Dump Cordero now while we can still get something for him!

Ditto Keenan.

Bedard's on the trading block. You think?

Chad, as much as I love him, is an extravagance for a team like the Nationals, at least at this point in time. Having both Cordero and Rauch is redundent so it makes sense to move him for starting pitching help.

I can't see getting a quality starting pitcher straight up for Cordero; I think a 2-for-1 (Chad an a mid-level prospect) should be enough to get a solid #3 starter.

We'll see.

Also, I'll bet that the Nationals make a deal to bring in a left-handed hitter, be it "the" power man we need or simply someone to replace one of our righties.

Like everyone else, I cringe at the thought of a righty laden team going up aginst the NL's best righthanded pitchers.

Should be an interesting week.

Barry, give us some behind-the-scenes stuff. You know, where do team's meet, is the lobby really used as a gathering place, etc.

Plenty of behind-the-scenes stuff to come.

Trade Cordero now, He is not near as strong a pitcher as these early numbers seem to show. Remember that 2005 team over achieved other than Guzman.

Chad does not have a dominate pitch and if his location is off the ball flies out of the park. To me a indication of a strong closer is someone who get a lot of 1, 2, 3 innings. Chad does not ever seem to do that.

Trade him now and get the best deal you can. He could be replaced with several of our bull pen pitchers without costing us more than a couple of wins in 2007.

On another note Barry......what happened to the Nats mantra that they are closer to contending than people think and 2008 or 2009 is the target year to contend. Listening to Stan and Jimbo this last few months it seems that expectation (established by Stan as I recall) is being revised to 2012.....Am I right about his shift?

Should we stay tuned this evening Barry?

i never believed 08/09. if things go well, 09 could be a fringe year and 10 would be the beginning of a run of contention.

i'd be happy with competitive/500ish for 08/09. but i want to see results by 2010.

oh, and i want the ballpark experience to be significantly better than the past 3 years.

Best News of the Week
No Fick, could we be that lucky. If we are going to get better we need better players.....finally Jimbo is willing to dump Robert Fick at least.

Next PLEASE get some real starting pitching.....I would rather see our young guys than more of Jason S, Mike B, Billy T, and the whole host of 83MPH fastballers we ran out there last year.

I'm still thinking Bedard. O's need badly need bullpen help and Bedard's on the block. Not sure if we could trade Cordero straight up or not but I'm wondering what you experienced speculators think of it?

Devil's advocate: while I am generally in favor of trading Chad, I'm also fearful of what will happen to the clubhouse with Schneider and Cordero, arguably two of the strongest and most positive presences on the team, gone. Am I overrating Cordero's significance in this regard? I hope so. I think I still want him traded.

For the most part, I've really enjoyed the Chad Cordero era. However, there is no evidence that he is destined to be a dominant closer. He simply doesn't have enough gas or movement on his pitches to become dominant. In fact, as his career has unfolded, I think that the evidence points toward him becoming a less than league average closer, if he can hold the job at all.

And with the reality of a smaller, more hitter-friendly stadium (that will, by the way, be more friendly to left-handed hitters if Baseball Prospectus's initial assesment is correct) just a few months away, there is a pretty strong chance that Chad's numbers will be decline further.

This team has a bevy of solid to strong relievers, several of which could close. It's time to trade Cordero, since his value has peaked, for one or more players that can improve one or more of our need areas. Based upon the strong record of trades and moves since the Spivey-Ohko trade a couple of years ago, I trust that Jim and Stan can find a "closer-needy" team that is a good trade fit.

the Os are asking Santana light package for Bedard. not really unreasonable, in general (altho you know they'll want a little more than they should, if angelos has a say). he is one of the best starters in baseball now, lefthanded, and cost controlled for two more seasons. so you won't have to pay him $20+mil/yr to get him.

oh, and to follow up, i don't think we have the prospects for it. the Os will want things similar to what minny wants, ML ready players. and minny didn't want milledge in their talks. you don't want to give up zimmerman, do you?

I, for one, will not miss Cordero next season if he is traded. Every time he came in I felt that no lead was safe. Rausch impressed me so much more than Cordero. If Bowden can get a starting player in trade for him I would be amazed.

