What's new

Chad Cordero?

sgleason02

Muckdog
Joined
Mar 7, 2006
Messages
660
Reaction score
0
I've seen some threads on here about us considering a trade with the Nationals for outfield help, but why not for Chad Cordero? Rumor had it within the past month, that he was being considered in a trade to the Red Sox. Obviously, the Nats are in DESPERATE need of pitching, and are willing to deal him. The ace of their staff for next season only started 8 games for them last season. Look at the projections for the candidates to fill out the other four spots in their rotation:



Pitcher PECOTA ERA PERA
Chico 5.21 5.84
Hanrahan 5.42 6.36
Hill 4.66 5.05
Lewis N/A N/A
O'Connor 4.94 5.48
Perez 5.32 6.14
Redding 5.29 5.61
Simontacchi N/A N/A
Traber 4.61 5.02
Williams 5.74 5.77


I found these PECOTA projections at federalbaseball.com (a Nats blog).
 

sgleason02

Muckdog
Joined
Mar 7, 2006
Messages
660
Reaction score
0
I realize he's been an All-Star, but since when can beggars become choosers? Now is the time to be trading for Cordero, while they are in so much need for starting pitching. This is when they'll be asking for the least in return.

Besides, I can remember a series we had against the Drays last season, and it makes me cringe. Our mediocre CF and middle relievers had us in position to win a few of those games. It was the lack of a shutdown closer that blew those games for us.

Here is a prime opportunity to get a high-energy, young pitcher, who's already developed a nice track record.

Plus, do you really think the Nationals are going to pay Cordero to sit in the pen and fill out crossword puzzles and sudokus for all of next season? Because that's exactly what they're going to be doing if they throw five guys into their starting rotation who post ERA's of 5.00. He's never going to get the ball!
 
Joined
Aug 19, 2006
Messages
1,480
Reaction score
0
It's been discussed, but the Nats will not deal someone they value that much within the division. If they wanted cheap pitching from us they could've got it for Soriano last year, but they weren't even willing to give us the ? year rental even though they couldn't sign him. The only reason I have to believe they might be more willing to trade someone like Ryan Church within the division is that the seem to not really value him, very much unlike Soriano and, of course, Cordero.
 

The_Punisher

Muckdog
Joined
Dec 7, 2003
Messages
4,455
Reaction score
1
They won't trade with us and if they do it'll be to rip us in half.
 

sgleason02

Muckdog
Joined
Mar 7, 2006
Messages
660
Reaction score
0
But don't you think there comes a time when an organization has to swallow some pride, and come to the realization that they have to go ahead and make that deal for the best interest of the organization? How much bad baseball will they have to play before they lose that newly-energized dc crowd base, and they turn back into the montreal expos? Those Nationals fans have been pretty loyal and patient so far. But how long will they stay like that?
 

The_Punisher

Muckdog
Joined
Dec 7, 2003
Messages
4,455
Reaction score
1
LISTEN. Maybe the Nationals would do it at this point, but we WON'T, we are better than them, we are happy that they suck, we don't want to help them, we want to help ourselves but from without not from within, we find an arm without helping them and we are that MUCH better, get it?
 

sgleason02

Muckdog
Joined
Mar 7, 2006
Messages
660
Reaction score
0
So let me get this straight. We had zero luck finding a quality closer on the free agent market. Or at least we have so far. You're saying that we shouldn't trade with the Nationals to better ourselves because it would make them better? Where then, may I ask, should we find this closer? If we don't trade with teams that are worse than us, and we don't find a closer via free agency, the only remaining possibilities are to:

A) trade with a team better than us, and make THEM better

or

B) find our closer from within

Last time I checked, we didn't have an All-Star closer within our organization.

