant imagine why a message board would be a place that person would go. Or the internet for that matter.

Craig Grebeck
02-08-2009, 10:29 PM
Just like in life, it's all about timing.
Of course. But Ibanez got a great deal in the same offseason and he's basically a poor man's Abreu.

cws05champ
02-09-2009, 07:27 AM
Of course. But Ibanez got a great deal in the same offseason and he's basically a poor man's Abreu.

Not any more...he'll be the rich man's Abreu now.

NLaloosh
02-09-2009, 09:17 AM
Although I tend to agree that there won't be any more moves of significance I still fantasize about some things happening with the cost of free agents dropping like it has.

Wouldn't it be cool if the Sox could send Dye to the Angels for Figgins and then sign Abreu to a 1 year deal at $ 5 mil. and Hudson to a 1 year deal @ 3 mil. ?

To tell you the truth though the starting rotation would still worry me. That could end up pretty bad if Colon doesn't come through in a solid way and if there's an injury to Buehrle, Danks or Floyd. I mean the Sox are thin here and that's not a good place to be thin.

kittle42
02-09-2009, 10:06 AM
Wouldn't it be cool if the Sox could send Dye to the Angels for Figgins and then sign Abreu to a 1 year deal at $ 5 mil. and Hudson to a 1 year deal @ 3 mil. ?

Those guys might sit before they played for that little.

oeo
02-09-2009, 10:21 AM
Those guys might sit before they played for that little.

Sitting is going to earn money? I highly doubt someone would offer a bigger contract in June, so they will take what they can get.

Really, it's their own fault. Their demands were too high earlier on, and now they're paying for it.

Lip Man 1
02-09-2009, 11:03 AM
Noneck:

Haven't heard anything in this regard. I kick it around sometimes with some folks and like double says, with the Sox you can never be 100% sure, but the indications are that like what the Dramatics sang in 1971, "what you see is what you get."

I've heard Kenny might be interested in getting another starting pitcher but that's the extent of it.

Lip

russ99
02-09-2009, 11:42 AM
Meh. I think the writer is probably a bit uninformed, but I read that earlier as well.

I would rather see what the kids can do, especially at the cost of our first round draft pick. No thanks.

If we get a first rounder back as compensation from an Orlando Cabrera signing, that won't be a big loss.

I'd love to see a few more bargain signings, especially for leadoff hitter and an extra starter, but it looks to me like Kenny's going to camp with what he's got.

I just hope that if things don't go well with a few of the competitions (2B, 3B, CF, 4th&5th Starter) Kenny goes out and gets help to salvage the season, not sit on his hands, like in 2007.

Lip Man 1
02-09-2009, 04:38 PM
Russ:

That will be hard to do as I imagine the players currently looking for work will have found a home by say June 1st.

And the farm system still is a wreck, I don't know how many tradeable prospects are available...(granted though that seems to be what Kenny does best, trade overhyped mediocrities for actual major league contributors.)

Let's hope it doesn't come down to that situation in the first place.

Lip

munchman33
02-09-2009, 04:41 PM
Sitting is going to earn money? I highly doubt someone would offer a bigger contract in June, so they will take what they can get.

Really, it's their own fault. Their demands were too high earlier on, and now they're paying for it.

Sitting prevents injury. And a bigger contract could come in June. Worst case, he's a free agent next year, and the market might be better. Why play for $3 million this year and get hurt when you could wait and make more than three times that amount next year?

oeo
02-09-2009, 04:44 PM
Sitting prevents injury. And a bigger contract could come in June. Worst case, he's a free agent next year, and the market might be better. Why play for $3 million this year and get hurt when you could wait and make more than three times that amount next year?

In what alternate universe is the economy going to do a complete 180 in one year? Next year's offseason isn't going to suddenly look like the past couple...it will probably look a lot more like this one.

Considering the current economic crisis, if anything, I think sitting out a year would hurt him in many more ways than it would help him. Healing up would probably be the only thing he would have going for him.

Konerko05
02-09-2009, 04:51 PM
Sitting prevents injury. And a bigger contract could come in June. Worst case, he's a free agent next year, and the market might be better. Why play for $3 million this year and get hurt when you could wait and make more than three times that amount next year?

Most of these players are over 30. I don't think it's a good idea for them to be wasting productive years.

If the economy doesn't get better in the next couple years are they going to keep sitting out full seasons? Or are they going to admit they made a mistake and play the next season for the same contract offer they sat out the previous season for.

NLaloosh
02-09-2009, 05:07 PM
If any player intentionally sits out they will end up regretting it.