I'm ready to give up the Chief if we get a major league starting pitcher of good quality in return -- but not if we get another prospect. At some point management must realize that season ticket holders aren't putting out $45-60 per seat for 81 games to look at cherry trees in 2008.

Trade him assuming you get a fair offer. He is a legitimate closer. He is young and cheap. However, it seems that the price for Santana, Haren, Beddard type pitchers will exceed what we should be giving up right now. Even Blanton is probably too steep. I would assume you would have to give up two MLB and a top level minors guy to get any of them.

So what can you get for Cordero? Things we need:

1) LH Hitters
2) Leadoff Hitter
3) Cleanup Hitter
4) Catcher
5) Middle Infielder
6) Starting Pitchers

I would think we would want 2 position players under 26 years of age or 1-2 pitchers under 24. I doubt we trade Cordero for anyone within 2 years of Free Agency.

It's just not that easy to find.

I worry that the Nats will dilute their one strength if they trade the Chief.

Can they fill a real need by trading Cordero, like a leadoff hitter, or a quality shortstop? If so, then trade him, if not, keep him.

i don't think you'll get legitimate cleanup/leadoff hitters for cordero. you might get "potential" for those spots, but we might have to add someone to the kitty to get either of those.

The Nats don't need both Rauch and Cordero. I might argue otherwise if they were booked to be an 85-win team in '08. But at this point they have many other needs to fill to get them to the 85-win plateau.

If a deal involving the Chief could fill some of those needs, then -- irrespective of my personal feelings about the player -- I'd have to believe it's the right thing to do.

wild idea...trade chad and turn JPat into a closer. keep the strain on his arm down some. it seems he is always lights out for 3 starts and then hurt, so stretch out those innings and maybe he stays healthy. i just dont see him stayin healthy as a starter and he has dominant stuff. maybe this is the best way to get max gain without injury.

Excellent Taylor story this morning, Barry.

It was a little difficult to read the mood out at FedEx today. The fans seemed not so much subdued, as jolted and stunned. The video tribute was a poignant and worthy commemoration.

Considering the strain of the week, it wasn't hard to understand Gibbs' goof.

OK, end of offtopic.

Trade him. We need a starting pitcher worse than anything, especially in the cozier confines of the new park.

I don't know how you answer the Cordero question without knowing who would be coming in return. I trust Bowden's judgment to make that decision, though. As the Milledge deal demonstrates, Jimbo seems to get the better end of a lot of deals and acquisitions.

>> wild idea...trade chad and turn JPat into a closer. keep the strain on his arm down some. <<

An interesting idea. Health permitting, wonder if he could become a modern-day Eckersly.

I have to admit that one thing I kept from reading "Moneyball" a few years ago was the idea that relievers can be replaced more easily than most other players. I fully believe that Chad and our other pitchers will fare more poorly in the new park. Hopefully our hitters will make up for that.

These winter meetings leave a number of teams looking for relievers, with fewer options than normal. This is our best. last chance to get good value for Chad, if my fears play out. If he stays, I of course certainly hope I am wrong.

I would really, really miss "Hail To The Chief" on the radio, but affordable quality starters, and lefty power-hitting middle infielders, are scarce.
Maybe if we came up with a really cool sobriquet for Colome or Ayala or whomever, it would take some of the sting out of losing Cordero.

Eck was closing so many of the games he *started* that closing, period, was not such a stretch.
OTOH, Rausch doesn't like to start, for just that reason--he thinks it reduces the strain on his arm. So you might be right about JP. But I don't think he has the mindset.

*******
>> wild idea...trade chad and turn JPat into a closer. keep the strain on his arm down some. <<
An interesting idea. Health permitting, wonder if he could become a modern-day Eckersly.
Posted by: Ashburn | December 2, 2007 09:15 PM

Not to keep beating on this, but I just don't see how getting a prospect who's stock fell dramatically in the past year and who has character issues (Bend Ya Knees) in exchange for 25 percent of your starting lineup is getting the best of a trade. Its at most an arguable point.

I would like to see some major league talent on the roster, not just 'potential'. Last off season, we were told that the team was playing for 2008. Now after the Milledge trade, management seems to concede that this weakens the 2008 team, but is going to improve the performance somewhere down the line.

One wonders if the only standings they are looking at is the red and/or black ink on the sccountant's books. The Milledge trade has me wondering if the real 'plan' consists of shedding major league salaries and inducing the faithful to buy tickets based on 'hope'?

