Monday, July 23, 2007

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?

  • 9 Comments:

    • Felipe decisions would be more interesting if Guz would stop impersonating my Grandmother and be hurt all the time. At this point Lopez may have to be the starting SS next year, so Belliard would be a good back-up.

      Orrrrrr, Bowden realizes that no one wants to rent an aging non-superstar for 2 months and this provides more "value" in RonnieB.

      By Anonymous Anonymous, at 7/23/2007 7:56 PM  

    • Might this make him more tradable? He's not a rent-a-player any more. Now the acquiring team has cost certainty for a couple of years.

      By Anonymous Anonymous, at 7/23/2007 10:55 PM  

    • Is it just to silly to think they like him and believe that he could be a piece of the puzzle (all be it not a lifer decision like Zimm)?

      Eventually, they do have to start making the turn towards having a winning team. Now might be a good time to start actually putting players on the field, by keeping the few good ones we have.

      By Blogger Ray Firsching, at 7/24/2007 10:27 AM  

    • Definitely. He's been a good citizen and willing to accept the role he's had. and there is value in having a sure thing.

      Other than one year, he's been consistent and a solid player. That's worth a few mill.

      By Blogger Chris Needham, at 7/24/2007 10:34 AM  

    • What's he like in the clubhouse? A good leader and all that crap? Don't really hear about that like you do with Young. (Probably more in the Skittles camp than the Wheatgrass camp though.)

      We have had good luck with finding bench players on TEH CHEEP, but the crop was thin this year. I was sweating this week seeing Jimenez and Batista put up in clutch situations. It gives us some instant depth next year (provided Guz is healthy) allowing Bowden to continue running his home for wayward batters with a little less risk this offseason.

      -mick

      By Anonymous Anonymous, at 7/24/2007 11:10 AM  

    • If the "plan" is to keep Belliard as a reserve, I like it. There really are not as many Belliard types as you would think and the Nats have D'Angelo Jimenez and Tony Batista to prove it.

      By Anonymous Anonymous, at 7/24/2007 11:57 AM  

    • You have to think the Nats lack of other viable middle infield options via their still depleted farm system is a factor in this deal.

      After all, who would have played second in Belliard's absence, Bernie Castro? Kory Casto? Fidel Castro?

      By Anonymous Anonymous, at 7/24/2007 11:58 AM  

    • At long last, the Nats have an above league average position player . . . and its a utility infielder!!!! I gots dibs on WS tix!!

      By Anonymous Anonymous, at 7/24/2007 3:12 PM  

    • Belliard is one of only two consistent hitters on the team, Dmitri being the other. He plays a decent second base too. Who cares whether this is consistent with The Plan. It is a decent move and the salary amounts to only pocket change for Grandpop Ted.

      By Anonymous Anonymous, at 7/24/2007 4:52 PM  

    Post a Comment

    << Home