But, as far as Hudson goes, I can't really see Kenny signing him to even a 1 year $ 3 mil. deal. What is he going to do with Lillibridge, Getz and Nix? Lillibridge would have to stay as the SS backup. Getz would go back to Charlotte? Nix would be released? Would they?

Craig Grebeck
02-09-2009, 05:30 PM
If any player intentionally sits out they will end up regretting it.

But, as far as Hudson goes, I can't really see Kenny signing him to even a 1 year $ 3 mil. deal. What is he going to do with Lillibridge, Getz and Nix? Lillibridge would have to stay as the SS backup. Getz would go back to Charlotte? Nix would be released? Would they?
Jayson Nix would never, ever prevent KW from getting a guy like Hudson (who I don't even love) on the cheap. That's ludicrous.

munchman33
02-09-2009, 07:25 PM
In what alternate universe is the economy going to do a complete 180 in one year? Next year's offseason isn't going to suddenly look like the past couple...it will probably look a lot more like this one.

Considering the current economic crisis, if anything, I think sitting out a year would hurt him in many more ways than it would help him. Healing up would probably be the only thing he would have going for him.

The money was there this offseason. There just isn't money for everyone. Get the big money fast and don't wait around hoping for more.

munchman33
02-09-2009, 07:28 PM
Jayson Nix would never, ever prevent KW from getting a guy like Hudson (who I don't even love) on the cheap. That's ludicrous.

Realistically, none of them should. If he could get Hudson cheap and he holds out for Chris Getz or Brent Lillibridge, he should be fired on the spot. They're both stopgaps. At best, Getz becomes Hudson with inferior defense.

Zisk77
02-09-2009, 07:31 PM
If a person's against getting info, I cant imagine why a message board would be a place that person would go. Or the internet for that matter.


I'm not against information or even stats in general. I'm just saying why does everything have to be quantified with stats, pie charts, algoritms, bar graphs etc (exaggerating a little here) for a player to be good. I kinda do something a little strange. I watch a player play over an extended period of time and trust myself to know that a player is good or not. I don't need to know Lance Berkman's ops, slg %, or batting avg during night games during a full moon on leap year to know he is a great hitter.

My take on Oralndo Hudson: slick fielder with great range (that could start to dwindle with age). switch hitting witch with occasional surprising power. Contact hitter and a gamer.+ running speed but not and incredible base stealer. Will score from second on almost any non infield with a good chance to score from 2b on any extra base hit. Injury prone with the last two season cut short with the SAME injury. great clubhouse guy from wht I've heard.

While i thing he would be an immediate help to us, I think we'd be better off passing on him. i think his likely contract would hinder us done the road. I'd like to see who we have this year in Getz, lillibridge, and Nix. if they don't pan out, I'd rather throw the money at Roberts next year or Figgins (figgy would be a defensive downgrade at 2b however).

Craig Grebeck
02-09-2009, 08:00 PM
My take on Oralndo Hudson: slick fielder with great range (that could start to dwindle with age). switch hitting witch with occasional surprising power. Contact hitter and a gamer.+ running speed but not and incredible base stealer. Will score from second on almost any non infield with a good chance to score from 2b on any extra base hit. Injury prone with the last two season cut short with the SAME injury. great clubhouse guy from wht I've heard.
And your evaluation is rather trite, in my opinion. I am not a scout, so I work with what I've got -- and what I've got says he is overrated by a favorable hitting environment in AZ. Evaluating his 3-year splits and determining that he is not the same hitter on the road as he is at home isn't rocket science, but fairly elementary. It took me all of four seconds to copy/paste those graphs to express my point.

Zisk77
02-09-2009, 09:16 PM
And your evaluation is rather trite, in my opinion. I am not a scout, so I work with what I've got -- and what I've got says he is overrated by a favorable hitting environment in AZ. Evaluating his 3-year splits and determining that he is not the same hitter on the road as he is at home isn't rocket science, but fairly elementary. It took me all of four seconds to copy/paste those graphs to express my point.


I don't think I said he he was a particularly great hitter. In fact his greatest asset isn't is hitting, its his defense. I agree he is somewhat overated, hence my preference for roberts and figgins (who are both better hitters) if our 2b prospects turn out to be suspects.

Who cares how long it took you to cut in paste, whats the point? I don't think I commented on his splits at all.:scratch: I don't doubt what you are saying at all.

i could care a less if you think my analysis of O-dog is trite. I went for accuracy not flowerful language. He is what he is. It just seems to me that you could give analysis on the quality of a baseball player from his key stats alone and never have seen him play. At least thats the impression i get.