I hope that they bring some major league ready talent back if they trade Cordero, not just more 'potential'.

*******
As the Milledge deal demonstrates, Jimbo seems to get the better end of a lot of deals and acquisitions.

Posted by: Ashburn | December 2, 2007 09:12 PM

well he certainly doesn't have the mindset to be a hoss starter. he and shawn hill have had similar injury problems, but hill wants to fight through it, it seems JP just gives up when he feels a twing. im all for being safe, but anyone who has thrown a ball knows its violent and unnatural and you are going to have to expect it sometimes

On Cordero - I'd keep him unless someone overpays. And be careful about wanting Bedard. He's not durable and will go to NY, Bos, or Tor once his contract is up. He wants to play close to Canada.

Ray - I don't think you can make the red/black accusation when you consider the bucks the owners paid to get the team, the extra $$ they put into the stadium - which, Boswell to be believed, could be spectacular, and the $$ put into scouting and signing 100% of their draft picks, including McGeary. Granted, they do get a nice stadium and only had to put about 8% of their own bucks into it.

I think they want to build a strong, young team that can contend every year rather than try to buy older talent that might make them a .500 team now, but cause the need to rebuild just a few years later.

Their strategy is risky, though. The NL is so weak that building an 80-85 win team puts you in play-off contention and that might help build a bigger, stronger fan base here, which is needed. Plus, if the youngsters don't pan out or hurt their own careers with poor decisions, as youngsters sometimes do, then becoming good takes even longer and may alienate fans.

But you have to remember the utter mess MLB handed over to Mr. Kasten and the Lerners. Everything, especially the farm system and scouting, was woeful and substandard.

I would love another 2005, with a better ending, and being patient when I'm already old hurts. But, I have to admit, I think their is, all things considered, the right approach. Not by a lot, but by a little. I can certainly understand if you and others disagree.

Natswriter, you've crystallized the two sides of the argument quite well. I agree about McGeary being a good future move. I'm not stating definitively that Nats fans are being sold a bill of goods by the management team, but I am saying that I don't have blind faith in them that they committed a 'heist' when they trade two solid major league players for a prospect.

The Milledge trade may end up being a good trade, but I think anyone assessing it as a hands down win for the Nats right now is looking at Lastings Milledge for what the New York media expected him to be, not for what he has actually done.

Not that I posted enough to merit mentioning my name change but mlwagnercpa is too long to type so time to make the switch.

Think we should trade Chief. Barry's negatives are very persuasive and right now I think we have as many relievers who performed well in '07 as spots in the '08 bullpen; Rauch, Colome, Rivera, Ayala, Schroder, Abaladejo; even w/o Cordero. And that's assuming they carry 12 pitchers again.

Not convinced we can get much for him but agree w/ others who belive Bowden has performed very well w/ his trades and so trust him to get value.

Think the Milledge trade was good. He has big upside and (I'm a huge Schneider fan) but the facts are that light hitting catchers who call a good game are not that tough to find.

re: "Hail to the Chief". Make Jon Rauch the closer and play "Big John" (...big, big, John) when he comes out.

re: trading vets for unknown potential. That's what young players inherently are, a gamble. Someone said out of the 20 draft picks we sign, we're lucky if we get 1 or 2 starters??

Sure the Milledge trade is a risk, but there's an entire army of baseball professionals employed by the Nationals who are paid to evaluate those risks. I'm not saying blind faith, but have just a little faith that they don't necessarily want to [RF] this team up either.

Say Milledge hits no better than .235 and can't field a ball to save his life. We're out *maybe* $500K. So what? We go back out and hedge our bets again. But the chances of that happening are probably the same chances of anyone else on the team tanking, getting hurt, getting an attitude (see Lopez, Felipe), trouble with the law, or whatever. This is a very low-cost gamble with more potential than risk.

The Milledge trade is not at all one sided. That argument is definately weak. I think the Nats paid a high price for Milledge, making it a good trade for both teams. I love Brian Schneider, but we overrated him. Schneider is a very very weak hitter. He did one thing well as a hitter - he hit groundballs to the right side when there was a man on third. He is an excellent defensive catcher and a good leader. Milledge is worth the risk at 22. Good trade. Not one sided.

