Skip to content

DeJesus saga will be resolved by Friday

Aug 22, 2013, 1:29 PM EDT

USA Today Sports Images

CHICAGO — David DeJesus' strange saga with the Nationals will be resolved by Friday, with the veteran outfielder either staying in Washington or moving to the Rays via another waiver-claim deal.

DeJesus, acquired by the Nationals from the Cubs on Monday in a waiver-claim trade for a player to be named later, was reportedly placed back on waivers the following day and then claimed by Tampa Bay, according to ESPNChicago.com.

What happens now? There are three possible resolutions…

— The Nationals could accept the Rays' waiver claim, with Tampa Bay immediately acquiring DeJesus and being responsible for all of his contract. (He is owed about $1 million the rest of this season, with a $6.5 million club option or $1.5 million buyout for 2014.)Read more »

  1. SonnyG10 - Aug 22, 2013 at 1:34 PM

    Beyond my pay grade. Rizzo can figure this one out.

  2. Ghost Of Steve M. - Aug 22, 2013 at 1:39 PM

    Still surprised Morse hasn't been traded.

  3. James Joyce - Aug 22, 2013 at 1:40 PM

    This is actually pretty uncommon, clubs out of the running don't trade for guys like DeJesus often and far less often do they then flip the guy on waivers days later. Davey aint gonna say it, but I will — Rizzo was nuts to go after the guy in the first place, given his coins and the OF roster lineup. I hope Rizzo is not now full of some notion that he should get something grand in return from Tampa — getting this $7.5M mistake off of his books now should be enough.

  4. Pilchard - Aug 22, 2013 at 1:41 PM

    The Nats are not going to keep him. They will work out a trade or let Tampa Bay take DeJesus under his current contract terms. It never made sense for a team playing out the string in 2013 and with Span guaranteed $6.5 million in 2014 to keep DeJesus. The Nats will add reliever for the KC series.

  5. Ghost Of Steve M. - Aug 22, 2013 at 1:45 PM

    Tampa will give the Nats a low level prospect if they get him as is. If the Nats are willing to pick up some salary I.expect Tampa will give them a better prospect.

  6. JD - Aug 22, 2013 at 1:59 PM

    James Joyce, And you speak from your vast experience as a GM and your intimate knowledge of August procedures?Or are you just being a wise ass critic and speaking out of your rear end? What are you talking about when you say $7.5M mistake? how do you know Rizzo didn't pick him up to block say Cincinnati from getting him? and the fact that the Rays claimed him proves that this is a player teams want for the stretch run. You think Rizzo doesn't know this?

  7. hiramhover - Aug 22, 2013 at 2:00 PM

    I hope Rizzo proves me wrong, but this seems likely a silly sideshow–the possibility that the Nats extract anything of value by inserting themselves in this process seems pretty low.

  8. JD - Aug 22, 2013 at 2:01 PM

    Ghost, You are exactly right. Now Rizzo is in the driver's seat because at the very least he is not on the hook for the salary unless he wants the player and at best he can pick up an asset.

  9. JD - Aug 22, 2013 at 2:05 PM

    hiramhover, Let me paint you a scenario which may make sense: 1)Several teams put in a claim for DeJesus (let's say Cincinati and Tampa for argument's sake), now Rizzo knows he can go get a player which other teams want so he puts in a claim, makes a deal with the Cubs and gets the player. 2)He puts DeJesus right back on waivers knowing that he will get some bites. Where's the silly sideshow?

  10. James Joyce - Aug 22, 2013 at 2:09 PM

    JD — am I wrong? How often do clubs 10 back from a one game Wild Card take on salary commitments in August much less then throw the guy back up on waivers? DeJesus is left handed insurance for if Werth/Span/Harper goes down next year. $7.5M for a platoon 4th OF with not much pop is a mistake. And if Cincy, 9.5 games up and a team in between us to get to them, wanted the guy so badly then they would have claimed him ahead of Tampa, no?Rizzo's in the driver's seat, but it's a clown car, bro.