Brian26
02-09-2009, 09:29 PM
While i thing he would be an immediate help to us, I think we'd be better off passing on him. i think his likely contract would hinder us done the road. I'd like to see who we have this year in Getz, lillibridge, and Nix. if they don't pan out, I'd rather throw the money at Roberts next year or Figgins (figgy would be a defensive downgrade at 2b however).

I think the biggest reason not to go after Hudson is named Gordon Beckham.

Barring position changes for both Beckham and Viciedo, the Sox infield is going to be loaded in 2010.

Zisk77
02-09-2009, 09:31 PM
I think the biggest reason not to go after Hudson is named Gordon Beckham.

Barring position changes for both Beckham and Viciedo, the Sox infield is going to be loaded in 2010.

Good point on Beckham I forgot about him. Sometimes the hamster falls asleep at the wheel.:o:

oeo
02-09-2009, 09:45 PM
The money was there this offseason. There just isn't money for everyone. Get the big money fast and don't wait around hoping for more.

Got to be honest, this makes no sense.

Realistically, none of them should. If he could get Hudson cheap and he holds out for Chris Getz or Brent Lillibridge, he should be fired on the spot. They're both stopgaps. At best, Getz becomes Hudson with inferior defense.

Anyone that mans second base this year is a stopgap.

Craig Grebeck
02-09-2009, 09:46 PM
Got to be honest, this makes no sense.
I kinda get his point, as it relates to free agency. I think some players were wise to settle a bit (Raul Ibanez).

Konerko05
02-09-2009, 09:47 PM
I don't think I said he he was a particularly great hitter. In fact his greatest asset isn't is hitting, its his defense. I agree he is somewhat overated, hence my preference for roberts and figgins (who are both better hitters) if our 2b prospects turn out to be suspects.

Who cares how long it took you to cut in paste, whats the point? I don't think I commented on his splits at all.:scratch: I don't doubt what you are saying at all.

i could care a less if you think my analysis of O-dog is trite. I went for accuracy not flowerful language. He is what he is. It just seems to me that you could give analysis on the quality of a baseball player from his key stats alone and never have seen him play. At least thats the impression i get.

I'm trying to figure out why you think his ability to only hit well in certain parks is irrelevant.

I also don't understand how home/road splits of AVG, SLG, and OBP over a six year period is less accurate than "switch hitting witch with occasional surprising power. Contact hitter and a gamer."

oeo
02-09-2009, 09:52 PM
I kinda get his point, as it relates to free agency. I think some players were wise to settle a bit (Raul Ibanez).

Alright, his post makes a little more sense now. I don't know if it's just the little sleep I've had or what, but that post had me scratching my head.

Regardless, there were not many teams that were willing to pony up, and unless I'm missing anyone it was exactly the Yankees and Phillies (probably could add the Mets in there, too). Ibanez got his deal because the Phillies are coming off a World Championship, the Yankees are just nuts, and the Mets are opening a new stadium.

Next year teams are going to suddenly want to open up their checkbooks again? Unless there's a drastic turn around in the economy, which is unlikely, next years offseason will probably be worse for free agents than this one. And guys like Hudson, Abreu, and Manny are not getting any younger...I think they'd be wise to play this year (the latter two might not even play again, IMO, otherwise).

Craig Grebeck
02-09-2009, 09:54 PM
Alright, his post makes a little more sense now. I don't know if it's just the little sleep I've had or what, but that post had me scratching my head.

Regardless, there were not many teams that were willing to pony up, and unless I'm missing anyone it was exactly the Yankees and Phillies. Ibanez got his deal because the Phillies are coming off a World Championship, and the Yankees are just nuts.

Next year teams are going to suddenly want to open up their checkbooks again? Unless there's a drastic turn around in the economy, which is unlikely, next years offseason will probably be worse for free agents than this one.
That definitely makes sense. Ibanez was a special circumstance, as the Phillies didn't want to bring back Abreu. But, still, they have to be kicking themselves over this contract, given what they just gave to Howard and what's happened in the market since November.

oeo
02-09-2009, 09:59 PM
That definitely makes sense. Ibanez was a special circumstance, as the Phillies didn't want to bring back Abreu. But, still, they have to be kicking themselves over this contract, given what they just gave to Howard and what's happened in the market since November.

I'm sure they are, and there are probably quite a few teams who are kicking themselves for some of the contracts they were handing out the past couple years.