Let's make a deal. The league knows Cordero, he probably would do better for a while in the AL, may have more value to someone there. BTW, same observation about DY.

I like the idea of converting Patterson to a reliever. I know we need starters, but trading Cordero while value is high and his cost is increasing (as much as I like Chad) is a good call, and then we can fill out the bullpen with other people, maybe even with Patterson growing into a setup-closer role. Even without Patterson as a reliever, it's a lot easier to "find" relievers in free agency and the minors. I'm all for the Moneyball approach.

Which also, for the record, preaches value in OBP, and very little in speed (*cough* Nook Logan *cough*).

i got really excited about the idea of patterson as a reliever, but he sucks in the first inning. look up his splits:
Starter, Inn. 1-3 4.87 ERA (SI.com).

Chad is projected by 2008 Zips as having the best era on the team next year: 3.62 based on last year's performance. He has a fast-enough fastball with a lot of late movement, varies speeds and and throws strikes. The Mets announcers say that he has the makeup of a closer-he is incredibly courageous. He is remembered for blowing a 5 run lead at Coors, which, in hindsight, happened to a lot more than Chad this year. Considering that he was pitching to a murderer's row in the Rockies, Phillies, Mets and Braves, and that the visiting AL teams were the Tigers at their most unbeatable, the Indians, and the Red Sox, and considering the run support he gets, Trader Jim is right to ask for a lot, and we should not be anxious to see him leave. He is a great value for the money. And the new park is not going to be that band box in Philly. When they had batting practice there last summer, no one could hit one out. There is some sort of wind-tunnel effect that will help pitchers.

hoagie, good stat, but i think moving to closer from starter, you let it hang out more, and i think that if JP knew he was going out to throw 10-20 pitches and 3-5 batters he would be more likely to really let it fly as opposed to trying to pace himself for 100 pitches and 6 or 7 innings. and when he lets it fly his fastball is great and curve is DYNOMITE

The rumor from Ken Rosenthal is that the Nats keep asking the Brewers for Rickie Weeks for Chad Cordero, and that the Brewers keep saying no.

I still love the Milledge trade, and am especially happy that it is already done so Bowden can move on for his next transaction.

Hello, nice site :)

Ive got no interest in Weeks, but would be tempted by Gallardo. Theres probably no chance that happens though.

I could see Texas developing an interest...Atlanta too maybe.

I'm not going to click on "Brin's" link (6:15 a.m. posting) but methinks the moderators may have some work to do in that regard...

Hey, that's my idea, NatsNut ("Big John")!? I've been saying that for years. So, naturally, I love the idea...great minds think alike... ;-)

I like Chad (heartburn aside), but if we can make a deal that benefits the team, I'd trade him (and I'd miss "Hail to the Chief," too).

cevans: sobriquets to follow, muse permitting

natswriter: excellent "plan" analysis in your 10:22 p.m. posting, IMO.

Converting JP to a reliever / closer might have some merit.

If Rauch were dealt in addition to Cordero -- which I'd hope not to see, but it might happen -- I'd expect the notion of JP switching roles to be considered openly. What's more, health and stamina issues may make the bullpen his only realistic alternative. (And are the primary criteria on which such a move should be considered. Starters are harder to find than relievers; if JP has the gas to go six, then that's what he should be doing.)

If the Brewers were willing, Weeks is an interesting option. I assume Hardy is out of the question, just like Gallardo. Hall is not old, but is not young either. Corey Hart is probably not available.

Weeks is a little weak offensively from the right side, but his OBP, speed, and occasional power make him a good leadoff candidate from the middle infield position. He's had a little trouble staying healthy, but he's only 25.

Another team who really ought to consider Cordero is the Tigers. They have several untrustworthy closer candidates and a big park. Cordero would thrive there. They have starting pitching and a lefty hitting outfielder in Curtis Granderson who could be squeezed in our outfield rotation somewhere. He might have to platoon against lefty pitching though (he's much stronger against righties).

Rickie Weeks?!?!? Yikes. Another guy who was a hot prospect in 2005 and who's stock has plummeted. What is this, failed prospects for $100 Alex? Can Josh Hamilton be far behind? Lets get Clint Hurdle to manage....

Why do the Nats need Rickie Weeks? Belliard is one of the most reliable players on the roster. And Lopez is certainly not worse than Weeks. The last thing needed is another second baseman.