  11. hiramhover - Aug 22, 2013 at 2:11 PM

    JDYes, that's what Rizzo did, and yes, he now has a bite from the Rays.I was merely expressing skepticism that when he reels the line in, there will be much of anything on the end.But we will see.

  12. Steady Eddie - Aug 22, 2013 at 2:12 PM

    JD — to reinforce your point, of course DeJesus is worth something meaningful. We were only able to get him before contending teams because our worse record put us ahead of them in the waiver claiming order. Rizzo is seeking to convert that claiming order into an asset, as you said. I suspect Ghost has identified the likely value of that asset fairly accurately.

  13. JD - Aug 22, 2013 at 2:15 PM

    JJ, I am just saying Cinci as a hypothetical but the point is that Rizzo knew other teams put in claims so he knew with a fair level of confidence that he wont be on the hook for the money. What if Tampa gives us a decent prospect for say half of DeJesus salary? Tampa is right in the race and they very well may want DeJesus badly. Would you say it was a bad move then? I have no problem with anyone having an opinion on anyone including Rizzo just don't pretend that you understand everything which goes on behind the scenes.

  14. James Joyce - Aug 22, 2013 at 2:25 PM

    So, the Nats will have given up a low level prospect to the Cubs only to HOPE to get a low level prospect in return from Tampa (or, possibly, should Tampa be desperate, maybe more if the Nats are willing to chip in some unknown amount of money, perhaps) for the risk of having no one claim the guy and being stuck with at least a $2.5M outlay for having gone through the trouble? And Rizzo might also just be wearing a red nose and curly orange wig gassing up his tiny car someplace right this very second. I am not pretending to undersatnd, but some people are. I am gaguing this on its face, not by some suppositions of what might be. Conjuring some rosy scenario that makes this all make sense is somehow better than taking what it is on its face? But, it is true — MAYBE there is some magic behind this DeJesus grab that we the unclean masses do not see, but the odds are against that.

  15. Ghost Of Steve M. - Aug 22, 2013 at 2:25 PM

    We all wondered what Rizzo was doing with the DeJesus signing. If Rizzo picks off Bourgeois for instance he may look smart. He's a RH compliment to Span. Can't hit RHPs and can play defense.

  16. Theophilus T. S. - Aug 22, 2013 at 2:26 PM

    JD, et al — a lot of teams, including I believe everyone in the NL, had to pass on DeJesus before TB came up — they're near the back of the buffet line. I assume they're trying to block Boston, which probably has the next lowest priority. TB isn't the type of team to throw around $2.5MM. So I assume they'll pay Rizzo pretty well.

  17. Theophilus T. S. - Aug 22, 2013 at 2:29 PM

    "Bourgeois" — Like, man, like the name says it, man. I thought we decided last winter we didn't want him.

  18. Ghost Of Steve M. - Aug 22, 2013 at 2:31 PM

    Theo, I don't think the Rays are playing poker because once you put in the claim, if Rizzo doesn't want a player in trade the deal is done and it's a simple waiver claim and the Rays now take him with his current contract.

  19. Theophilus T. S. - Aug 22, 2013 at 2:32 PM

    Like, maybe, that was a different Bourgeois we didn't want. Never mind. Same difference, tho.

  20. Theophilus T. S. - Aug 22, 2013 at 2:33 PM

    The fascination w/ Punch & Judy CFs on this list is mind-boggling.

  21. Ghost Of Steve M. - Aug 22, 2013 at 2:35 PM

    Theo, Bourgeois is a light hitting fast guy who cat hit RHPs. Nats didn't need him since Span could hit lefties or so they thought. Tampa would have to clear space on their 40 man. This would do it. Bourgeois has good splits vs LHPs.

  22. Theophilus T. S. - Aug 22, 2013 at 2:35 PM

    Ghost — Once Rays put in a claim, if Rizzo doesn't like the deal, he can pull DeJesus off waivers. That's why they're "revocable" waivers.

