Skip to content

Twins 'have intensified their pursuit of' Hudson

Feb 4, 2010, 3:45 PM EST

Earlier this week I wondered why the Twins weren’t making a stronger push for Orlando Hudson, so it pleases me to see this report from Ken Rosenthal and Jon Paul Morosi at FOXSports.com:

The Twins have intensified their pursuit of free-agent second baseman Orlando Hudson, one major league source told FOXSports.com on Thursday morning. … Hudson is asking for at least $6 million on a one-year deal, a separate source said. He is likely to agree to terms on a new contract this week.

Based on various reports recently it sounds like the Nationals are offering Hudson the most money, but he’d prefer to play for a better team if the salaries are somewhat close.
If all it takes to land Hudson is a one-year deal worth around $5 million the decision should be a no-brainer for the Twins, because right now they have Nick Punto starting at second base, Brendan Harris starting at third base, and no clear option to bat second in the lineup ahead of Joe Mauer. At that price and this late in the offseason Hudson is as close to a perfect fit as Minnesota is going to find.
UPDATE: MLB.com’s Bill Ladson just tweeted that “a baseball source” told him Hudson “will not play for the Nationals” and “most likely will play for the Twins.”
UPDATE #2: Not so fast, perhaps. Now both Buster Olney of ESPN.com and Joe Christensen of the Minneapolis Star Tribune report that Hudson is deciding between the Twins and … Indians. Everyone seems to agree that the Nationals are out of the mix.

  1. Evan - Feb 4, 2010 at 1:39 PM

    Bring him home Billy.

  2. Cheap Seat Chronicles - Feb 4, 2010 at 1:49 PM

    About freakin’ time…let’s get him locked up and start our long march toward the World Series!

  3. Twunks - Feb 4, 2010 at 2:01 PM

    1) Span
    2) Hudson
    3) Mauer
    4) Morneau
    5) Cuddyer
    6) Kubel/Thome
    7) Hardy
    8) Young/Kubel
    9) Harris/Punto
    not to shabby if you ask me

  4. Jelvis DelaGuardia - Feb 4, 2010 at 2:59 PM

    Get it done Billy, as was said.
    Twunks, I like your line up, I initially had Young batting 7th, but Hardy would likely be the better fit to pick up potential runners out there.
    Hopefully Delmon can swing it this year… And 8th place hitter with 20 HR potential is pretty solid.
    Hats off to Billy thus far, lets get this deal done with Hudson and bring on opening day.

  5. ralf - Feb 4, 2010 at 3:12 PM

    What if Jarrod Washburn had accepted the Twins’ offer?
    The Twins FO is completely insane if they ever thought paying Washburn $5 mil would make them a better team than would paying Hudson $6 mil.

  6. BrokeBat - Feb 4, 2010 at 3:42 PM

    I couldn’t agree more ralf…equally as insane is paying Punto $4MM this season to be the starting 2B and declining to pay the far, far superior O-Dog any more than that to be the starter. It really is a no-brainer! This will easily be the best free agent signing GM Bill Smith has done so far when it gets done.

  7. Baseball Bob - Feb 4, 2010 at 4:50 PM

    No way Kubel is EVER hitting 8th in any kind of Twins batting order. Young will hit ahead of Hardy easily the majority of the time. Thome will hit 6th or 7th when he plays. I am with all of you, get it done, sign Hudson.

  8. Twunks - Feb 4, 2010 at 5:15 PM

    Kubel likely would bat 7th and Hardy 8th in that scenerio, but I would be willing to bet money Hardy bats in front of Delmon when they are both in the lineup. Delmon has a decent average, but he has shown limited power at best(even extra base power) and has zero pitch recognition. 12 walks in a season is awful. Hardy generally bats somewhere between 240 and 285 with good power, better OBP and slg. Simply a better hitter.

Leave Comment

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!

Featured video

Cubs shore up rotation with Jon Lester
Top 10 MLB Player Searches
  1. C. Gonzalez (1971)
  2. D. Ross (1916)
  3. J. Grilli (1879)
  4. M. Scutaro (1837)
  5. D. Haren (1770)
  1. W. Myers (1769)
  2. A. Pierzynski (1764)
  3. D. Young (1730)
  4. T. Stauffer (1721)
  5. S. Smith (1680)