conalthomas
High School Draftee
Well, that depends on what happens next. He's a third baseman that has trouble throwing to first. They could move him to first, in which case his contract is even worse, but I agree that his contract isn't ridiculous.
Nationals even mess up waiver claims
- Thread starter tvsportscaster
- Start date
Well, that depends on what happens next. He's a third baseman that has trouble throwing to first. They could move him to first, in which case his contract is even worse, but I agree that his contract isn't ridiculous.
Nevertheless, you can't discount the environment that he walked into when he was named GM. **** was hostile. He hired Terry Collins. He didn't rush Harvey or Wheeler. He kept Wright. The Dickey trade may end up turning out to be a bigger steal than the Wheeler deal if Syndergaard's minor league numbers are any indication.
NYCBrave
Well-known member
Well then that's not considered blocking, that's considered they think he can help the team next year. The initial indication was they did this to block another team, which is proven by the fact they put him back on waivers....
The reports I read said that Rizzo informed Davey that he was going to fire Eckstein. And Davey insisted he be the one to inform Eckstein. What is your source?
Werth was a bad contract.
I thought the Soriano signing made sense. Clippard (who is roommates with Storen) are obviously going to be upset about it because they each got knocked back an inning in their role. It was a move to strengthen the back end of the bullpen and didn't work because Storen changed his delivery on his own and imploded this year.
Rizzo's work in the draft, which is one of his strengths has been really good. The Gio trade was awesome for them. The Span trade was the right move, though he hasn't hit this year. Getting Krohl and AJ Cole for Morse was a great trade.
I'm not sure how to comment on the Cole Hamels comments. Hamels threw at Harper for no reason and the GM spoke his mind.
That doesn't "prove" anything. Teams put most, if not all of there players on waivers to keep their options open.
That's what I originally read in the Washington Post too, but then I came across an opinion piece a few days later written by a former columnist (or player) that basically tore into the Nationals as a team (attacking everyone from Bryce Harper, to Zimmerman, to Rizzo) and unless I'm greatly confused I'm fairly certain the column said Rizzo went to Davey the day of the firing with his decision and that Johnson's response was that he would resign before he allowed Eckstein to be fired. I guess, somehow, Rizzo talked him down. Schu was apparently Rizzo's hand-picked choice and Johnson had no input.
I can't find the original column for the life of me, but bits and pieces here: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news...akes-fall-hitting-woes-nationals-pl/?page=all
Rizzo has had some good drafts for sure, but Strasburg and Harper (and even Storen) were no brainers.
And I think, for sure, Rizzo's heart was in the right place with his comments about Hamels/Harper, but there is no way he should've opened up that much publicly. Totally unprofessional, and would've resulted in a pink slip for about 95% of other individuals in a position like his.
Firing Eckstein had been talked about for weeks with Davey offering to save Eckstein (who he is close with) by stepping down himself.
Was it Mike Wise? http://www.washingtonpost.com/sport...dd5828-004f-11e3-9711-3708310f6f4d_story.html
They have every right to be ripped into bc the talent on that team is a 90+ win talent. The fault of the season rests on the players; mainly Storen, Laroche, Espinosa (though injured), Haren, Span, and the entire bench.
Was it Mike Wise? http://www.washingtonpost.com/sport...dd5828-004f-11e3-9711-3708310f6f4d_story.html
They have every right to be ripped into bc the talent on that team is a 90+ win talent. The fault of the season rests on the players; mainly Storen, Laroche, Espinosa (though injured), Haren, Span, and the entire bench.
NYCBrave
Well-known member
Examples of other teams ever claiming people on waivers and then putting them back on waivers? This isn't common...
jpx7
Very Flirtatious, but Doubts What Love Is.
Dunit24
Awaiting a Promotion
The Nats have money now so they can afford to throw away 2.5 mil here, and 2.5 mil there. Or thats what Ive been told.
Rosales was again designated for assignment on July 31, and on August 2, Rosales was claimed off waivers by the Texas Rangers.[5] Rosales did not appear in any games for the Rangers prior to being designated for assignment on August 5 to make room for Joey Butler. On August 8, Rosales was claimed by the Athletics.[6] Oakland once again designated him for assignment on August 10, and once again he was claimed by the Texas Rangers on August 12.[7]
But, I'm sure it happens often because not every player put on waivers is reported through the media. I can't think of specific examples, but htere have been players in the past few years that are claimed in August, only to move on to other teams by Sept 1.
NYCBrave
Well-known member
Ok but surely nobody was claiming Rosales to block in the first place. The point was, it was suggested that the Nats did this move to block some other team. If that was the case, you wouldn't put the player back on waivers. End of story.
I never said they claimed him to block another team. But, if they did, they could still block the other team if the other team claims him from the Nats.
"Rizzo said on Monday that he still believes in the Nationals have a run in them. It would be certainly be an improbable one. Improving the bench was a target at the trade deadline, and he already made moves to do so, such as acquiring Scott Hairston and sending Tyler Moore to the minors. So adding DeJesus seems to make sense. So maybe the Nationals placed DeJesus on waivers to protect themselves and give themselves flexibility should they sink further in the wild-card standings and can send him to a contender."
NYCBrave
Well-known member
I'm going off of the initial comments on it being speculated they made the claim to block. Not sure what's so hard to understand here.
Dunit24
Awaiting a Promotion
Only a delusional Nats fan wouldnt understand, lulz
BRule
<B>BBQ Lead Hostess</B>
How's that not blocking? Teams can claim DeJesus if they want him for next year. Thus the Nats would be blocking a team from improving next year.
yeezus
It's OVER 5,000!
So they claimed DeJesus to block him from getting to a team NEXT season?
David DeJesus?
Seems pretty silly.
BRule
<B>BBQ Lead Hostess</B>
So you either believe the Nats claimed him because they wanted him, to block someone from getting him or because they are stupid and wanted to claim for LULZ.
The latter seems rather unlikley and since they put him right back on waivers you'd assume they didn't want him...leaving us with one option....