MSTI’s 2009 in Review: Second Base
October 29, 2009 at 9:56 am | Posted in 2009 in review, Orlando Hudson, Ronnie Belliard, Tony Abreu | 12 Comments
Orlando Hudson (B-)
(.283/.357/.417 9hr 62rbi)
It’s one thing to get off to a hot start, and it’s quite another to introduce yourself to your new team by hitting for the cycle in the home opener, isn’t it? Despite the fact that I was so fervently against giving Arizona a first round pick to sign him in the offseason, even I had to give him props when he hit .332/.407/.469 through the first two months of the season.
But there was a big problem with that outstanding start to his Dodger career, and it’s that his amazing first impression seemed to color everyone’s impression of him for the rest of the season. I started getting worried about him as far back as July, when I was doing our mid-season reviews and giving him credit for his nice first half. In the same review, I pointed out:
So why just the B grade? Because while Hudson may have made an enormous first impression (come on, a cycle in your first home game for your new team? Who does that?) I think it may have obscured just how horrible he’s been over the second half of the first half. (Shut up, that’s a thing.)
Apr. 6 – May 13: 35 games, .348/.429/.539
May 14 – Jul. 10: 49 games, .237/.300/.320For some reason baseball-reference hasn’t updated to include yesterday’s games yet, so I am missing his 2-homer outburst in that latter section, but still: the difference is glaring. You’d like to think that was the start of something, because at some point he’s going to need to turn this around, or all of the good feelings of April are going to dissipate.
Hudson picked it up some from his horrible June stretch, but an OPS that had been over .900 in May still fell to as low as .768 in September. With Ronnie Belliard’s contributions upon arriving, it was absolutely the right decision to bench Hudson for him. So what we ended up with was a year that was average overall (104 OPS+, exactly in line with his previous years), but was put up by two completely different players. But hey, at least he cost a first round pick! Let’s hope that can be recouped by offering him arbitration, especially since in regards to any possibility of a return next year, I’d say this quote from Baseball Prospectus about sums it up:
Second baseman Orlando Hudson, stung by being benched in favor of Ronnie Belliard in the playoffs, has no desire to re-sign with the Dodgers as a free agent.
Fine by me, because he was good, but not great. Thanks for the season, Orlando, especially for being a complete professional about being benched (Hudson has always had a fantastic reputation in that sense), and best of luck in your non-Dodger future. But mostly, best of luck to the Dodgers in terms of recouping the draft picks and getting more bang out of second base next year.
Ronnie Belliard (A)
(.351/.398/.636 5hr 17rbi)
It’s tempting to compare Belliard to the last late-season veteran import from Washington, Marlon Anderson, but what Anderson did was so far out of whack that it’s hard to compare anything to that. Still, Belliard was fantastic upon his arrival in LA – especially compared to the less-than-enthusiastic welcome I gave him:
Well… I guess? I suppose this is related to Ken Gurnick’s report that the Dodgers were looking for a run-producing bat off the bench, but I’m not exactly sure that this qualifies.
Still, I am proud that I was able to point how hot he’d been in Washington out:
Though Belliard’s had a few roughly league-average seasons, he’s hitting a brutal .247/.297/.376 this season, almost exclusively as a second baseman and pinch-hitter. To be fair, since his OPS cratered at .459 (!!) on July 1, Belliard’s hit a nice .323/.380/.475 in 35 games (20 starts).
Which is basically the line that he was able to produce in LA, just with even more added power. Joe Torre got a lot of heat for starting Belliard over Hudson in the playoffs, but when one guy is so hot and the other is so cold – and there’s not a huge difference between them anyway – you can’t be faulted for that.
For next year, I’m not really dying to have Belliard back – his performance in LA is hardly sustainable – but it wouldn’t surprise me all that much if he won people over with his hot September.
Tony Abreu (so long!)
(.250/.455/.250 0hr 1rbi)
Ugh. This one is going to kill me. Well, gee, let’s see. You’ve got a giant hole at second base opening up after the season. You’ve got a talented young player who’s finally overcome injuries and is dominating at AAA, and even has already had a taste of the majors, to boot.
And… you trade that young player to a division rival just so you can get 6 decent starts that you probably didn’t really need, especially when Jon Garland didn’t even appear in the playoffs.
Look, Abreu may not be a superstar, though there’s something to be said about a middle infielder who has a .916 OPS in AAA in 2007, misses all of 2008, and then returns to be even better with a .999 AAA OPS. (Yes, I know Vegas and Albuquerque inflate offensive stats somewhat – still, those are good numbers.) For 6 relatively meaningless starts of Garland, you’ve just handed this player to the Diamondbacks. I hated the trade from Day 1, saying:
Look, if it’s Abreu, I’m going to be really unhappy. He’s a 24-year-old with a .991 OPS in AAA this year, and looks to finally have put his career back on track after two years of injuries. With Orlando Hudson headed back into free agency this offseason, I was strongly in favor of letting him walk and giving Abreu a crack at the second base job. Now – again, if it’s him – the Dodgers have just handed a division rival an excellent prospect for 5 mediocre starts of Jon Garland?
Survey says… We’ll of course have more to say on this once we know who the player is going back to Arizona. Right now, the feeling is more “worried” with a good chance of “horrified“.
Yep. “Horrified” is about right. What an awful move. Then again, with all we’ve learned about the issues in the owners’ box, this might be another instance of Colletti’s hands being tied by cheap management. The D-Backs took on all of Garland’s remaining salary for the chance to get back a better prospect, just like how the Indians did for Casey Blake to get Carlos Santana. Please, why won’t they sell?
