Belliard Re-Signs

Svrluga reports that the Nats have signed Ron Belliard to a two-year contract. No terms yet.

Interesting... It'll depend on how much the cash outlay is, but this is an interesting move. I like the guy, and he's played well, but 2B never age particularly well, and nobody looks at Belliard and thinks "athlete." (Of course, his larger size might be a reason why he could outlast the typical waif-like second basemen?)

Still, he's a solid player, and he's proven himself to be valuable, zipping all over the infield.

I wonder, though, what, if anything, this means about their upcoming decision on Felipe Lopez? The terms of the deal'll let us know.

I'll have more as we know more!

Barry updates and says it's a $3.5 million deal: $1.6 then $1.9.

Color me meh. It's not that Belliard's a terrible player. I'm just worried about him falling off the cliff. And since it was so 'easy' to find a player like him floating around before spring training -- and it seems like there's always a player like him who's squeezed out by numbers -- might this money have been better spent elsewhere? (Especially since Bowden's strength is supposedly the ability to pick up players like him)

It's not that it's a bad deal for a player like Belliard. He'll give $3.5 million of production in one year of starting alone. It's just that if he's a backup, and given the Nats needs at other positions, maybe there was a better way than spending it on a utility infielder? SIGN MCGEARY AND SMOKER1!!!!1!!

More thoughts as I think 'em and waffle...

The major-league minimum salary is climbing. I can't remember the rise, but it's going to be about $500K fairly soon. If you factor that in to the Belliard equation, it's not a terrible deal, if you assume he can keep up his production.

Reaction from the peanut gallery at Baseball Primer. I don't think that Sparkles likes it!

Federal Baseball rises from the dead like a zombie or a deity or something. I like this part:

I cannot decide whether Belliard's signing says more about the malleability of the organizational plan (hereinafter, of course, "The Plan") or says nothing about The Plan, or whether the two are functionally the same thing when discussing The Plan. Is it overly cynical to postulate that just about every transaction, statement, manuever, or movement will be construed by some as not only in light of The Plan, but also in furtherance thereof? Hell, I swear Stan Kasten could announce tomorrow that he's going out for the role of the King of Siam in a community production held at the local middle school and a sizable contingent would note he's doing so as a calculated measure to gain in-roads in terms of Far East talent accumulation. Does signing Belliard to a two-year contract extension say anything at all about team-building? Must it?

Won't someone think of his tongue?