Don't have time to do the whole Post chat today and I never get my question asked anyway. But I do have to comment briefly on this exchange:
Los Angeles: Is Tim Redding likely to be dealt at the deadline? Other than his last start, he's been remarkably consistent and pretty darn good. I could see a contender overpaying for his services, and it's hard to see the Nats saying no in that case.
Chico Harlan: Redding shouldn't be dealt; that's the first thought here. Just because somebody is having a fine season doesn't immediately make him a good trade candidate. Especially because Redding just might be the guy Washington needs at the back of its rotation in, say, 2009. If you trade Redding, you create a needless opening (and Chico goes on with some stats comparing Redding to Johan Santana this year).
*Who is on the FRONT end of that rotation in 2009? Do the Nats think their minor leaguers are going to be ready by then? Does Hill find health?
*If the name isn't Zimmerman, Flores, Rauch or Milledge and the offer is right, MAKE THE DEAL. And I could be coerced on Milledge. If someone wants to overpay for Redding, plug the hole with someone and thank him profusely for his service, for his efforts and for the reward. Leaving a "hole" in the rotation isn't going to cost the Nats the pennant.