For all the crap the Sox have gotten the last couple years for not making that big splash in free agency, I'm sure glad they didn't do it now. The Sox are in excellent shape financially, with big money coming off the books after this year.

Maybe they won't win the division this year, but with the newfound youth of this team, the Sox financial situation, and a cheap free agent market, they could set up very well in 2010.

Craig Grebeck
02-09-2009, 10:01 PM
I'm sure they are, and there are probably quite a few teams who are kicking themselves for some of the contracts they were handing out the past couple years.

For all the crap the Sox have gotten the last couple years for not making that big splash in free agency, I'm sure glad they didn't do it now. The Sox are in excellent shape financially, with big money coming off the books after this year.
They are definitely in an enviable position. I'm not sure if that was due to excellent foresight, complacency, or some combination of the two. Hopefully they don't waste their money in one offseason, and get creative with it in the Caribbean and Pacific areas of player development.

Lip Man 1
02-09-2009, 10:45 PM
OEO:

The assumption on your part though is that the Sox actually want to participate in the free agent market in 2010.

That's not an automatic given although I would hope it would be likely.

Lip

oeo
02-09-2009, 11:26 PM
OEO:

The assumption on your part though is that the Sox actually want to participate in the free agent market in 2010.

That's not an automatic given although I would hope it would be likely.

Lip

It will be a cheaper market in both length and money, so I'd assume they would be more inclined than they have been the last couple of years. There will be money to be spent next year. How much will depend on if they plan on cutting payroll again, but regardless, there will be some to spend.

Zisk77
02-09-2009, 11:29 PM
I'm trying to figure out why you think his ability to only hit well in certain parks is irrelevant.

I also don't understand how home/road splits of AVG, SLG, and OBP over a six year period is less accurate than "switch hitting witch with occasional surprising power. Contact hitter and a gamer."ting in differ

I didn't say hitting in certain parks is irrelevent. i wasn't commenting on the importance of splits at all.

When i commented on the accuracy of my thought it was in regards to What Grebeck described as a trite assessment. I am saying it may be trite but its accurate. i didn't care if my assessment was interesting or not.

My point was that Grebeck backs everything up with stats (and usually is aforementioned pet stats unless they don't apply). Sometimes stats are very useful, and sometimes they are highly misleading. My point is I know a good player from a bad one by watching them play. I would like just once for him to say I like Carlos Quintin because he is a good hitter or that Cal Ripken's defense was overated for much of his career because of lack of Range.

Instead i get Dye is better than Dunn because of his OPS or something. In the end we may be saying the same thing different ways.

I don't know maybe I'm justing getting old And don't lek this new fangled trendy stats thingies. I'm going to bed. i'm done arguing who has the better reasons why Hudson isn't a good fit for us.

Craig Grebeck
02-09-2009, 11:34 PM
ting in differ

I didn't say hitting in certain parks is irrelevent. i wasn't commenting on the importance of splits at all.

When i commented on the accuracy of my thought it was in regards to What Grebeck described as a trite assessment. I am saying it may be trite but its accurate. i didn't care if my assessment was interesting or not.

My point was that Grebeck backs everything up with stats (and usually is aforementioned pet stats unless they don't apply). Sometimes stats are very useful, and sometimes they are highly misleading. My point is I know a good player from a bad one by watching them play. I would like just once for him to say I like Carlos Quintin because he is a good hitter or that Cal Ripken's defense was overated for much of his career because of lack of Range.

Instead i get Dye is better than Dunn because of his OPS or something. In the end we may be saying the same thing different ways.

I don't know maybe I'm justing getting old And don't lek this new fangled trendy stats thingies. I'm going to bed. i'm done arguing who has the better reasons why Hudson isn't a good fit for us.
Please, please don't let Kittle read this post.

kittle42
02-10-2009, 12:08 AM
ting in differ

I didn't say hitting in certain parks is irrelevent. i wasn't commenting on the importance of splits at all.

When i commented on the accuracy of my thought it was in regards to What Grebeck described as a trite assessment. I am saying it may be trite but its accurate. i didn't care if my assessment was interesting or not.

My point was that Grebeck backs everything up with stats (and usually is aforementioned pet stats unless they don't apply). Sometimes stats are very useful, and sometimes they are highly misleading. My point is I know a good player from a bad one by watching them play. I would like just once for him to say I like Carlos Quintin because he is a good hitter or that Cal Ripken's defense was overated for much of his career because of lack of Range.

Instead i get Dye is better than Dunn because of his OPS or something. In the end we may be saying the same thing different ways.

