I have indigestion.

25 years old. 128 Career Saves. 2.79 Career ERA. What's not to love. Is it any wonder that Bowden has set a high price to trade him.

Carrying over from a previous thread:

re: Ian Desmond. I'm glad to see that he's slowly beginning to hit, but he did have 32 errors (!) last year in high-A ball. If he wants to have any chance to make it up to DC, he needs to cut down on those E's.

Also, welcome back Natscan!!

Count me among those who favor keeping the Chief, and who are happy he is on board for at least another year (I would prefer a longer term contract). Could he be better? Sure--perfection is something always to be strived for. But in the context of the Nationals and particularly its pitching, having C. Cordero, together with J. Rauch, has been a very nice anchor in what is otherwise a very transitional team. If only the middle infield and outfield were as well anchored.

I think this is good news.

I find it interesting how many would prefer that Cordero be traded (thinking he's not that great), but at the same time, assume that he would command significant talent in return. If Cordero is a quality closer, then why not keep him, given that we're going to need him even more this year than last (and the year before that)? If he's not a quality closer, what are you gonna get for him?

Sure, watching Cordero is like watching graduation day at the driver's ed academy, but a lot of that is about the ninth inning of a close game (ok, some of that is about runners at first and third, and one out, too).

Is it safe to extrapolate from this information that Cordero has had more save opportunities than most, if not all, other NL closers during this time?

-----

...only one NL closer, San Diego's Trevor Hoffman, has more than Cordero's 113 saves. In that same span, no NL closer has more than Cordero's 20 blown saves...

What's a wasy?

---

chest-thumping wasy

Carrying over from the previous thread, I thought I should mention something.

Last season - my first away from the DC area - I subscribed to MLB.tv so I could watch all of the Nationals games. However, more often than not, I found myself listening to the audio feed instead. And there is absolutely reason for this except for Charlie Slowes.

Honestly, calls like Zimmerman's walk-off homer against the Yankees in 2006 are better than watching the event on TV. Ditto for "What was Nook Logan thinking?!?"

If the Nationals lose Slowes, it will directly - and negatively - impact how fans like me connect with this team. Charlie Slowes is my Nationals ambassador.

Now, if one of you who is going to the winter celebration with Charlie, could you tell him that for me? Thanks.

That didn't come out right. I meant to say that there is no reason for this other than Charlie Slowes.

Stupid brain.

-----

And there is absolutely reason for this except for Charlie Slowes.

It's how you feel when you just broke up with your SO and you have a cold.

"Wasy... I'm wasy for feelin' so lonely"...

Okay. Now that he is signed, can we trade him? I went to too many games last year where runners ended up at second, third, or home when Cordero came into the game. I want my closers to have 1-2-3 innings. Not 0-0-1-BB-HR-2B-pulled from game a batter too late.
Sorry, but no love here for Cordero.

I don't see anything funny about that.

---

It's how you feel when you just broke up with your SO and you have a cold.

"Wasy... I'm wasy for feelin' so lonely"...

Remember, only YOU can prevent Forest Fires - keep Cordero and his gas can away from save situations! Take the 6 mil and spend it elsewhere! Sorry, I have gotten tired of his high wire act over the three years.

I wouldn't mind seeing Manny switch the Chief with the Wookie, with one doing the closer stuff and the other the setup stuff one night and then vice-versa the next night, just to keep the opposing team a little off-balance.

WASY is what often happens when Chad comes in to pitch the ninth. It stands for Walk, Aargh! Save, Yeah!

Chad is our very own chest-thumping WASY.

Love that, Bob L.!

---

WASY is what often happens when Chad comes in to pitch the ninth. It stands for Walk, Aargh! Save, Yeah!

Chad is our very own chest-thumping WASY.

Could also be a new stat:

Walk, Argh to Save, Yeah! ratio. :)

Now that The Chief is signed, I say JimBow should move him for talent to fill some of the holes that remain on the roster. Some team will look at Chad's gaudy save totals - probably helped because the Nats Without Bats play so many tight, low-scoring games - and be seduced into believing he could be the closer who could help win a division. The only home parks I would trust him to close in have BIG OUTFIELDS - Shea, Petco, San Fran, Comerica, Arizona. Rauch could close and he wouldn't scare the hell out the fans every night.

Anybody else find it interesting that he only signed a 1-year deal? I mean if Jim and Stan were serious about keeping him around (especially due to his young age) they would've gone after something a little longer. This does nothing but only strengthens the notion that he is prime trade-bait at the deadline again. I'm kinda on the Keep Chad/Trade Chad debate, but this is a fairly objective observation...right?

Whoops, from above: "kinda on the FENCE" of that keep/trade debate

Wasy...Yeah, I'm street. The only problem is my streets a cul-de-sac.

Some days I love Chief. Some days I love the Wookiee. I think the power that be were hoping to have one gone but....

Hey, look a bunny...

Maybe Stan Da Plan and JimBow want to see how The Chief pitches in the new park before committing to more years. It's a given that the Nats Park fences won't be as pitcher-friendly than those at RFK National Park. Methinks some of those long fly outs Chad got at RFK may end up as souvenirs down by the waterfront.

you know it could be that the chief didn't want to sign a long term deal, knowing that he'll be a FA after 09, and the best they could have done was a 2 yr anyway.

still, it takes two to tango and we don't know if the numbers cordero wanted for 2 yrs ended up being something they didn't want to pay, considering they still had 1 yr of arbitration left.

