ESPN MLB

From our old friend J.C. Bradbury -- here writing for the Huffington Post -- come four hot-stove myths:

1. GMs can buy low and sell high
"GMs have made mistakes in the past and will make mistakes again, but they're not dumb enough to act on a meaningless hot/cold streak. You can't sell high or buy low and profit financially because all GMs understand these things."

Really? I have a few hundred counter-examples if anyone's interested.

2. The number of free agents at a position affects the price of free agents at a position
"The increased supply of players is canceled out by the increased demand by teams needing replacements."

Absolutely not true. Sure, it's somewhat canceled out. But completely? No way. The Brewers just traded J.J. Hardy. Does that mean they have to turn to the free-agent market to fill their hole at shortstop? Of course not, because they've already got Alcides Escobar. The Dodgers have two free-agent second basemen in Ronnie Belliard and Orlando Hudson. They'll probably re-sign one of them, but if not do they have to venture into the pool of free-agent second basemen? Not necessarily, because they've got young Blake DeWitt at hand. One can't evaluate the price of free agents without also looking at the pool of other available players.

3. Every trade has a winner and a loser
"Swapping resources only takes place if both parties are made better off ... Mistakes happen, but as a general rule, all parties to trades are winners. Who says economists aren't touchy-feely?"

I'm not sure who says that, but a lot of people say that economists often forget that we live in a real world, rather than a theoretical world. Economists like models, but unfortunately models don't work particularly well unless you assume that all actors in your model are "rational" ... so that's what economists do, even in the face of overwhelming evidence that all actors are not rational. Maybe that's why economics is called "the dismal science"?

4. Players peak at 27 and old players are worthless
"Players peak at 29-30. And just because a guy is past his peak doesn't mean he's not valuable."

Reasonable people still disagree about peak ages ... 27, 28, 29, whatever. I just say "late 20s" and figure that's close enough for baseball players and hand grenades. But who exactly is saying that "old players are worthless"? Nobody bothers much with age except analysts, and the analysts absolutely love Mike Cameron (36) and Derek Jeter (35). Granted, I just happened to notice that if you make a list of the best players in the majors right now, nearly all of them are still in their 20s. But a good player is a good player, whether he's 28 or 38.

Maybe I'm not being fair to Bradbury, who's writing for something of a general audience here. General audiences can be a lot smarter than you think, though.

MLB Trade Rumors on an odd situation in Los Angeles:

Talking to Jim Peltz of the L.A. Times, Dodgers manager Joe Torre would not commit to Ronnie Belliard over Orlando Hudson as the team's starting second baseman. Belliard has started at second base in eight of the team's 18 games this month, as well as a few times at third.

Hudson stands to lose money as a bench player, though he was gracious in comments made to Peltz. The way his contract is set up, Hudson is currently earning $10,000 per plate appearance up until his 632nd. He's already earned $7.63MM on the season, despite a base salary of $3.38MM.

Hudson has always been a bargain. Entering this season, he'd delivered roughly $58 million in value in his career while earning a mere $13.4 million. Of course, this is typical for good players in their early seasons, before they're eligible for free agency. And all the more so because much of Hudson's value has been his defense, which is hard to quantify in an arbitration hearing.

At almost the exact moment that Hudson finally did become eligible for free agency, the U.S. economy went into free fall. Hence the one-year contract and the $3.4 million base salary. That said, he's going to wind up earning close to $8 million this season, while being "worth" less than $12 million. Still a bargain of sorts, but not like before.

And it really does seem that Hudson's time has passed. He didn't become an every-day player until he was 24, and wasn't a free agent until he was almost 31. For whatever reasons, his defense isn't what it used to be. A three-time Gold Glove winner, Hudson's defense at second base is not just passable. He seems to have passed his peak as a hitter, too. Getting benched in favor of Ronnie Belliard doesn't look real good, either.

What's odd about the benching is that Hudson was hitting plenty well enough until early September; his "slump" really consists of only 10 starts. Meanwhile, Belliard's been on a tear since joining the Dodgers three weeks ago, but that's only 18 games. There simply isn't any obvious reason to think that Belliard is suddenly a better player than Hudson.

Maybe Torre knows all this. Maybe he's just resting Hudson for the playoffs, and trying to keep his new toy Belliard sharp for spot duties next month. If you're a Dodger fan, you can only hope ...