I don't know maybe I'm justing getting old And don't lek this new fangled trendy stats thingies. I'm going to bed. i'm done arguing who has the better reasons why Hudson isn't a good fit for us.

Please, please don't let Kittle read this post.

ting in differ!

Apparently, when one is "justing getting old," one also is "justing forgetting how to write."

Edit: Zisk77, you're a teacher!? Um....

Lorenzo Barcelo
02-10-2009, 03:38 PM
KW was right all along. The market would correct itself. :cool:

kittle42
02-10-2009, 03:40 PM
KW was right all along. The market would correct itself. :cool:

Shame he won't be taking advantage.

Zisk77
02-10-2009, 04:53 PM
ting in differ!

Apparently, when one is "justing getting old," one also is "justing forgetting how to write."

Edit: Zisk77, you're a teacher!? Um....


oops sorry didn't notice that. My lap top has a very senstitive touch pad which often shifts what I'm currently writing to somewhere where i have previously written. sometimes i don't catch it. Therefore if it ever appears like i'm writing in another language thats what happened.

kittle42
02-10-2009, 05:05 PM
oops sorry didn't notice that. My lap top has a very senstitive touch pad which often shifts what I'm currently writing to somewhere where i have previously written. sometimes i don't catch it. Therefore if it ever appears like i'm writing in another language thats what happened.

That's cool...just yanking your chain! And just when I thought "ting in differ" should be my new sig...

guillensdisciple
02-10-2009, 05:48 PM
Sox participation in next years free agency depends on where Jenks, Quentin, Danks, and Floyd take us this year. There might be many signings coming from inside in the very near future- if the younger guys pan out that is.

russ99
02-10-2009, 05:57 PM
KW was right all along. The market would correct itself. :cool:

Yeah. How scary is that.

But I doubt he had any clue his correct prophecy would be due to a global recession. Believe me, if the economy were decent, owners would be back to their free-spending ways.

Or was Kenny maybe just letting us in on a little collusion strategy... :wink:

munchman33
02-10-2009, 08:06 PM
Got to be honest, this makes no sense.



Anyone that mans second base this year is a stopgap.

1. Guys got their money. Look at Ibanez. He wasn't close to the best LF/1B/DH on the market.

2. Not all stopgaps are equal.

oeo
02-10-2009, 08:56 PM
Shame he won't be taking advantage.

Again, next year would be the year to take advantage.

2. Not all stopgaps are equal.

I didn't say they were. You implied that Hudson would not be.

WhiteSoxFan84
02-12-2009, 11:08 PM
You guys can make the most logical argument AGAINST signing Hudson but it still won't make sense. His market value is probably PEANUTS right now. We NEED Hudson. We didn't need Abreu or Dunn, even though they would've been upgrades over Thome at DH (Dunn) or as Dye's replacement in RF assuming Dye would be moved (Abreu).

I think Hudson could be had for one-year, $5M right about now. Maybe I'm way off but I have a feeling I'm not. GET HIM!

kittle42
02-12-2009, 11:17 PM
You guys can make the most logical argument AGAINST signing Hudson but it still won't make sense. His market value is probably PEANUTS right now. We NEED Hudson. We didn't need Abreu or Dunn, even though they would've been upgrades over Thome at DH (Dunn) or as Dye's replacement in RF assuming Dye would be moved (Abreu).

I think Hudson could be had for one-year, $5M right about now. Maybe I'm way off but I have a feeling I'm not. GET HIM!

Here's the only argument needed - the Sox won't sign anyone else.

WhiteSoxFan84
02-12-2009, 11:21 PM
Here's the only argument needed - the Sox won't sign anyone else.

Good enough :(:

Taliesinrk
02-12-2009, 11:25 PM
Here's the only argument needed - the Sox won't sign anyone else.

What do you mean kittle? Are you saying anyone else besides Hudson, or anyone else at all? It makes too much sense for KW to sign Hudson... I have no idea why this hasn't happened yet, unless they have too much pride in admitting a mistake by stockpiling by compiling so many middle INFs when they could have just signed Hudson for less than Juan Uribe made last year.

The other theory is that they wanted to try to get Abreu/get rid of Dye and use their money along that route. Now that that options gone, I could see them going after Hudson. This, of course, would pretty much negate the previous paragraph.

kittle42
02-12-2009, 11:57 PM
What do you mean kittle? Are you saying anyone else besides Hudson, or anyone else at all?

I mean anyone else at all outside of the equivalent of Ben Broussard.

Williams said they are at their pay limit. I believe him.

Jim Shorts
02-13-2009, 09:36 AM
I mean anyone else at all outside of the equivalent of Ben Broussard.