It's not unusual to keep signing arbitration-eligible guys to one-year deals while you still control them, so I'm not sure too much should be read into this one-year contract (the time to lock him up would be when he becomes eligible to be a free agent). With that said, I am sure that Jimbo will continue listening to offers for Cordero (or any other bullpen asset, for that matter). I'm in the keep Chad camp on the grounds that (i) he's still only 25; (ii) most (but not all) of his Cardiac Chad appearances came in April and May last year when he was dealing with his grandma; and (iii) he's our very own chest-thumping WASY (meaning that unless you have Trevor Hoffman or Mariano Rivera you have your own version of a WASY).

To answer an above query: Among NL closers, only Hoffman (146) had more than Cordero's 133 save opportunities from 2005-07.

There was no incentive to signing Cordero to a contract of longer than a year. If you do, it reduces his trade value, because the reason you'd trade for Cordero in the first place is to make a run THIS YEAR.

Closers don't have a long shelf life, generally, and what looks like a good deal today might not be so hot next February. The Nats don't lose control of him at the end of the season, and if he's that good that he deserves a big bump in arbitration next year, well, that's cool, because we'll need a top shelf closer next year.

"This does nothing but only strengthens the notion that he is prime trade-bait at the deadline again. I'm kinda on the Keep Chad/Trade Chad debate, but this is a fairly objective observation...right?"

I'd have to agree. Particularly since the Nats have other pitchers in the organization -- e.g., Rauch, Schroder, Everts -- whom they might be able to build into closers if the need arose. (IMO Schroder should be the next Goose Gossage, but I'll not hold my breath waiting for that day.)

Nooooooooo!!

Groan. I'm definitely in the ulcer camp. It's flaring up as I type.

Barry - the Chad signing, which will prompt all of us to try to dig up our recurring analyses and statements of love for / indigestion caused by him, leads me to a suggestion. Is there some way to index or save good threads on this blog? There ought to be one on which we can handily grab good analyses of his performance. Perhaps an index by player or repeat topic (e.g., are the Lerners underspending? WaPo coverage; ribs; poetry). Perhaps WaPo.com has an intern who can do it.

As for the signing, the money is about what Barry guesstimated a few days ago, so it probably wasn't worth the arbitration prep and the hard feelings these cases bring out.

I'm in the trade Chad to a big ballpark before he loses value, based on my suspicion that he'll be no better than his road stats and those (K/9, Ground ball / Fly ball, WHIP) have either deteriorated over the past two years or are significantly worse than RFK. Even if he performs well here, we are talking about a BJ Ryan type or better contract after '09 when the Nats are contenders, and I think we would be able to find good options to replace him. Petco, Safeco, AT&T, Comerica are good destinations.

I think Bob L. Head's comment in the last thread went over my head. What did he mean by "all-Peacock" battery??

A one year deal smells of trade bait come July

NatsNut, he meant that a pitcher named Brad Peacock could foreseeably be pitching to a catcher named Brian Peacock, as players by those names are both invited to the super-duper accelerated minor league camp.

Also, think about this... if wanting to distinguish between the two players on their uniforms, the team could not use:
Peacock, B. Peacock, or Br. Peacock, but instead would have to go with Bra. Peacock and Bri. Peacock, in which case they might as well just spell Brad out on the back of the pitcher's jersey (same number of characters as the period).

On another note, I also agree that Schroder strikes me as the pitcher I'd most like to see more of at this point, Hendo. The looks we've had to this point have been tantalizing, in my opinion.

The Nationals agreed to terms Friday on one-year contracts with eight other players, including outfielder Lastings Milledge, acquired in the trade that sent catcher Brian Schneider and outfielder Ryan Church to the New York Mets. Milledge received a split contract that would pay him $402,500 if he's in the majors and $145,075 in the minors. Others agreeing to 2008 deals: left-handers Ross Detwiler, the team's top pick in June's amateur draft, and John Lannan, who made his big league debut last season; right-handers Garrett Mock and Chris Schroder; infielder Kory Casto; and first basemen Josh Whitesell and Matt Whitney.

80% save rate is pretty good i think but I have no problem trading him or letting him walk after another year. i'm more worried about milledge and wily mo proving they belong full-time.

lot of guys on this team have short contracts. i wonder if this team's priorities are looking for trades or compensation or extensions...i think there is gonna be a lot of turnover for another couple years.

Wow... we got Milledge at bargain-basement pricing. That certainly helps to take any remaining pain away from the trade. I'm looking forward to seeing how that freed-up cash gets reinvested in the team. Certainly the signing of the Chief as a closer of some accomplishment and/or trade piece down the road is a start, but I'm sure there's more to come.

Here's to our own Hanging Chad and his hanging sliders. Where's my Maalox???

longterm, i don't really think there are all that many "proven" players on the roster who really need long-term contracts. all of the ones who probably do are still arbitration eligible or are already signed for a couple of years. at least i can't think of any that aren't.

New post.

not sure who we could get for the six mil that projects better than chad (since all pitcher signings are projections, and more than half of them are wrong)...

Yeah!! (Wrings hands)! Nice blog you have here. I've enjoyed much reading your last posts. Keep it that way.

I'm supporting this idea all the way! I can not imagine who would disagree with it. On the whole - make posts like this more often.