It seems like it keeps coming up on this message board with almost every potential deal, that we have shied away from the idea of trading for upper tier athletes, because we think they're going to cost too much in return. We can't ALWAYS expect to be on the winning side of a trade. Sometimes it's alright to make an even trade, where both sides get equal talent. I'm not saying we should just give talent away for free, but look at what we're getting in return! This is actually some proven talent with an upside, not a cheap pick-me-up who we hope pans out. Sometimes it's OK to let go. This is one of those times!
 

sgleason02

Muckdog
Joined
Mar 7, 2006
Messages
660
Reaction score
0
Wrong! Here are the facts: The Marlins were third in the major leagues in the Most Blown Saves department with 27. The major league AVERAGE was 21! That means six more wins and six more losses, gives us an 84-78 record, third best in the NL East, with an MLB AVERAGE closer. The next fact I'm about to present is that the 8 All-Star closers last year averaged 5 blown saves per season last season. FIVE!!! If our team only blew 5 saves instead of 27, that would potentially have given us 22 more wins. However, I DO acknowledge that the closer does not get ALL save opportunities. Last year, Joe Borowski got 63% of our save opportunities. That would calculate out to approximately 14 wins of the possible 22. 14 more wins, and 14 less losses, would have given us a record of 92-70, equalling a .568 win %. That would give us the 2nd best record in the National League, and the 5th best record in all of baseball. Not only that, but it would have secured us a playoff spot. WE NEED AN ALL-STAR CLOSER!!
 
Joined
Jan 28, 2005
Messages
3,623
Reaction score
0
Wrong! Here are the facts: The Marlins were third in the major leagues in the Most Blown Saves department with 27. The major league AVERAGE was 21! That means six more wins and six more losses, gives us an 84-78 record, third best in the NL East, with an MLB AVERAGE closer. The next fact I'm about to present is that the 8 All-Star closers last year averaged 5 blown saves per season last season. FIVE!!! If our team only blew 5 saves instead of 27, that would potentially have given us 22 more wins. However, I DO acknowledge that the closer does not get ALL save opportunities. Last year, Joe Borowski got 63% of our save opportunities. That would calculate out to approximately 14 wins of the possible 22. 14 more wins, and 14 less losses, would have given us a record of 92-70, equalling a .568 win %. That would give us the 2nd best record in the National League, and the 5th best record in all of baseball. Not only that, but it would have secured us a playoff spot. WE NEED AN ALL-STAR CLOSER!!

Yeah... the Marlins had 27 blown saves... of which... our closer only had 7.... seven blown saves from a Joe Borowski isn't a big deal in the scheme of things, especially considering, according to your numbers, that the best of the best only blew 5... the fact is, like others are saying. Another point, Joe Borowski converted 83% of his save opportunities... for the record, because I can't get over those numbers... Borowski was 36/43 in save opportunities, hardly 27 blown saves.
Our middle relief corps needs far outweigh our need for a lights out superstar closer... surely if we were absolutely pressed, Taylor Tankersly could probably provide us with a solid 70 innings of closing.... A CFer could possibly provide us that extra run or so a week and that solid middle reliever might stop a few runs over that same span... personally, I'd rather have a Scot Shields at this point, then to get a Chad Cordero... but we aren't getting him either.... Also... if I'm not mistaken... Cordero is going to be up for a pay raise in the near future and we all know how the marlins handle pay raises... so, I'm really not going to be able to rationalize giving a division rival young, talented pitching that they could hold onto long enough to turn into potential aces...
I'm not trying to come across as in your face or anything at all like that.... but to say that Joe Borowski was the end-all and be-all of our bullpen woes is entirely wrong. Look back at those highlights, I seem to recall a different pitcher giving up the runs every night. All things considered, we actually overachieved to compensate for those bullpen problems IMO.
 

Marlin Nation

Muckdog
Joined
Feb 18, 2005
Messages
1,293
Reaction score
0
It seems like every thread is basically a huge fight. Heated discoure is one thing but y'all are at each other's throats over our 4th OF or the Ricky Nolasco's ceiling. Sad to see so mcuh acrimony in the one cubby hole for serious Marlin fans.
 

Out of the Past

Muckdog
Joined
Jun 8, 2006
Messages
3,416
Reaction score
0
Some '06 Season Numbers:

NL Average:
Saves - 38.6
Blown Saves - 21.8
Saves Opportunities - 60.4
Saves Percentage - 64%

Marlins:
Saves - 41
Blown Saves - 27
Saves Opportunities - 68
Saves Percentage - 60%

With a league average bullpen (converting 64% of the saves opportunities) we would have ended up with 43.5 saves and 24.5 blown saves. Assuming that all blown saves end up in a loss (not necessarily the case, BTW) then with a league average bullpen we would have ended up with about 2.5 additional wins. The "bullpen is to blame for everything" gang chooses to forget that every team blows saves.

