Last item in the "Mailbag" on Nationals.com:
Don't you think the Nationals made a mistake in not signing second baseman Orlando Hudson? He is apparently healthy and certainly hitting and fielding well. I think they blew it big time.
-- Peter R., Vancouver
I don't think the Nationals made a mistake in that regard because they have good enough second basemen in Hernandez and Belliard. The reason Washington didn't sign Hudson is because he failed a physical the club gave him before Spring Training started.
A. Hudson is an upgrade over Hernandez and Belliard. He's more expensive for a reason. He's better.
B. But this is the real news. He failed a physical? Was that reported when it happened and I just missed it? I'd never heard about this. If it is indeed true, it damn sure should have been reported somewhere and I suspect it was and I just fell asleep on that one. Right?
Whatever was ailing Hudson, it appears to have been fixed. He's played in every game and is hitting .385 with two home runs and eight RBI. He's stolen four bases and hasn't been caught stealing. He has zero errors.
Yeah, Belliard and Hernandez compare. Granted, Nats.com never said they compared. They said they were "good enough." For what? Hudson would have been an upgrade and I'd like to know what was wrong with the physical that made him not worth signing?
Perhaps it was money? If so, let's just say that. The Nats didn't want to invest 10 or so million in a quality second baseman and leadoff hitter. Not when they have half of that invested in a DH who is too sick and out of shape to actually, you know, play. Not that he could play anywhere in a league that doesn't use the DH.