Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity
On Twitter: AdamKilgoreWP and PostSports  |  Facebook  |  E-mail alerts: Sports and Redskins  |  RSS

Redding Signs With Mets

Sorry this didn't get posted Friday; it happened after I'd left. We've normally let NJ cool off over the weekends, but I expect the weekend posting to pick up as we continue to alter the way we do things. So you all know this, but I thought I'd throw it up here in case anyone wanted to bid farewell to Mr. Redding:

From the Associated Press:

The New York Mets moved to add a pitcher while still negotiating with higher-profile free agents, reaching a preliminary agreement with Tim Redding on a $2.25 million, one-year contract.
Redding's deal is subject to him passing a physical, a person familiar with the negotiations said Friday, speaking on condition of anonymity because no announcement had been made. Redding would be able to earn about $750,000 more in performance bonuses.
A right-hander who was born in Rochester and turns 31 next month, Redding was 10-11 with a 4.95 ERA last season for the Washington Nationals -- the only 10-game winner on the team. He allowed 27 homers in 182 innings.
Redding had a $1 million base salary last year and earned $125,000 in performance bonuses. Washington failed to offer him a contract by the Dec. 12 deadline, allowing him to become a free agent rather than make him eligible for salary arbitration.

By Tracee Hamilton  |  January 10, 2009; 2:53 PM ET
 
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Nats Lead NL East?
Next: Kasten to Syracuse

Comments

Good move for the Mets and for Redding. With the new bullpen, he'll have the support he needs.

I was sad to see him go, but given the arbitration rules, there's no way we could have kept him and payed him a salary that made sense.

Posted by: Section506 | January 10, 2009 3:15 PM | Report abuse

I'd hoped he would have landed with a team outside the NL East, but that is not to be. Best of luck to Tim in the future (except against the Nationals).

Posted by: BinM | January 10, 2009 3:23 PM | Report abuse

Redding fades after 6 but with proper bullpen support he could be a great signing for them. Hopefully the Mets pen will continue its recent trend of imploding, leaving Redding with multiple no decisions. Would have liked to have him back here but with our pen I would see a similar year next year that he had this year.

Posted by: SCNatsFan | January 10, 2009 3:27 PM | Report abuse

Okay, I'm sure this will work out for the Mets.

But last night I had a revelation.
The Nationals should trade the #1 pick and whatever else it takes to get Prince Fielder. That's like the prototype Jim Bowden player. He plays first base, and you know he's going to hit home runs for a long time and something like 270. Just get him eating steaks again and we're golden.

Posted by: Bohemians1905 | January 10, 2009 3:36 PM | Report abuse

no trading draft picks in baseball. also, a drafted player cannot be traded for a year after he signs (I think). Detwiler could be traded but Hood can't.

Posted by: jca-CrystalCity | January 10, 2009 3:41 PM | Report abuse

Right, jca

Posted by: Section506 | January 10, 2009 3:42 PM | Report abuse

I didn't know that. I feel like a moron. Alright, but let's make that trade.

Posted by: Bohemians1905 | January 10, 2009 3:48 PM | Report abuse

Redding is a cheap signing for the Mets. Well worth the $3 million if he hits his incentives. Hard to think a .500 pitcher with a 5 ERA would have gotten much more from an arbitrator 1st year in arbitration, but I have not pulled the figures. The Nats I hope knew better than me and thought he'd get a much higher number.

Posted by: jca-CrystalCity | January 10, 2009 3:49 PM | Report abuse

So now we (according to Ladson...which probably means not at all) are looking at acquiring not just Swisher, but Nady as well from the Yanks.

If you don't read the article, basically Swish gets 1B and Nady takes RF, while Dukes competes with Milledge for CF. No where is Kearns, or his fate, mentioned.

http://washington.nationals.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20090110&content_id=3739097&vkey=news_was&fext=.jsp&c_id=was

Posted by: NattyDelite | January 10, 2009 3:56 PM | Report abuse

Apparently we are going after Swisher and Nady

http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2009/01/nationals-showi.html

I think Nady would be a good choice at first base. Either work fine, although I was hoping that any addition to the outfield would make it considerably faster. I don't think this achieves that.