Who's going to pitch the ball?!? And, while we're at it, who's going to catch it? If this Weeks rumor is true, I think its time for JimBo to lock the liquor cabinet.

Atlanta probably won't take Cordero. They enjoy hitting off him too much.

Trade the Chief now! Looking forward to a week of interesting news.

heh heh. Good point.

---

Atlanta probably won't take Cordero. They enjoy hitting off him too much.

I like what the Nats are doing, and think they will have a contending team sooner than later.
Trade Codero, if the return is worthwhile. That said,I must be one of the few who think he is a better closer than most give him credit.
How about this for a trade--Ballester, Smoker, Maxwell, Cordero to the A's for Haren. Would we be giving up to much, or, on the other hand, would the A's consider it enough. Ah, baseball!
With Haren and health,and a new ball park, hey, we might contend this year. However, I don't think we could get Haren, and I definitely don't think the overall health situation will be all that good. Unfotunately, like Escobar, I don't believe Patterson will ever be the same player again. Here's hoping that Hill and dare I say, Johnson will be.

Don't be fooled by ERA. It doesn't take into account all those inherited runners that scored and resulted in blown saves.

Cordero definitely has value to the Nationals, but despite this nice little 3-year run, he does not fit the profile of that rare type of closer that remains dominant for a decade.

So the Nationals should definitely shop him, if for no other reason than that he is one of the only marketable commodities they have. Whether they should pull the trigger depends entirely upon what they get offered in return. I think Bowden has a good track record of never acting like a desperate seller, and expect he will demand a lot.

As for the balance in the lineup, I'm eager to hear what you have to say. It's not just that the Nationals traded all their left-handed batters. As I've pointed out, even among the switch-hitters they do have, only Dmitri has a slightly better average against lefties.

Will we be getting dining updates from Nashville, too? The resort establishments sound nice and all, but personally I'd be intrigued by the down-home dining opportunities that might lurk elsewhere (though time afield will likely be limited for our dedicated scribes)...

"Don't be fooled by ERA. It doesn't take into account all those inherited runners that scored and resulted in blown saves."

Excellent point, LTW. In a just world, ERA would be adjusted for runners left on and inherited runners scored (or stranded), but that's not likely any year soon.

Inherited runners wouldn't factor much into the Chief's numbers, by the way; he only inherited 5 runners in 2007, and only let 2 of them score. (Not surprising as he usually comes in at the beginning of the ninth.)

i'd love to see us trade cordero = weeks then package felipe lopez to the angels for a starter + maybe mathis. of course the angels would have to trade howie kendrick to florida for cabrera before this could all happen. but nats and angels do have a history of trades so maybe there could be something there.

rickie weeks has been injured a few times but i believe he has the highest batting ave in NCAA history. we can't rely on 22 and 23 year olds' stats in the majors only. i understand a lot of prospects don't pan out but come on. the picture is bigger than that.

i'm still surprised by the amount of anger towards management and front office on the blog. does anyone remember when Tampa Bay went out and signed all those old guys who could hit home runs to make the fans happy. well everyone was happy, for a little while. that team has taken 15 years to recover. get used to the owners and their style. it's the players who get traded and/or have short careers. on top of that, this plan is working and they are doing exactly what they said they would from the beginning. no complaints here.

oh yea, could say the same thing about the rockies. mike hampton is their favorite.

What about Cordero, FLop, and a prospect for Bedard. The O's need a closer and a SS if they move Tejada to 3rd, and we could certainly use a gifted Lefty starter.

I thought we should have traded Chad after 2005. A good closer is a luxury on a bad team and one we cannot afford. It seems that almost every year there are closers available if you are willing to pay the price. Look at what Stan did in Atlanta. He built the farm and then started getting high priced free agents (Maddux) as they were closer.

I just keep thinking about all those pops that other teams hit off Cordero. They were often caught in RFK, but might be sailing right out of Nationals Park.

Trading Cordero is fine in principle. He's not an irreplaceable piece to the puzzle, and the Nats would be dealing from about the only place where they have some MLB quality depth. They just need to get good value.

