Francisco Cordero Drawing Heavy Interest

At least seven teams have expressed interest in free agent right-hander Francisco Cordero, according to Jon Paul Morosi of FOX Sports. Cordero's agent Bean Stringfellow told's Mark Sheldon as much yesterday, but Morosi also names many of the clubs who have interest in Cordero: the Red Sox, Reds, Blue Jays, Marlins, Dodgers, Angels, and Mets.

Although Jonathan Papelbon is off the market, Cordero is one of many closers still available, along with Ryan Madson, Heath Bell, and Francisco Rodriguez, among others. The Reds declined their option on the 36-year-old Cordero at season's end, despite a successful 2011 campaign in which he posted a 2.45 ERA and reduced his BB/9 to 2.8.

43 Responses to Francisco Cordero Drawing Heavy Interest Leave a Reply

  1. triple_play_baseball 4 years ago

    Colletti interested in another bullpen arm that will most likely cost a multi year deal? Surprise, surprise.

    Please stop, Ned. Your job is almost done.

    • BlueSkyLA
      BlueSkyLA 4 years ago

      Give it up already. Five other teams were also mentioned.

      • triple_play_baseball 4 years ago

        Give what up? The fact that anytime the Dodgers go out for a veteran reliever, it seems to bite them back sooner or later? Granted, 5 others were mentioned, but their bullpen is capable. An arm to add to it would be nice, but signing a soon to be 37 year old reliever to a nice pay day shouldn’t be in the cards. They have other needs that need to be addressed.

        • BlueSkyLA
          BlueSkyLA 4 years ago

          Give up assuming that the Dodgers will always do the worst possible thing you can imagine. But I have to correct an error. Six other teams were mentioned to be interested in Cordero.

          • triple_play_baseball 4 years ago

            My original comment was simply based on previous experiences with veteran relievers. Not such a far-fetched assumption. I won’t be giving that up, along with a good amount of Dodger fans, until a new GM is in place.

          • BlueSkyLA
            BlueSkyLA 4 years ago

            So the Dodgers give one reliever a multiyear contract and now they have a history? Without even trying to figure out what’s wrong with signing relievers to multiyear contracts (nothing, as far as I can tell), the accuracy of the claim is also very questionable. To the subject, I can see why the Dodgers would be interested in Cordero. They’ve got two very good late-innings arms, but both are rookies. Adding a veteran to that mix is wise insurance. I’m not worried about his age. We know that relievers can often pitch effectively into their late 30s and even early 40s.

          • triple_play_baseball 4 years ago

            The acquisitions of Dotel, Guerrier, and Sherrill are all recent examples of why I personally don’t like the idea. I understand they all weren’t signed to multiple years, but aside from Sherrill’s half season in ’09, they weren’t all that beneficial. Cordero would  be nice at the right price, but his FIP and xFIP from last year have me worried.  The young guys out of the pen looked strong last season. If they fail, they’ll come at a cheaper price than say a guy like Cordero who is bound to regress. I’d rather go after a 5th starter. Eveland isn’t going to cut it and Eovaldi should be given more time before he steps into a full season starting gig. Cordero would be nice to have, but with the money given to Ellis and Rivera so far, I don’t see the price being team friendly. Again, I just would rather see the money going elsewhere than the bullpen at this point.

          • BlueSkyLA
            BlueSkyLA 4 years ago

            Dotel was like a muliti-day contract, and Sherrill was a trade under team control, so I don’t get what they are examples of that you don’t like. The only multiyear among them is Guerrier, and I don’t have any problem with that signing at all. He’s done pretty much what was expected of him, as a career innings-eating reliever. Works for me. If you question Eovaldi’s readiness to start, then you should do the same for the other two rookie pitchers to close. My guess is, management is doing just that given their apparent interest in Cordero.

            I don’t get into what players should be paid. I’m one of the people who don’t have any idea what they should be paid, but I suppose I’m also one of the few who admit it.

