Dodgers Add O-Dawg
Chalk up another free agent who finally cashed in his chips, thanks to a lousy economy and Type A free agent status, and settled for a fraction of his actual value. The Dodgers have reportedly signed Orlando Hudson to a one year contract with $3.4 million guaranteed, though incentives could push his total payout to $8 million.
Before the economy went south and free agents became beggers, Hudson looked to be in line for something like the 4 year, $40 million contract that Brian Roberts just got from the Orioles. After all, Hudson’s averaged 2.5 wins per year for the last four years. Even factoring in age, it’s hard to expect him to be worth less than two wins above a replacement level player for 2009, and wins were going for between $4 and $5 million apiece last year.
However, with the economy struggling, MLB teams not named the Yankees have drastically pulled back on spending, and so Hudson settles for a contract that pays him as if he’s a +1 win player. Even if you’re pessimistic about Hudson’s future (30+ year old second baseman don’t age very well, so there’s some concern here), this deal is still a huge bargain on the old dollar per win scale.
The question we have to ask ourselves, though, is what is a win going to be worth in 2009? If MLB teams are correctly assessing that people will be cutting their discretionary spending on MLB games, and revenue for the league is going to shrink in the upcoming year, then the value generated from adding wins on the field will be diminished as well. And, when we reach a point like this, we just kind of have to throw our hands up in the air and say “who knows?”, because nobody really has the economic future of the U.S. in the next 6 months figured out, and our assumptions of the value of wins are based upon models that don’t work for this climate.
So, what can we say about this signing, if we don’t really have an ability to forecast the dollar value of a win in 2009? That it makes the Dodgers better by about +1 to +1.5 wins (depending on what they do with DeWitt and Blake to make room for Hudson), that it cost them the #17 pick in the draft, and that if this move is coupled with re-signing Manny Ramirez, the Dodgers will have nine major league starters for eight positions.
It’s hard to not like this deal for the Dodgers, but like every signing this winter, that’s based on an assumption that MLB revenues aren’t about to go in the tank. If they do, everything looks a lot different.
23
Considering the economic climate, true, it is hard to be certain that this is a bargain, but can’t you look at relative spending and consider the deal in those terms? For instance, calculate dollar per win so far this off season, rather than the past season?
If Hudson is no longer an above avg 2b (as the last three years are starting to suggest) he’s not that much of an improvement over Dewitt. I’m not sure this move is worth giving up the #17 pick.
Well, you have to look at this move in conjunction with the Dodgers next move – signing Manny Ramirez.
It’s practically a given that Manny is returning to LA at this point. They’ve left a corner locker open for him next to Furcal, the owner has stepped in to negotiations, there are virtually no other suitors – it’s going to happen.
Thus, technically, signing Manny Ramirez will be what costs the Dodgers their No. 1 draft pick. Orlando Hudson – a lower-ranked Type A FA – will cost them their second rounder…not nearly as steep a price.
It always made sense for the Dodgers to sign two Type A’s as a package for exactly that reason…just as it made sense for the Yankees to splurge on three Type A’s.
I wouldn’t be surprised to see the Dodgers at least kick the tires on Cruz for exactly the same reason.
To elaborate on my last point, let’s assume the Dodgers sign Manny.
Signing a third Type A (Cruz) would impact a team like the Dodgers (or Yankees, for that matter) less than any other team, because their top picks are already committed elsewhere.
Yikes. I’m an idiot. The Dodgers wouldn’t have to forfeit a draft pick for re-signing their own FA (Manny).
Sorry for wasting 30 seconds of your life in the posts above and below with my third-grader “analysis”. :)
Haven’t paid tto much attention to Hudson’s defense lately or watched Blake a whole lot, but do the Dodgers now have one of the best defensive IFs in the league?
No.
Hudson is now average at best based on the last 3 years, and is most likely below average. Blake has always been bad. Furcal is average/above-average. Loney is rated as pretty terrible, even though I think he’s at least average.
No, based on UZR. Your faith in it may be misplaced.
No. Blake sucks, Hudson now sucks and Loney sucks. Furcal is the only one above average.
Just curious how you are coming up with $4-5M per win last year? Is that just a gross aggregate measure? It looks to me like players in the 2-2.9 win category averaged about $2.9M last year and that number was inflated by closers and (gulp) Jose Guillen. The only 2-2.9 win 2Bs signed got $2.5M (Castillo) and $1.8M (Matsui) per win.
Disappointed for DeWitt. He played decently for a rookie last season, and PECOTA had him pegged as a 51% chance for a breakout (76% improve rate). Maybe they move Blake to the outfield and shift DeWitt over to third, but deep down we all know– especially if they sign Manny– which of these 3 is most likely to be screwed out of playing time in a Torre lineup: Blake, Pierre, or DeWitt? Answer: the youngest, cheapest, and most promising/highest long-term upside player, DeWitt.
That would be an insanely smart idea.
As a life long Dodger fan, and based on recent evidence, I concur that the youngest most promising player will get screwed.
if you’re giving up the #17 pick to sign a free agent wouldn’t you at least want to try and work an option in there? i’d take the #17 pick in the draft every time over a year of orlando hudson.
The Dodgers obviously understand that there’s a really strong chance they’ll recoup the draft pick next offseason when Hudson signs somewhere else. In terms of building for the future, it’s not a significant dent in that case.
I don’t see why you can’t at least try to forecast player values in the future. You might not do it well, but there are certainly methods to use – for instance, I’m sure baseball teams/MLB forecast their revenues for 2009 – if they forecast them to fall 20%, for instance, you can forecast a win will be worth 20% less on the free agent market. Just an example to show you can at least try to forecast it, even if it’s not nearly as accurate as it is in other years. It’s better than nothing, right?
Very nice LA Dodgers information. I hope to be in LA for a game this summer.