Next: Casey Blake’s beard! Mark Loretta’s corpse! Blake DeWitt’s frequent flyer miles! It’s third base!
12 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
Leave a comment
Random search term which brought someone to MSTI
MSTI on the web
Business Time
Win big when you bet on baseball this year with Sports Interacton. With fast payouts, live betting and quality customer service, they have you covered for all of your online sports betting needs.MSTI Library
Blog at WordPress.com. | Theme: Pool by Borja Fernandez.
Entries and comments feeds.
Ugh. You HAD to mention Carlos Santana.
Speaking of Carlos Santana, I had this thought last night after reading of Cliff Lee’s amazing performance: it is obvious to everyone that the Indians fleeced the Dodgers front office when trading Blake for Santana. They knew it, smart Dodger fans knew it.
But when it came time to package a deal for Lee, the Indians realized that there would be no fleecing a second time around and rejected the offer from the Dodgers. Not knowing what was offered, of course, makes this mere speculation. But it makes me wonder if Colletti figured out the Indians made out like bandits. Or if perhaps the Indians realized they could not cheat the Dodgers twice.
Apologies for bringing up old news. Keep up the excellent end-of-season reviews; they are both entertaining and easy to understand for simpletons like moi.
Comment by Dr. Geek — October 29, 2009 #
Talking of the indians. No matter how it turned out for us,i can tell you one thing. I’m glad i’m not an indians fan. Watching game one of the world series had to suck, the two picters used to be theirs. That would be like in two years if Kershaw and bilz(Please no) head line the world seris for 2 different teams. Now that sucks!
Comment by gillbert — October 29, 2009 #
You’re a Doctor AND a Geek! You’re no simpleton, my friend.
Comment by Mike Scioscia's tragic illness — October 29, 2009 #
I fear that giving up Abreu will come back to bit us. And i really don’t understand it at all. I mean i know we wanted piching, but Garland was a none playoff factor. I apreciate his 6 starts, but Sultz of Hagar could have done about the same thing. So i think that was one of those things were they jumped the gun of panic for no reson.
Comment by gillbert — October 29, 2009 #
Couldn’t agree with you more. There was NEVER a good reason for that move.
Comment by Mike Scioscia's tragic illness — October 29, 2009 #
I took the acquisition of Garland as Colletti and company throwing smoke and mirrors in the direction of Dodger fans and the ace-fawning press.
It was a complete BS move meant to satisfy all the calls over acquiring a pitcher.
Comment by Dr. Geek — October 29, 2009 #
Hudson: not a huge shock that he’s not coming back. After all, he was quoted in the Times like 2 months ago as saying he wouldn’t be back. That was after Belliard joined the team and starting taking away PA from Hudson. Still, he had a good year and was the consumate clubhouse professional, and usually the first guy waiting in the dugout to high five a teammate who just scored or hit a home run. Thanks for the year, Orlando.
Belliard: Turned out to be a great pickup. I’ll never forget the Slam off Penny, and the follow-up 2 run ‘single’ off the bucket in RF that he hit off Timmy the next day. It was great to read McC and see how much he got into the Giant’s fans heads, especially since they knew they’re team screwed up by not signing him.
Abreu: Keeping the Topps theme, he should be in the Topps Traded set, no doubt. Have to agree, why give him up for 6 starts of Garland? Jon was actually pretty good (something many fans seemed to not notice) for the Dodgers, but we really didn’t need him. So long, Tony.
Comment by bayareadfan — October 29, 2009 #
Hudson at the 5th highest OPS for a 2B in the NL, and 13th highest in MLB. So I’d say a B is warranted given his defense and intangibles.
That being said, being 5th in the NL and 13th in MLB is amazing, we have a guy in our system who can duplicate those numbers at 1/6th the cost. Oh wait, no we don’t, we have 6 Jon Garland starts instead, my bad.
I predict Abreu will bite us in the ass worse than Santana.
Comment by Erich — October 29, 2009 #
Like you guys, I wasn’t a big fan of the Abreu trade either, but at the time it was made, I understood it. You gotta remember Kuroda had just gone down and you couldn’t bank on him returning to form. He eventually did and Padilla turned out better than anyone thought, which made Garland’s presence in the playoffs pointless, but on Aug. 31, Colletti couldn’t bank on that. Plus, Billingsley wasn’t exactly pitching well at the time either. Colletti made that move as insurance just in case the shit hit the fan. Garland isn’t very good, but he’s capable of being adequate in the playoffs.
On Oct. 29, it’s easy to say we didn’t need Garland and it’s idiotic to give up a valuable piece like Abreu for six regular season starts. But it was not that easy of a decision two months earlier. How would we have evaluated a non-move two months later had the worst-case scenarios played out?
Comment by Hamlet — October 29, 2009 #
All fair points. I’m more mad at McCourt for forcing us to give up a better prospect for less salary, than I am at Colletti for doing it.
Comment by Mike Scioscia's tragic illness — October 29, 2009 #
I agree. My point was more along the lines of using Haeger or even Weaver to get the job done. I don’t think either one would have been a disaster, but it turned out Jon did a good job. We just paid too much.
Comment by bayareadfan — October 29, 2009 #
From what I’ve read around various blogs, the Dodgers offer for Lee was comparable to Phillies. With that said, Indians fans is probably not doing jumping jacks since the Phillies players who came aren’t exactly ripping it up.
Comment by Salle — October 30, 2009 #