          • triple_play_baseball 4 years ago

            “I understand they all weren’t signed to multiple years”

            Regardless of the length of Dotel’s stay, we gave up something and ultimately got nothing in return. Sherrill was another “veteran arm” that ultimately hurt the ball club in more ways than one.  Guerrier being “a career inning-eating reliever,” was not worthy of a 3 year deal at the time, no reliever with that reputation is. His performance this past year was mediocre at best. His importance decreased as the season went on as he no longer was responsible for the 8th inning, Jansen was. Colletti’s infatuation with veteran bullpen arms have generally not done anything beneficial to the club. I question Eovaldi simply based on his control, a 5.2 BB/9 ratio, doesn’t really inspire confidence as a starting pitcher which is why I think he needs a little more time to develop. At the back end, Jansen and Guerra proved they should be more than capable of handling high leverage situations. 
            Even though this is simply based on “interest” in Cordero, it isn’t very exciting news to hear. I’m not expecting an impact bat, but if we can’t get that then let’s not overpay for a reliever instead. But at the end of the day I’m not upstairs doing the work, just an opinionated fan.

          • BlueSkyLA
            BlueSkyLA 4 years ago

            You overstate your case. Guerrier was a bit below career performance last year but I would not assume that this is a trend. He was trotted out every second or third day, which is the job of a middle reliever. I’m not sure where you get “Colletti’s infatuation with veteran bullpen arms.” You mean no other teams sign or trade for veteran relievers? Obviously not true, so pardon me if this sounds like more generic Colletti-bashing. Everybody knows after the fact when something doesn’t work out. This is not a bragging skill in my book. BTW, I have a modest suspicion that Colletti is aware of the rotation needs too and that interest in bulking out the relief staff does not preclude adding a starter.

          • triple_play_baseball 4 years ago

            You’re confusing other teams with the Dodgers. Other teams haven’t been in the financial situation that the Dodgers have been over the years. Meaning they haven’t needed to trade minor league pieces that at the time had arguably better value than what was received for them. Other teams that have acquired bullpen help also did it because they haven’t been financially handcuffed. I don’t have a problem with acquiring a reliever, but in the Dodgers case they aren’t in a situation where they can afford to get burned. This team has holes that need to be filled and with the amount of money that is reportedly available, 10MM or so if I remember correctly, they shouldn’t be focusing on veteran relief help at the current moment. Middle relievers are a dime a dozen and can be acquired mid-season if need be.

  2. Chris Hernandez 4 years ago

    OMG! Ned Colletti seriously needs to keep his hand out of these old Relievers. Remember Ovtavio Dotel? Yeah, GARBAGE!!!!!!!!! I can’t wait ’till Colletti is gone. That’s all I want for Christmas.

  3. FrankTheFunkasaurusRex 4 years ago

    Stay away, Blue Jays

  4. RMR 4 years ago

    Please, please, please somebody offer him something that the Reds can’t/won’t match.

  5. notsureifsrs 4 years ago

    his ERA, WHIP, and BAA all look good. analysis complete

    • He has hardly any wins though! Can’t forget that.

      • Pete 4 years ago

        Yeah, you should totally forget that stat exists. 

        *I know youre joking but some people that read this site arent.

  6. Phillies will sign him to a 7 year/77mil deal with a 14mil option for the 8th year. He wants to add to his “ring collection” too.

    • JPH_GSG 4 years ago

      Damn… I wanted to be the first to say Phillies.

      • Steven Coyle 4 years ago

        uh…we already got Papelbon…don’t need Cordero

        • JPH_GSG 4 years ago

          We got Papelbon? How did I miss that? I hope the contract was reasonable.

  7. NathanielS 4 years ago

    Bean Stringfellow!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! WHAT!?

    • stl_cards16 4 years ago

      Everytime I see that, I can’t help but think of Longfellow Deeds!

