Hilarious.
At Nats fest today there was a panel of Tim Kurkjian, George Will, Mike Rizzo, Stan Kasten, and Jim Riggleman. I asked a question to George and Tim, because Kasten and Rizzo would never tell, "If you were GM, how would you proceed with the Nats offseason?"
Kurkjian said flat out, "I would sign Orlando Hudson," and then stressed the defensive aspect of the game.
Now literally an hour after Nats fest was concluded, Kurkjian is reporting the Nats and Hudson are close to a deal. I believe it.
If the contract is indeed for 3 million with incentives that could go up to 4 million, its obviously a steal and a no-brainer for the Nats...
Hudson a no-go/Kennedy in
Moderator: Rafael122
Hudson a no-go/Kennedy in
-
Jollay
- Retired Mod
- Posts: 13,024
- And1: 661
- Joined: Apr 25, 2003
Re: Hudson signing imminent?
-
Jollay
- Retired Mod
- Posts: 13,024
- And1: 661
- Joined: Apr 25, 2003
Re: Hudson signing imminent?
Still no movement on the Hudson front, although most sources are now acknowledging the Nats seem to be the favorite.
MLB.com reports Hudson is still seeking around 9 million a year, which obviously won't happen, and the Kurkjian report claimed 3-4, so its reasonable to assume any deal might be in the 5-7 a year range.
3, 4, 5 is a steal for the Nats--8 or 9 is overpaying for a guy who didn't start a decent amount of games for guy that couldn't start every game over Fat Ronnie Belliard....
We should see soon...
MLB.com reports Hudson is still seeking around 9 million a year, which obviously won't happen, and the Kurkjian report claimed 3-4, so its reasonable to assume any deal might be in the 5-7 a year range.
3, 4, 5 is a steal for the Nats--8 or 9 is overpaying for a guy who didn't start a decent amount of games for guy that couldn't start every game over Fat Ronnie Belliard....
We should see soon...
Re: Hudson signing imminent?
-
Jollay
- Retired Mod
- Posts: 13,024
- And1: 661
- Joined: Apr 25, 2003
Re: Hudson signing imminent?
A no-go as Hudson signs with the Twins for 1 year/5 million.
Tough to understand why the Nats wouldn't go that high if they really wanted the guy. Twins payroll is now 96 million, and they have a brand new middle infield (JJ Hardy) at little cost.
I guess its Adam Kennedy now, but I don't see why the Nats just don't go with Guzman in a contract year at this point...or keep Bruntlett as insurance. Willie Harris can also fill in at second.
Tough to understand why the Nats wouldn't go that high if they really wanted the guy. Twins payroll is now 96 million, and they have a brand new middle infield (JJ Hardy) at little cost.
I guess its Adam Kennedy now, but I don't see why the Nats just don't go with Guzman in a contract year at this point...or keep Bruntlett as insurance. Willie Harris can also fill in at second.
Re: Hudson signing imminent?
-
Jollay
- Retired Mod
- Posts: 13,024
- And1: 661
- Joined: Apr 25, 2003
Re: Hudson signing imminent?
And the Nats have signed Kennedy apparently...
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/nation ... alsjournal
1 year 1.25 million with an option for 2 million in 2011.
Whatever. Chico Harlan says Desmond could use some more seasoning in AAA--please. Like he can't be developed at the major league level and the signing of Kennedy should preclude playing Desmond at the big league level.
I would have just used Guzman at second at Desmond at short; instead we'll see Guzman and his declining range at short and Kennedy at second.
A good value signing on its face but not at the expense of not giving Desmond a chance right now. Especially since the Nats are headed toward mediocrity (we hope) this year anyway.
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/nation ... alsjournal
1 year 1.25 million with an option for 2 million in 2011.
Whatever. Chico Harlan says Desmond could use some more seasoning in AAA--please. Like he can't be developed at the major league level and the signing of Kennedy should preclude playing Desmond at the big league level.
I would have just used Guzman at second at Desmond at short; instead we'll see Guzman and his declining range at short and Kennedy at second.
A good value signing on its face but not at the expense of not giving Desmond a chance right now. Especially since the Nats are headed toward mediocrity (we hope) this year anyway.
Re: Hudson a no-go/Kennedy in
-
Jollay
- Retired Mod
- Posts: 13,024
- And1: 661
- Joined: Apr 25, 2003
Re: Hudson a no-go/Kennedy in
From the season preview thread...
Kennedy, 34, had a good year with the A's in 2009, batting .289 with 11HR and 63RBIs in 586 AB (the second highest total of his 11-year career). He got on base (.348 OBP) and stole 20 bases, and played second and third base. At second, which is most relevent from the Nats' standpoint, he has a career .983 fielding average, although he only had a .967 one last year. He did have a solid range factor, at 4.45, which put him about middle of the pack for second basemen.
Kennedy was not what the Nats were hoping for to upgrade their defense significantly (see Orlando Hudson), but he's a good hustle player that will leave it all on the field. Nice to have a lefty bat down in the lineup however (or perhaps batting second).
Kennedy, 34, had a good year with the A's in 2009, batting .289 with 11HR and 63RBIs in 586 AB (the second highest total of his 11-year career). He got on base (.348 OBP) and stole 20 bases, and played second and third base. At second, which is most relevent from the Nats' standpoint, he has a career .983 fielding average, although he only had a .967 one last year. He did have a solid range factor, at 4.45, which put him about middle of the pack for second basemen.
Kennedy was not what the Nats were hoping for to upgrade their defense significantly (see Orlando Hudson), but he's a good hustle player that will leave it all on the field. Nice to have a lefty bat down in the lineup however (or perhaps batting second).
Return to Washington Nationals