Posted by: soundbloke | January 10, 2009 3:58 PM | Report abuse

@SCNF:
Agreed, Redding is a #4-5SP at best, good for 6 IP more or less per start; that's part of why the Nationals let him go.

With the Mets, he's more of the same, just with better Runs Scored support - If he makes the starting rotation, he could be a 15+ game-winner.

Posted by: BinM | January 10, 2009 4:10 PM | Report abuse

jca - Redding (based on years served & last 2-years stats), might have cost between $2.6M - $3.4M. Probably a little pricey for a #4-5 projected SP on the Nationals for 2009.

Posted by: BinM | January 10, 2009 4:14 PM | Report abuse

Had the Nats kept Redding, I would have liked to see his role change from bullpen killer to bullpen saver. By that, I would have shifted him to long relief to save the other arms in the 'pen by pitching, say, three innings twice a week to give the other arms a blow when starters got knocked out early.

Posted by: leetee1955 | January 10, 2009 4:16 PM | Report abuse

@NattyD, sound:
Haven't read the post, but it might just be Ladson chasing ear-worms. Unless the NYY were willing to take an OF or two in exchange from us, what good would come of that?

Posted by: BinM | January 10, 2009 4:19 PM | Report abuse

Funny you should say that because all the posts couldn't find a trade that works. Milledge may go the other way, in which case they would be robbing us.

Redding would have been great to have around if he could lat another inning a game. A durable back end starter who can give your pen a day off has a lot of value, less so a guy who only goes 6 innings.

I'll miss him though.

Posted by: soundbloke | January 10, 2009 4:25 PM | Report abuse

Thanks, Tracee, for the weekend feeding.

Would also like to have seen Redding back here but wish him well (except when he faces us, natch).

Posted by: natsfan1a1 | January 10, 2009 4:30 PM | Report abuse

@leetee:

Redding isn't bullpen material. He still has a SP mentality of 'go hard every 5 or so days, hope for the best, and leave it to the bullpen'; That may never change. Bergmann is probably better suited for the role you suggest.

I might miss Redding from time to time in 2009, but hope he's in a better place going forward.

Posted by: BinM | January 10, 2009 4:34 PM | Report abuse

@sound:

If the Nationals surrender Milledge to the NYY for either Swisher or Nady, they get robbed. If they were to get both of them for just Milledge - still a problem in my eyes (two older OF's for one young OF).

If the Nationals could drop two (or more) OF's from the following list (Bernadina, Casto, Davis, Kearns, Maxwell, Pena, Willingham) on the NYY for either player, I'd be happy.

Posted by: BinM | January 10, 2009 4:58 PM | Report abuse

Hmmm,

I'd rather not give up Maxwell or Bernardina as they are young, and I can't imagine their value would be high because they are coming off injury and strike out too much respectively.

As to the rest, why would the Yankee's want one of those guys? No, this trade either won't happen or it will make someone really really unhappy. Given the track record of the two GM's, you'd have to suspect it would be us.

Posted by: soundbloke | January 10, 2009 5:10 PM | Report abuse

Sorry, add Davis the 'sad to see young guy go'. Willigham maybe get's something.

Posted by: soundbloke | January 10, 2009 5:12 PM | Report abuse

Attaboy, Tim. Get paid.

Posted by: JohninMpls | January 10, 2009 6:00 PM | Report abuse

Redding signing with Mets for $2.25 million shows what a doofus Bowden is. He was our 2nd best starter last year and we're too cheap to spend $2.5 million to keep him while we waste $2.6 million on Cabrera. This front office is a travesty.
Bowden must work cheap because they can't be keeping him for his brains.

Posted by: jeb3 | January 10, 2009 6:12 PM | Report abuse

I also wish Tim Redding well on his new team,and will cheer for him when his name is announced as the opposing pitcher, even if I cheer against his performing well against us. With one exception, I feel warm and fuzzy about all the former Nats and wish them well for their baseball careers.