    • He made waves for his absolutely awesome name during the Bautista negotiations (and subsequent contract signing) last off-season.

  8. JPH_GSG 4 years ago

    I can’t see him not going back to the Reds.

  9. rsanchez1 4 years ago

    When you tie the Marlins to so many free agents, it’s hard to take any rumor involving them seriously.

    • jondogg2010 4 years ago

      Fanfare. (Claps) It’s all about the effort in getting their fans onboard. In the end I think the Marlins will sign ONE of the free agents, but not 3 like this site and MLB Network makes it out to seem like Miami is going to do. Maybe the Marlins pull a Heat and sign a new big 3, as in Pujols, Reyes and Buerhle. Hmmmm.

  10. aricollins 4 years ago

    He reduced his BB/9 to 2.8… and his K/9 to 5.43.

    Caveat Emptor.

  11. Hopefully the Angels are just doing their due diligence; they’ve been burned on big contracts to streaky relievers before (Rodney, Speier, et al).  I realize Cordero’s stats were good last season, but the fact that he’s a type A free agent, is 37, and will still likely demand a multi-year deal make him far from my first choice for a bullpen arm.  

    • I think Cordero would be a good fit in the Angels’ bullpen, but it has to be for the right price. AKA nothing over 3 or 4 yrs for 3-4MM a year

      • slasher016 4 years ago

        Dream on at that price tag.  The Reds would re-sign him if it only cost that.

  12. Karkat 4 years ago

    Another player the Red Sox will probably be “in on” forever who’ll likely be exceedingly mediocre if he comes to Boston.

    Also, gotta feel just great about a guy who’s opponents only had a .214 BABIP this year.  Can you imagine if that shoots back up to a reasonable number next year? Oh wait, you can. It’s called his 2010 numbers with fewer K’s. Yikes.

    • notsureifsrs 4 years ago

      with his LD rate down to 16 and a GB rate at 50%, he earned some of that BABIP depression

      on a cheap deal, he’d be a nice option. he didn’t lose much velocity and his swinging strike rate didn’t disappear the way his k/9 did, so while he’s unlikely to ever be be a 9+ k/9 guy again, he may be able to pull of 7

      a 7 k/9, 3 bb/9 and high groundball rate should lead to solid results. i just wouldn’t pay much to take the chance on him

  13. NYPOTENCE 4 years ago

    Can’t believe the Mets, even when rebuilding, are showing interest in an aging closer. They’ve got all sorts of issues and they’re still willing to pay 10 million a season for Cordero while their team isn’t even close to contention.

    • jondogg2010 4 years ago

      I wouldn’t spend any real money on a reliever if I was the Mets either, in fact, I’d look to trade anything I could. I understand Wright is a good player, but they’d be better off trying to get an interested team to take Bay along with Wright. Mets fans; imagine your team without Bay and Wright on the books?

    • greggofboken 4 years ago

      I agree.  His pricetag would seem to negate the Mets interest.  Doubly so given Alderson’s sentiments about closers being greatly overvalued. 

    • they won’t be willing to give him 10 mil a season, they’re probably just checking in

  14. jondogg2010 4 years ago

    As far as I’m concerned if it comes down to Cordero, Madson or Bell for the Red Sox, my money is on Cordero if the money is better. Say for example Bell gets $10 M/Yr, Madson $9M/Yr and Cordero at $8 M/Yr. If the money was the same across the board, I’d prefer Bell.

  15. There’s no way the Reds would risk offering him arbitration.  They’d be on the hook for at least $10M

  16. jondogg2010 4 years ago

    If I’m the Mets, I offer Nathan a deal for 1 year $3MM with a vesting option for 2013 ($5MM) if he closes 35 games.

  17. triple_play_baseball 4 years ago

    He’d be a nice addition, but unnecessary. With the money that’s been given to Ellis and Rivera already, it’s hard to imagine anything else but an overpay. I’d rather see the money invested elsewhere. 

Leave a Reply