Williams said they are at their pay limit. I believe him.

That and I think they are also being true to their word that they have to start letting the homegrown kids get a shot, a legitimate shot. Evidently the theme has grown some legs throughout the system that all they do is fill slots from outstide the organization with proven guys.

This would seem to me to be a piece of the improving of the entire farm system.

AZChiSoxFan
02-13-2009, 09:37 AM
I think Hudson could be had for one-year, $5M right about now. Maybe I'm way off but I have a feeling I'm not. GET HIM!

I agree with Kittle42 that this move won't happen. However, I agree with you that it should. At this point in time it seems likely that Hudson could be had for one year @ $5M. Too bad that for such a relatively small price, the Sox could have a professional baseball player at 2nd base. Instead, we're going with an unknown commodity.

Sargeant79
02-13-2009, 11:09 AM
I agree with Kittle42 that this move won't happen. However, I agree with you that it should. At this point in time it seems likely that Hudson could be had for one year @ $5M. Too bad that for such a relatively small price, the Sox could have a professional baseball player at 2nd base. Instead, we're going with an unknown commodity.

Unknown commodity does not = bad. Right now, unknown = unknown, that's it. Unknown may = bad, but it takes a little time to learn that.

Last year, we had lots of unknown commodities, and most turned out very well. Me may or may not have similar luck this year. I'm ok with finding out what we have, as long as Kenny & company are willing to cut our losses and change personnel if it becomes apparent that it's not working.

oeo
02-13-2009, 11:52 AM
I agree with Kittle42 that this move won't happen. However, I agree with you that it should. At this point in time it seems likely that Hudson could be had for one year @ $5M. Too bad that for such a relatively small price, the Sox could have a professional baseball player at 2nd base. Instead, we're going with an unknown commodity.

While I think Hudson should take what he can get right now, I have to think that he's still holding out for more. You don't think people have offered him a one year deal?

I'd really like to see what we have in Getz and Lillibridge. Yeah, Beckham is the future, but at the very least those two guys could be some trade bait.

FGarcia34
02-13-2009, 01:54 PM
the thing is, even if we did sign hudson to a modest 1 year deal then we could still see what we have in getz or lillibridge. just not both. a year deal to hudson wouldnt require some ridiculous time investment. getz or lillibridge could still get starts to keep hudson healthy. if we signed him, our team and farm system would still be strong. it's not that big of a deal if one of getz/lillibridge didnt make the team.

and seriously, what is a modest one year contract going to do to your future. kind of like the OC situation. we traded for him and had intent to maybe sign him longterm, however the development of alexei ramirez made the realization that OC wouldnt be needed after last season. same could be said about Hudson. like I said, getting Hudson would not affect the development of lillibridge/getz. one of them will get spot starts and the other will be starting in AAA. Hudson is a perfect fit and makes even more sense now then it did in October.

But will Kenny pull the trigger? probably not to the dismay of a lot of us.

WHILEPITCH
02-13-2009, 02:02 PM
I think they should sign Hudson to a multiyear and plan on him taking LF or CF if someone at 2b (Beckham?) stands out this year or next.


That way, you can probably pay less per year on a multiyear and you have a leadoff hitter locked in for awhile. If Lillibridge is great, then you have a two hitter.




It's putting him in an unfamiliar position at CF especially, but I dont like the already-existing familiarity Owens and Wise have with it either. And BA I just dont want at all unless Lillibridge can leadoff for good.

doublem23
02-13-2009, 02:06 PM
I think they should sign Hudson to a multiyear and plan on him taking LF or CF if someone at 2b (Beckham?) stands out this year or next.


That way, you can probably pay less per year on a multiyear and you have a leadoff hitter locked in for awhile. If Lillibridge is great, then you have a two hitter.




It's putting him in an unfamiliar position at CF especially, but I dont like the already-existing familiarity Owens and Wise have with it either. And BA I just dont want at all unless Lillibridge can leadoff for good.

Hudson's lead off in less than 3% of his career games.

BadBobbyJenks
02-13-2009, 06:20 PM
I think they should sign Hudson to a multiyear and plan on him taking LF or CF if someone at 2b (Beckham?) stands out this year or next.




