Three-year deal for Harris is worth the risk for Nationals

Try to forget for a moment the name of the reliever the Nationals just signed, who he previously pitched for and what happened the last time he took the mound. Instead, just look at his numbers over the last five seasons and how he ranks among the 119 big league relievers who have made at least 200 appearances during that time frame:

* 2.36 ERA, third best (behind Zack Britton and Aroldis Chapman)

* 0.987 WHIP, fourth best (behind Kenley Jansen, Roberto Osuna and Andrew Miller)

* 2.72 FIP, seventh best

* 12.4 strikeouts per nine innings, ninth best

* 7.5 WAR, 10th best

Is that a guy you'd want to add to your bullpen? For three years and $24 million? Um, yeah.

If there's any hesitation at all this morning about the Nationals' decision to sign Will Harris (a deal that will become official once he passes his physical), it's probably for one of two reasons: He's 35 and he gave up the decisive home run in Game 7 of the World Series.

The first concern is valid and we'll get to that in a moment. The second is hogwash and you know it.

Yes, Harris was the losing pitcher in Game 7 after serving up Howie Kendrick's series-flipping homer in the top of the seventh. If you've watched that replay - and it's probably safe to say you've watched it way more than once in the last nine weeks - you know it was a good pitch, a 91 mph cutter right on the lower outside corner. Kendrick himself praised Harris for executing that pitch. He just somehow managed to loft it down the right field line and off the foul pole. Credit the hitter, don't blame the pitcher, for that one.

If Harris did make a costly mistake in the World Series, it came the night before, also in the top of the seventh, this time with the Nationals already up one run. He left another 91 mph cutter over the plate and above the knees for Anthony Rendon, who belted it into the Crawford Boxes at Minute Maid Park for the two-run blast that extended the Nats' lead and ensured the controversial interference call on Trea Turner moments earlier wouldn't affect the game's outcome.

Even so, that was one mistake in an otherwise brilliant postseason at the end of a fantastic regular season to cap a consistently effective five-year run by Harris.

He's very good. And at the most volatile position in the sport, he has been very good over an extended period of time.

The same can't be said for the man he's essentially replacing in the Nationals bullpen. During the same five-year stretch, Daniel Hudson owns a 3.94 ERA, 1.312 WHIP and 3.97 FIP while averaging 9.0 strikeouts per nine innings and amassing 0.8 WAR. (Until last season, he was below replacement level.)

Which isn't to diminish Hudson's accomplishments in 2019 whatsoever. He was very good for the Blue Jays, then he was great for the Nationals, who unquestionably don't win the World Series without him. On top of all that, he's a good person and a good teammate who fit perfectly in that clubhouse.

But if you're Mike Rizzo and you have to decide which of the two right-handers you're going to commit to for multiple years, you pick Harris every day of the week and twice on Sunday.

Your only hang-up, to get back to the earlier point, is the length of the deal.

Harris is 35. He turns 36 in August. He'll be 39 when this contract expires. That's risky, and it's the kind of risk Rizzo rarely takes, especially with relievers.

Though they've acquired a few bullpen arms who already were under contract long-term, the Nationals previously have signed only one free agent reliever to a three-year deal: Shawn Kelley, who signed for $15 million as he entered his age-32 season. Kelley was very good in his first year, terrible (and injured) in his second year, then sneaky effective in his third year before getting unceremoniously dumped after slamming his glove to the ground upon giving up a home run during a blowout win.

Harris is older than Kelley was at the time. He's also far less of an injury risk than Kelley was, having spent only six total weeks on the injured list in his major league career (all during the summer of 2017, when he dealt with shoulder inflammation). That's bordering on Max Scherzer-level durability.

So if there's such a thing as a 35-year-old setup man worthy of a three-year contract, Harris is probably the guy. Sure, there's danger involved, and the Nationals ultimately may regret signing him.

But for a team that seems to reach every July desperately needing to fix its bullpen, this looks like a solid and only moderately risky move that's more likely to pay dividends than it is to come back to haunt the defending champs.