Posted by: Traveler8 | January 10, 2009 6:14 PM | Report abuse

@sound:
After looking at the offensive statistics, the trade list to the NYY drops to an OF reserve (Bernadina, Davis, Maxwell, Pena) & a below-A prospect for Swisher (bad trade for WAS), or a multi-player as I've suggested previously for both Nagy & Swisher.

Posted by: BinM | January 10, 2009 6:39 PM | Report abuse

Not really in favor of trading for Nady, especially if they have to give up a lot. Considering he is free-agent to be, I would think the price would be dropped somewhat. One of the pluses about Swisher is that he can play both 1B and I believe all (or at least has played, that does not say whether he is effective at all) each OF position.

That said, an OF of Dukes, Milledge and Willingham would be fine by me. If anything, trade Willingham, as I really think Milledge can be a good player in time.

Anyone just think that the Nats are using Ladson to help negotiate with Dunn?...make it seem like he wants too much, and now that they have alternatives?

Posted by: jfromPG | January 10, 2009 6:57 PM | Report abuse

Traveler, who's the exception? Lopez? LoDuca?

Posted by: NatsNut | January 10, 2009 8:22 PM | Report abuse

Exception is Lopez, for whom I will give a disapproving murmur. I think LoDuca was a big mistake for the Nats and he had a really lousy year, but I think he was as concerned about his performance as anyone, and never blamed it on anyone or anything else. He was also sporting about being sent out to play left field, also first base.

Posted by: Traveler8 | January 10, 2009 8:41 PM | Report abuse

Simple trade for the NYY. Dump excess players to get young prospects (pitchers).

Posted by: ecmdfan | January 10, 2009 9:28 PM | Report abuse

I agree with jfrompg... a little misdirection and razzle dazzle from JB to lower the cost on Dunn etc.

Posted by: 1of9000 | January 10, 2009 9:40 PM | Report abuse

Nady has a little 1B experience -- not a lot, and as much as Swisher -- but he could play there. Nady had the 4th best range factor in the majors among starting right fielders last year. Nady and Swisher both had good range factors in left. Swisher hits from both sides, but Nady hits both righties and lefties better than Swisher. Swisher strikes out alot.

Newsday says the Yankees prefer to keep Swisher because of contracts and the fact that he can be a good leader. Talent wise though it seems to me Nady is the better player.

Looking at the Yankee roster it seems like they would want a reliever or two in any package for either player. I don't know what it wold take, but Rivera, Hanrahan, Mock, and Hinckley all seem like likely targets. If Hanrahan would do it, I would certainly be willing to see the Nats make a deal like that . I know he's our closer at the moment, but you have to score some runs before you can save a game.

Posted by: natbisquit | January 10, 2009 9:48 PM | Report abuse

hard for me to see a good match between the nats and yankees. probably just blowing smoke.

is redding even going to start for the mets? the mets make dumb moves all the time. i can't give them the benefit of the doubt on this one.

bowden has been right about patterson, livan, loaiza...i have to think that he's right about redding also. time to move on. just a shame we can't anything in return for these guys. but i think the market was set for redding at tavares. so thats a good non-trade.

Posted by: longterm | January 11, 2009 9:34 AM | Report abuse

There is a report out that atlanta is an EMERGING destination for adam dunn. This makes me sick.

Posted by: Baseball95der26 | January 11, 2009 12:16 PM | Report abuse

I'd rather have Cabrera, and his age and potential, than Redding who has reached his ceiling. I wish Tim well, but I think the club did the right thing.

I'm nervous about getting both Nady and Swisher because of what we'd have to give up. There are only a few major-league ready players that have trade value - like Milledge and Lannan - and I think we should hang on to them. Nady seems to be the better player, but is right-handed. Swisher is younger and maybe a bit more versatile, but has a much lower average so I'd rather have Nady.

But maybe this is just a ploy to get Dunn to lower his demands. I'm not big fan of Dunn's, but we would not have to give up anything but money to get him. If it were straight up, I'd rather have Nady though, because he's a better contact hitter.

