Q.  Why did Joe Torre bench Hudson?

A.  It might have had a little something to do with the fact that Ronnie Belliard was slugging .636 for the Dodgers -- .350 with 5 homers and 7 doubles in less than a month.

Picture the M's in a pennant drive, Eric Chavez nicked and dinged up really good, and Ryan Langerhans comes in here and hits .350 with five homers in three weeks.  You think Langerhans is going to get some AB's?

So I wouldn't worry too much that Hudson's career is over.  He has a tendency to get banged up late in the year, and Belliard was going bananas.  Belliard's a quality player himself, a starter in the big leagues, and that's the way it worked out.

.

Q.  Does SSI think that the contract had anything to do with it?

A.  Accusations flew thick and heavy that the Dodgers were cheating Hudson out of PA-bonus money.

I know a lot of people who think that would be vintage Frank McCourt ... but it's not vintage Joe Torre.  At this point in his career, Torre is pretty much above the fray when it comes to these little pains in the caboose. 

You think Lou Piniella is going to make his Chavez/Langerhans selection -- in the middle of a pennant fight -- based on what Howard Lincoln's payroll says?

So, my guess is no.

.

Q.  Maybe he was benched because he's hitting the wall?

A.  There were also some accusations that Hudson had simply become a liability, such as Rob Neyer's, which claimed that Hudson's defense at second base these days is "just not passable."

:shrug: the overall saber picture so far is not that of a LH-hitting* second baseman who, at 31, suddenly can't play any more.  His eye's ok, his SX is actually up this year, his UZR is ok, etc etc.

And evidently Jack Zduriencik's picture is not that of a 2B who aged very early.  He's supposed to be very interested.  This tools-scouting input is important, of course.

.......

On the other hand ... in this case, I like b-ref.com's age comps for Hudson.  Have a look -- Carlos Guillen, Todd Walker, Hubie Brooks, Ronnie Belliard LOLOL.

Click on the link that says "from age 32 to end of career" and, if you spend much time looking at these pages, you'll realize that's a fairly grim picture.  Especially the right-hand side with the OPS+ to end of career ...  I don't really know how to articulate why that page looks so negative, so we'll leave it for another day.   Trust me, that group of guys didn't wear well.

Intuitively, too, just thinking about 100 second basemen like Orlando Hudson -- strong, athletic 2B's (non-waterbuggy like Harold Reynolds and non-bulky like Jeff Kent) ...

with well-rounded games and decent batting eyes, etc -- Delino DeShields, Jose Offerman, Ron Hunt, Felix Millan -- yeah, they're done at 32-33. 

32-33 is over the hill for most guys who aren't All-Stars.  It's no insult and it's not pessimistic to expect a middle-of-the-pack, fine ML ballplayer to have his best years from 27-30.  It's baseball history.

....

Guys like Lou Whitaker and Willie Randolph, other played longer -- but were considerably better than Hudson.

Second basemen of Hudson's archetype, and of his general competence level?  They do seem to fall off the table at 31, 32, 33.  That's just my old brain processing it subconsciously, here.  Could be wrong.

.

Q.  When second basemen like that do decline, do they do so gradually?

A.  Not necessarily. 

Probably not even usually.  Delino DeShields was a very fine player at 32, and he couldn't play MLB at all at 33.

Hudson is year-to-year.   The good news is, right this second, he looks fine.  He could reasonably play well for three more years (or he could just as easily collapse in 2010).

.

Q.  Final recommendation?

A.  I'd be V-E-R-Y aware of Hudson's potential to age at any moment.  I'd give him a 70% chance to have a good year in 2010 and a 40% chance to have a good one in 2011.

If it looks different down on the field and in the locker, room, fine.. from a roto standpoint, I'd draft him IFF he were a good value.  But if he got off to a slow start, I'd deal him.

My $0.02,

Dr D

.