Alexei to center is the more realistic option with Beckham taking over at short if they sign Orlando to a multi year deal.

gregory18n
02-13-2009, 10:54 PM
i agree with badbobbyjenks. ideally we get hudson for 2nd, beckham plays ss and alexi is in center. i also hope viciedo plays himself into 3rd base.

beck72
02-14-2009, 07:37 AM
I know the Sox seem very high on Lillibridge. Yet realistically, he's probably going to need time in AAA to work on what caused him to hit in the low 200's and post a sub .300 OBP. I don't doubt Kenny saw some possible corrections that Lillibridge could make. But I doubt that he'd be able to fix them in one spring training. I see Lillibridge starting in AAA and playing Cf and 2b to provide the sox with options in case Owens in CF and Nix/ Getz at 2b fail.

Getz seems to have a leg up for 2b, with his good contact rate, OBP and ability to hit for average. Whether that translates into him being able to hit #1 or #2 in 2009, I don't know.

Hudson's signing would shelve Getz-something the sox don't seem to want to do. He's gone through the system doing what the Sox wanted. Now, if Hudson could play CF, that would allow the sox to bring Getz along and having Owens sit.

doublem23
02-14-2009, 07:42 AM
i agree with badbobbyjenks. ideally we get hudson for 2nd, beckham plays ss and alexi is in center. i also hope viciedo plays himself into 3rd base.

Does anybody actually remember what Alexei looked like in CF? No thank you.

Second, does anyone really believe Hudson is going to sign a multiyear deal? No way. He's going to take a steep pay cut in '09, sign for a year, and hope the market rebounds in 2010. There's no way this guy is going to take a 3-year deal that would be worth $10 million total or something.

Finally, can we please stop building our team around Gordon Beckham? I know everyone's high on him because he mashed the ball in like 15 games in Kannapolis last year and he's the first Top 10 Draft pick we've had in a while, but our player development and scouting departments have been atrocious the past few years. Stop thinking as if Beckham is an automatic to come in and play everyday next year. If he is ready, we'll make room for him, but the moves that are made should be to only serve the White Sox in 2009.

jabrch
02-14-2009, 07:57 AM
Finally, can we please stop building our team around Gordon Beckham? I know everyone's high on him because he mashed the ball in like 15 games in Kannapolis last year and he's the first Top 10 Draft pick we've had in a while, but our player development and scouting departments have been atrocious the past few years. Stop thinking as if Beckham is an automatic to come in and play everyday next year. If he is ready, we'll make room for him, but the moves that are made should be to only serve the White Sox in 2009.

Dubs - why discourage optimism? Isn't that what the off season is supposed to be for? I'm personally not banking on him - just because I am more focused on the 09 team that he likely won't play for until Sept. But if people want to pencil him in for 2010 Opening Day, what's wrong with that?

Madscout
02-14-2009, 08:09 AM
Does anybody actually remember what Alexei looked like in CF? No thank you.

I saw it live. Still gives me the shivers, or the fact that the game was cold as heck.

DirtySox
02-14-2009, 11:16 AM
http://insider.espn.go.com/espn/blog/index?name=olney_buster&action=login&appRedirect=http%3a%2f%2finsider.espn.go.com%2fesp n%2fblog%2findex%3fname%3dolney_buster

Royals trying to fit Hudson into their budget.

russ99
02-14-2009, 12:33 PM
Dubs - why discourage optimism? Isn't that what the off season is supposed to be for? I'm personally not banking on him - just because I am more focused on the 09 team that he likely won't play for until Sept. But if people want to pencil him in for 2010 Opening Day, what's wrong with that?

I agree with all points but the last. I doubt Beckham will be ready for Opening Day next year. If he does, that's great, but I think the Sox will take it slow with him and not set such a high pick up to fail against much more advanced pitching.

If he can adjust and move through the system quickly this year, than maybe, but I'd still say the chances are less than 25%. Most guys need 2 full years in the minors.

jabrch
02-14-2009, 01:07 PM
I agree with all points but the last. I doubt Beckham will be ready for Opening Day next year. If he does, that's great, but I think the Sox will take it slow with him and not set such a high pick up to fail against much more advanced pitching.

If he can adjust and move through the system quickly this year, than maybe, but I'd still say the chances are less than 25%. Most guys need 2 full years in the minors.

I don't disagree. He may take longer. I don't care much. But if some want to believe that - fine with them. I'm more concerned if management rushes him before he is ready than if fans are excited about him.

rustysurf83
02-14-2009, 01:23 PM
Isn't it fairly common knowledge that Alexei doesn't want to play CF, he wants to play SS? Alexei has the chance to be a special part of the Sox for a long time, I wouldn't want to risk alienating him by putting him in a position that a)he doesn't want to play and b) doesn't perform as well in.

soxinem1
02-14-2009, 01:28 PM
Isn't it fairly common knowledge that Alexei doesn't want to play CF, he wants to play SS? Alexei has the chance to be a special part of the Sox for a long time, I wouldn't want to risk alienating him by putting him in a position that a)he doesn't want to play and b) doesn't perform as well in.