Rosenthal has an article up defending Andre Dawson's lack of OPS because he was a middle of the order guy. A point he makes is that Dawson's job as a cleanup hitter was to drive in runs by swinging away instead of taking close pitches trying to get on base. I feel the fundamental flaw with Dunn is that he's too concerned about getting on base, instead of driving in runs. I know he still drives in around 100 a year, but with his power, it should be more. With a young team like the Nats, they will need to scrap for every run, which means I'd rather see them get someone who puts the bat on the ball - ie, high SLG and AVG - instead of high OPS for the cleanup role.

I guess I'd rather have Dunn than nothing, or even instead of Nady if we have to give up too much, but AD is only a stop-gap. If we can get just Nady with a reliever (and maybe Maxwell or Bernadina), I'm all for that. Hanrahan's got a great arm and I think he'll do better this year, but I'd rather have an every day player. Plus, Nady can play the field which is an important advantage over Dunn.

Milledge in LF, Dukes in CF, and Nady in RF is a better than average defensive outfield and then Willingham and NJ handle 1B. Still not much for left-handed hitting though, especially if/when Nick goes down. But if Nick goes to NYY and Swisher comes back, maybe that works. But if Milledge is included, it would be terrible for us.

Posted by: sec307 | January 11, 2009 12:26 PM | Report abuse

RZimm, Lannan, Milledge & maybe Dukes are the kind of young 'core' players you'd like to see a franchise built around. For the Nationals' FO to surrender any of them in a trade would seem foolhardy at this point.

I'd like to see the team land a reliable LH bat for the middle of the lineup, but not if they have to surrender one of the forementioned players - that would just be treading water, imo.

Posted by: BinM | January 11, 2009 1:07 PM | Report abuse

I think the market price for Swisher was set when the White Sox sent him to the Yankees for Wilson Betemit and Johnny Nunez. That was not a steep price and there is no way that translates into Milledge now. Nunez was acquired by the Yankees for Gonzalez last summer. Nady was a little more expensive last summer as the Yankees gave up four prospects for Nady and Marte. Those prospects included Tabata, Karstens and Ohlendorf. Marte was a big part of that trade so I would think that the price now would be much less.

I would think that Hanrahan, Maxwell, and Belliard plus another C+ prospect (Estrada?) would be enough to get both Nady and Swisher. It seems to me that Belliard would be a very attractive cog in the Yankees machine. Insurance behind Cano who goes into prolonged slumps, multi-position versatility and pinch hitting skills as well as proferssionalism and willingness to be a back-up.

Of course I'm just killing time, not actually responsible for running a major league team....

Posted by: natbisquit | January 11, 2009 1:24 PM | Report abuse

Isn't that the Plan--tread water until the organization is built up enough to be competitive? To be sure, they swallowed a lot of water last year, but they aren't trying to be competitive now, probably not even 2010. They're waiting for the Neixt Teixeira.
"Zimm, Lannan, Milledge, and maybe Dukes" may all be major league starters on a good team now or someday soon, but it's not a core without a genuine franchise player, which none of those guys is.

Posted by: CEvansJr | January 11, 2009 1:33 PM | Report abuse

@bisquit:
Substitute Rivera for Hanrahan, and maybe throw in another OF prospect (Baez-AA?) or Kearns and that becomes a solid deal for both teams.

The NYY would get two relievers (Rivera & Estrada), a relatively young OF (Maxwell), two 1-year rentals (Belliard & Kearns) or a 1-yr rental & another young OF (Belliard & Baez). The Nationals would get a versitile switch-hitter (Swisher) and a 1-yr OF rental (Nagy) with gap power.

The downside would be losing Belliard - that would force the Nationals to either go with Hernandez & Harris at 2B, or seek out another MI.

Posted by: BinM | January 11, 2009 2:09 PM | Report abuse

@CEJr:
IMO, one of the keys to building a franchise is to annually identify 10-12 players that the FO & field Mgmt. wants to keep - that's your 'core'. At the ML-level, that's the four players I mentioned; in the minors, JZimm, VanAllen, Lowrance, Daniel, Norris, Rooney or others may be part of that as well.

Some of the names may change from year-to-year, but you try to get better each year without disturbing the core significantly.

Posted by: BinM | January 11, 2009 2:26 PM | Report abuse

BTW, new post.

Posted by: BinM | January 11, 2009 3:28 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company