The question I have is what they should trade him for. In the last few days' posts I've seen people calling for starting pitching, lead off hitters, middle infielders, middle of the order hitters, and LH hitters. I agree that the Nats could use all of those, but they need to prioritize. Here are my thoughts:

1. Too much is being made of the lefty/righty line up thing. Looking at the projected line up v RHP, they would have three LH bats (Guzman, Lopez, and Young). That's not great but also not awful. If they include one of those guys in a trade package, then they should certainly get a LH bat in return.

2. Starting pitching should not be a priority. Their deepest minor league talent pool is in that area.

3. Guzman and Lopez healthy are not great, but they are adequate. I think the Guzman we saw last year is more representative of his abilities than the '05 version.

4. The place where the still have very little anywhere in their system is the big power bat. Marrero and maybe Pena are the only potential 40 HR hitters they have. That should be their priority. The projected middle of the order Zim, Young, and Kearns is pathetic. Remember the Nats were dead last in runs scored. Yes, RFK was a factor but still one more bat would have exponential impact.

I'd package Cordero and Kearns for a power hitting OF, preferably LH. To me it wouldn't have to be a MLB proven guy either. I'd take a 22-23 year old who's shown good power numbers in AAA.

Oh ... I'd also go after LoDuca hard. They need a veteran catcher with good character. A team plays with the character of its catcher as LaRussa said in "Men at Work". Flores is not quite ready to project himself in that way. He's still learning the game.

Lastly, we need to lay off the Lerners on the "cheap" accusation. They doled out the coin on the draft picks last year. I just think that they are an "under the radar" type of family. They aren't going to fire up Redskin One and make a big splashy signing. Fine by me.

"Don't be fooled by ERA. It doesn't take into account all those inherited runners that scored and resulted in blown saves."

In 2007, Cordero almost always came in to start the ninth inning in a save situation, or even in a non-save situation early in the season when save situations were few and far between and Manny had him pitch the ninth anyway just to get him some work. There aren't any runners already on base when an inning starts, so any attempt to excuse the increase in Chad's ERA or his number of blown saves in 2007 on inherited runners scoring would be a bit of a stretch. Also, I believe that the inherited runners who score count against the ERA of the pitcher who put them on, don't they?

Personally, I like the Chief but I think it's time to trade him. I worry about his effectiveness in the new park with shorter fences than RFK. As others have pointed out, he gives up a fair number of homers. And I recall watching more than a few long fly outs with him on the mound that would have been out of most other parks. His value has probably peaked, so it would be a good time for the Nats to cash in on that.

ray, i agree with everything you write.

i do not see the need for a middle infielder. belliard is an good defensive player, hits the ball well, and plays multiple positions. let him start. he earned that. hitting .290 is a great season by any regard. not every position has .330 hitters. stop with the yankee/red sox offensive pipe dreams. its getting old.

also, go check the defensive stats of any 2b in the league. belliard deserves the right to start. i have talked about this previously.

go after pitching. and bedard is good, but extremely injury prone. do they need another one of those?

and another note. for those that are calling for the heads of proven players - why not angst over the golden boy. he strikes out entirely too much, makes too many errors. and hit int eh .260s. following your mold of trashing the teams regulars, shouldnt there be an outcry against kearns as well? he stunk up the joint too.

perspective people. change for changes sake is a fruitless enterprise.

FWIW, I heard on the business tv show the other day some smart stockbroker guy saying you shouldn't trade for (past) performance, trade for quality, the former not always being predictive of the latter.

I thought of "Big John" but wonder if anyone under 40 ever heard it?
If Colome is the closer, how about the Blues Bros. theme?

"Oh ... I'd also go after LoDuca hard. They need a veteran catcher with good character."

Hasn't LoDuca had some off-the-field character issues himself in the last year or two? I don't recall the details, but they may have been roughly equivalent to Dmitri's issues before he came to the Nats last year. Nothing intrinsically wrong with picking up someone with such issues, but LoDuca won't come cheap like Dmitri did.

"What about Cordero, FLop, and a prospect for Bedard."

Dunno about that. Would be interesting if it worked, but McPhail would have to have quite a bit of faith that Lopez would bounce back.

Also, who would the prospect be?

(Not to confuse matters or encourage irrelevant speculation, but I wonder if anyone at the trading table has shown interest in J-Max?)