He looks very uncomfortable out there, so I don't blame him.

Plus, KW knows what it is like to get moved from a position you are totally fine at (CF) and get moved to accommodate a generations long shortage (3B) and have your career ruined.

Scottiehaswheels
02-14-2009, 01:31 PM
http://insider.espn.go.com/espn/blog/index?name=olney_buster&action=login&appRedirect=http%3a%2f%2finsider.espn.go.com%2fesp n%2fblog%2findex%3fname%3dolney_buster

Royals trying to fit Hudson into their budget.why not just sign grudz to a 1 year deal and draft a good 2b?

munchman33
02-14-2009, 02:12 PM
why not just sign grudz to a 1 year deal and draft a good 2b?

Because Grudz isn't half the player Hudson is, and if you can ink Hudson cheaply you do that first.

AZChiSoxFan
02-14-2009, 02:57 PM
Finally, can we please stop building our team around Gordon Beckham? I know everyone's high on him because he mashed the ball in like 15 games in Kannapolis last year and he's the first Top 10 Draft pick we've had in a while, but our player development and scouting departments have been atrocious the past few years. Stop thinking as if Beckham is an automatic to come in and play everyday next year. If he is ready, we'll make room for him, but the moves that are made should be to only serve the White Sox in 2009.

Totally agree with this.

Craig Grebeck
02-14-2009, 03:40 PM
Finally, can we please stop building our team around Gordon Beckham? I know everyone's high on him because he mashed the ball in like 15 games in Kannapolis last year and he's the first Top 10 Draft pick we've had in a while, but our player development and scouting departments have been atrocious the past few years. Stop thinking as if Beckham is an automatic to come in and play everyday next year. If he is ready, we'll make room for him, but the moves that are made should be to only serve the White Sox in 2009.
I think that would be extremely shortsighted and foolish to pretend that Gordon isn't a great, great prospect. I bet AZ used the same ideology when they decided to ink Byrnes to a terrible contract and block TCQ.

cards press box
02-14-2009, 06:19 PM
Because Grudz isn't half the player Hudson is, and if you can ink Hudson cheaply you do that first.

Hudson would be a great signing, especially on a short term contract. If the Sox signed Hudson, they would have a fine leadoff man and an excellent defensive combination at SS and 2B. One question -- I know that Lillibridge has been mentioned at 2B and has played SS but has he ever played CF? If so and if he hits and if the Sox sign Hudson, then the Sox might well add a lot of speed to the lineup. Yeah, that's a lot of "ifs." But if the Sox don't sign Hudson and stick with Owens in CF, I just don't know if they'll have a leadoff man.

I think that would be extremely shortsighted and foolish to pretend that Gordon isn't a great, great prospect. I bet AZ used the same ideology when they decided to ink Byrnes to a terrible contract and block TCQ.

I agree that teams should always accommodate high ceiling prospects like Gordon Beckham. That's how teams become great and that's what I like about the Sox past two drafts and some of the offseason trades this year. It is surely a positive step to have prospects like Beckham, Aaron Poreda, Jordan Danks and Tyler Flowers in the organization, prospects who have great upside.

BadBobbyJenks
02-15-2009, 02:13 PM
Finally, can we please stop building our team around Gordon Beckham? I know everyone's high on him because he mashed the ball in like 15 games in Kannapolis last year and he's the first Top 10 Draft pick we've had in a while, but our player development and scouting departments have been atrocious the past few years. Stop thinking as if Beckham is an automatic to come in and play everyday next year. If he is ready, we'll make room for him, but the moves that are made should be to only serve the White Sox in 2009.

He is going to be in our starting line up in 2010. Why should I not feel optimistic about the closest thing to a can't miss prospect the Sox have had in years?

Gammons Peter
02-17-2009, 10:32 AM
Boy does this thread thread suck. I love how some people just assume that Hudson is a leadoff hitter and can be an outfielder. He is neither of those things

WHILEPITCH
02-17-2009, 10:40 AM
OF you have a point, but as far as leadoff....... there's not just a dearth of anyone better on the roster, but even league wide availability.

DirtySox
02-17-2009, 07:27 PM
Hudson Interested in the Royals (http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/story/9230332/Hudson-interested-in-K.C.,-but-will-the-money-work?%3FCMP=OTC-K9B140813162&ATT=49)