I think the '07 bullpen projects to be worse than the '06 bullpen. We need to add 2 or 3 experienced and reliable bullpen arms. At this point the bullpen is a bigger hole than CF.
 

sgleason02

Muckdog
Joined
Mar 7, 2006
Messages
660
Reaction score
0
HAHA! On a side note, all of my All-Star closer math in my last post came late last night when I came stumbling in with a few adult bevvys in my system. The math made sense to me last night at that time!! :whistle

Last few notes on this thread. I didn't mean to ruffle any feathers, was just trying to open up some discussion. In my opinion, Cordero just makes sense for us being that he's still young, and already has a legitimate track record. This could be a long-term fix, rather than having to search for a new closer every offseason. Even if we gave up one of our starting five plus a prospect or two, I don't think we would be over-paying. When this team was gutted and rebuilt, we took on a surplus of quality pitching, as everyone knows. Unless management plans on fielding a 10-man starting rotation in the next few years, I'm sure they will trade some of them away to fix holes. Here is a hole, and a legitimate fix. We have the quality pitching to receive quality in return. Let's make a move to show that we want to make a strong push at the playoffs!
 

Shamrock

Muckdog
Joined
Sep 15, 2002
Messages
8,248
Reaction score
0
It seems like every thread is basically a huge fight. Heated discoure is one thing but y'all are at each other's throats over our 4th OF or the Ricky Nolasco's ceiling. Sad to see so mcuh acrimony in the one cubby hole for serious Marlin fans.
isnt it fun though?
 

sgleason02

Muckdog
Joined
Mar 7, 2006
Messages
660
Reaction score
0
It's just comforting handing the ball over to someone with more than 5 career saves when the game's on the line. Plus, no one has any way of telling what mental affect it would have on the rest of the pitching staff knowing there was a lights out closer waiting to take the ball from them. I remember last season, there was a bit of concern that Dontrelle was out there pitching like he had to win the game for us. Maybe an All-Star closer would take some of that type of pressure off of him. Just speculation.
 

Shamrock

Muckdog
Joined
Sep 15, 2002
Messages
8,248
Reaction score
0
It seems like every thread is basically a huge fight. Heated discoure is one thing but y'all are at each other's throats over our 4th OF or the Ricky Nolasco's ceiling. Sad to see so mcuh acrimony in the one cubby hole for serious Marlin fans.
isnt it fun though?
I'm more upset with the "I HAVE THE BEST IDEA EVER" threads.
the extreme homers and "omg, the wigglies in my tummy" get me the most. Performance, tools, and case studies be damned I JUST KNOW IT!
 

sgleason02

Muckdog
Joined
Mar 7, 2006
Messages
660
Reaction score
0
So the fact that they were leaving the seventh inning with 2 men on and no outs by handing the ball to Matt Herges had no effect on them?


Sure, it is in everyone's best interests to have a guy in the ninth to get outs, but it doesn't take much. And by no means does it need to be some costly pitcher from outside of the organization.

To the Herges statement: I'm not following you here. Did you mean that our starting pitchers should have been comforted by this, or are you meaning that they shouldn't have been comforted by this, and that finding quality arms for 7th and 8th innings should be prioritized over a closer?

To the second statement: It seems you keep looking at this from a cost of investment perspective, while I keep looking at it from a return on investment perspective. In my opinion, he's NOT costly "if" he continues to perform the way that he has so far in his career. He would "earn his keep" so to speak. As of right now, that "if" would be a safer bet than "if" we could find a closer from within.
 
Joined
Jan 28, 2005
Messages
3,623
Reaction score
0
I agree... that is why I mentioned a Scot Shields type... maybe not a prototypical guy... but a solid relief pitcher that could pitch the 6th, 7th and 8th innings... Like I said, I wasn't trying to go for the throat here... but I'd prefer middle relief arms over closer arms... I think that in recent history John Smoltz, Eric Gagne and Jon Papelbon have proven that moving from starter to closer can be a very successful move indeed... and with our logjam of pitching talent this may be the route to go... and as for fuzzy math late at night... yeah, I've done that too ;)
 

Top Bottom