419+1:

I'm not sure to what you are referring on LoDuca. Anyway I'm not talking about off the field character, which his teammates won't care about. I'm talking about "gamer"ness. He's respected in the game for how he plays.

Hendo:

I can't believe anyone is that interested in JMax. He hit .263 in high A as a very old prospect. He was probably a year or two older than any other prospect in that league. That's a huge difference in baseball, particularly with a hitter. I'm rooting for him, but my guess is that the only people that value him highly are selected Nats fans.

i don't see belliard as the starter still. how many games have guzman and felipe lopez actually played together? that's the right combination. and that was the original intention. this team is much better served with belliard filling in and pinch hitting. i like him a lot too but this team has more options with him coming off the bench.

back to patterson as a reliever: didn't smoltz always want to start because he liked being on a schedule? he thought closing was more stress on his arm because each day he might pitch. whereas starting he could maintain a routine. i'm sure it's just preference but he felt more comfortable starting.

hard for me to blame any of these players. none of them are cornerstone types. this team is mostly patchwork. everyone on the team would be better off if we had a legitimate 3 or 4 hitter. i'd rather have zimmerman hitting 2 or 5. anyway, that's a long ways from happening.

i do get the feeling team is about to go through a lot of changes real fast now that we know the minors are filling up...

Ladson's morning article says we might sign Damien Miller as our catcher. Seems like a reasonable choice. He does have the reputation as being a good receiver and at 38 might be the perfect age to come to the Nats while Flores matures.

I like your above analysis in general #4, especially about not worrying too much about the lefty/righty issue. It is a legitimate concern, but I don't think we'll see the Braves, Phillies, and Mets stocking up on right-handed pitchers to offset the Nats line-up in the near future.

A take issue on two points however. First, I think the days of 40 HR guys as standard fare are waning. Call me a cynic but I think that production will continue to decline and someone who hist 40 HR will once again be an anomaly (and a hall of Famer) We should probably be talking about and identifying 25-30 HR guys instead.

Second, I concur in general about not prioritizing starting pitching but still wonder if we wouldn't benefit from an "innings guy." Not a Santana, Bedard or the like -but a Fogg or Kip Wells (although not Livan) type who will throw can be expected to throw 200 innings and win 7-12 games for us. A good workhouse at this point would allow the young thoroughbreds to develop.

Damian Miller could be a good complement. Am I right in thinking that he is a swithc hitter?

"package felipe lopez to the angels for a starter + maybe mathis"

not a chance. maybe coming off of his 05 season you'd have a chance at mathis and a prospect starter.

"What about Cordero, FLop, and a prospect for Bedard."

again, not a chance. the Os are looking for a santana light package. santana is reportedly pulling offers of hughes, melky cabrera, and a good prospect. plus, for the Os to trade him to the Nats, they'd have to feel like they were getting the better end of the deal.

belliard is a decent player, but nothing special. there's a reason we got him on a minor league contract last year. he's also 32 and not a part of the future of this team (unless as a bench player). so if we can get younger with more upside there, it's worthwhile doing it. same with SS. can't just think about this year, have to think about 09-11.

interesting trade target: houston's chris burke. a lot of people feel like he'd blossom with regular playing time. 2B who's played OF. might not cost a lot. from gammons' blog today:

==
There are many in the Houston organization who hope that the signing of Kaz Matsui gives Chris Burke an opportunity to go somewhere else and play every day. Burke was a victim of the late stages of Craig Biggio's Hall of Fame career, and he's never been given the opportunity to play second base every day. Colorado has some interest with Matsui gone, so that is a possibility.

lowcountry, i agree that a veteran grinder is what we should be prioritizing for in an SP. preferably one who can help teach the young guys how to pitch.

"I think the days of 40 HR guys as standard fare are waning. Call me a cynic but I think that production will continue to decline and someone who hist 40 HR will once again be an anomaly (and a hall of Famer) We should probably be talking about and identifying 25-30 HR guys instead."

Point taken, LC. I agree that HR numbers will continue to decline as steroids are used less. BTW - I reference earlier posts about Paul O'Neill's "sudden" post 30 year old blossoming. Hmmm.

Having said that, I'd take a guy with the potential to be a .285, 30 HR, 100 RBI guy. That's what they need desperately at any position, except maybe 3B.

I definitely agree with Hendo, ERA is, quite simply, the most useless statistic available for a reliever.

We're still at the point where we need to evaluate GEICO/FBR/Mars park before committing to big F/A contracts.

Re: Bedard...Given Angelos' history of vetoing trades and meddling in personnel decisions, even given the new G.M. powers, if you were JimBo, would you even bother to go through the motions?

Also Ladson says Texas' Gerald Laird is in play, although "[t]he Rangers are looking for an outfielder or relief pitcher in exchange for Laird's services."

Worth a look? I think so.

Well, it's not like "Sweet Caroline" was just released either.
:)
______________

I thought of "Big John" but wonder if anyone under 40 ever heard it?

Posted by: C "Can't Sit Down" Evans | December 3, 2007 10:12 AM

C50 and Hendo:

I agree that for middle relievers who often come in with men on base, ERA can be deceiving. However for Chad and other closers who in this modern era almost always enter at the beginning on the 9th inning, it has about as much utility as it has for a starter. For instance if Chad's ERA is 3.00 then we know that he gives up a run about every three appearances. If his ERA is 1.50 then it's a run about every 6 appearances (I hope my math's right; I was a history major). To me that's instructive. I know one really bad outing can skew that. It can for a starter as well, although it evens out a bit more because of more IPs.

Sometimes deceiving, yes. Useless, no.

New post up.

One of the closers mentioned, Joe Nathan, is also reportedly on the trade block. If Minnesota pulls the trigger first, we might get a sense of what the market is like.

I disagree strongly with the suggestion that we have adequate middle infield depth. We have 2 guys whose best position looks like 2d base (Belliard and Lopez) and one guy at SS (Guzman) whose contract is expiring, been hurt much of the past 2 years, and has a career OPS of .680. I know he looked great for 174 at bats last year, but there is a good chance it was a fluke (BABIP 2007 - .359, career - .298), and even if it was not a fluke, he'll get expensive. We need someone who can take over in 2009 or tail end of next year.

Along these lines, Joaquin Arias of Texas is someone they would be willing to trade (per Nick Cafardo's good piece on Boston.com yesterday), along with Gerald Laird (Catcher). Several sources say they are looking to add a veteran to the bullpen, possibly a corner IF or OF bat, too. We have things they might be interested in. Bowden has surprised me in getting guys cheaper than I thought he could, so I will not speculate on deal particulars* except to say Cordero would be a poor fit for them in that bandbox.

A couple of other interesting names kicked around on several sites (USS Mariner, the Cafardo article, and I think ESPN) are Jose Lopez, Jeff Clement, and Wladimir Balantien of the Mariners. I had mentioned before that Safeco might be a park suited to Cordero, and that moving him to a set up role in fornt of Putz would allow Brandon Morrow to move to the rotation.

* I had good intentions, but Cordero for Lopez and Balantien, Kearns for Arias and Laird.

I don't know where people get the idea that Hill pitches through his injuries and Patterson doesn't. Apparently people don't realize that Patterson's arm hurt almost constantly fron the end of March, 2006 until he had surgery in July, 2006, and from March 9, 2007 until he again had surgery in Sept 2007, yet he tried to pitch through it and he was on the mound every 5 days until May 6 , hoping the pain would go away. Remember, his arm hurt even when he took a deep breath or yawned, and the more he used it the more it hurt. It was not his idea to go on the DL - he did not want to spend one day on the DL in 2007. Patterson is no stranger to pitching with pain. He (like Hill) had Tommy John surgery and from what I have read, the rehab from that involves much pitching with pain. Patterson does not give up easily and I believe you are doing him an injustice by saying he gives up "when he feels a twinge". How do you know what Patterson is feeling?

As far as converting him to a reliever - he has always been a starter and therefore used to the routine of pitching every 5 days. If his arm can't hold up to the starter's regimen, then perhaps it should be considered, but I don't think it would be easy for him.

I think we have our catcher, and I mean now. I believe he'll be far better than any names mentioned. At least, let's see how Flores does.We need a back-up, obviously, but Flores will be good defensively and offensively.
However, Jon, Arias sounds interesting. We need a fast, good defensive shortstop.
Food for thought. Any chances dealing with San Francisco. Any hope for one of the trio of Lincecum, Cain, or Lowry.

There are several new posts up.

Hello! I'm MikeDoe! Check out my site!