  23. UnkyD - Aug 22, 2013 at 2:35 PM

    I can't remember where I read it, yesterday, but there was an article starring that the Nats actually won't part with a prospect at all, for the Cubs, just some straight cash, homey…

  24. JD - Aug 22, 2013 at 2:36 PM

    Theo, Cinci and TB are actually tied with 72 wins each. I am not sure how the order works in such a case but it's quite possible that TB was ahead of Cinci in the claims order.

  25. Ghost Of Steve M. - Aug 22, 2013 at 2:36 PM

    Not cat hit, CAN'T hit.

  26. JD - Aug 22, 2013 at 2:38 PM

    Theo, Yes but if Rizzo let's him go they are on the hook for the salary. IOW, they wouldn't put in a claim if they didn't want the player.

  27. JD - Aug 22, 2013 at 2:40 PM

    Anything we get out of this transaction is more than we started out with. no? At worst we get nothing but it's worth a flier. no? Once Rizzo knew that the Rays had a claim in there was no chance he would be stuck with the salary. no?

  28. Ghost Of Steve M. - Aug 22, 2013 at 2:41 PM

    Theo, it's revocable for Rizzo not for Tampa if Rizzo accepts a straight claim with no additional terms. That's what Buster Olney thinks Rizzo did originally to get him and why he said it may have been a mistake.

  29. Theophilus T. S. - Aug 22, 2013 at 2:41 PM

    Ghost — How many extra sets of Nyjer Morgan's/Nook Logan's/Willie Taveras's uniforms — not to mention Eury Perez's uniforms — do you think the Nats have? This guy would not have a one percent effect on their chances of reaching the playoffs this year or next. When a bunch of lousy teams don't want a 30+ year old guy, why to you want to eat their offal? You think we need a speedy Chad Tracy to run pizza down to the BP?

  30. JD - Aug 22, 2013 at 2:43 PM

    Ghost, What JJ and HH are saying is that Rizzo is an idiot for risking the possibility that they would have to pay a player they don't need $7.5M. What they are conveniently missing is that when Rizzo put in the claim he knew that another team had also put in a claim so he knew he could possibly parlay this into something or at worst lose nothing at all.

  31. Ghost Of Steve M. - Aug 22, 2013 at 2:44 PM

    JD, that is correct. I think Rizzo wants Bourgeois which is why he let Bernadina walk. Bourgeois is better than Eury Perez and fills that platoon need.This will be interesting

  32. Theophilus T. S. - Aug 22, 2013 at 2:46 PM

    As to DeJesus, as I said yesterday, maybe Rizzo late in life has come to the realization that you have to pay significant $$ if you want someone useful on the bench. Virtually everybody on this list thinks Lerners are too tight with their billions. If you're stuck at least another year w/ the current 1-8, just maybe Rizzo says to Mark, "No more f'n around; if you want a good bench you need to spend $12MM on four hairy-chested guts who aren't on their way to the Ashburn Hounds."

  33. Ghost Of Steve M. - Aug 22, 2013 at 2:48 PM

    JD and this could have been a complicated favor to Tampa. Theo, there would be no need for Bourgeois if Span showed he could hit LHPs.

  34. Theophilus T. S. - Aug 22, 2013 at 2:50 PM

    Steve — You're at risk of proving it's five o'clock somewhere. How could Rizzo, unless he's Merlin, target Burgie before casting Bernadina adrift? He probably could have traded them straight up, if the idea had occurred to him.

  35. Ghost Of Steve M. - Aug 22, 2013 at 2:54 PM

    Theo, I agree about building the bench with known quantities which means a legit 4th outfielder. In Rizzo's defense Bernadina and TyMo were good in 2012. We can blame him only for Tracy and Davey for overuse of Zuk. Players like Shark and TyMo let the team down.

  36. Theophilus T. S. - Aug 22, 2013 at 2:54 PM

    Steve — you've confused the "need" for someone to platoon w/ Span w/ the "need" for a specific, bottom-of-the-barrel player. If you're convinced there's a need for a RH CF, go find someone that's worth having. This is the kind of dumpster diving we thought was driven out when Brad Carroll was sent to Syracuse. Rizzo released Bernadina so he could pick up DeJesus.

  37. Ghost Of Steve M. - Aug 22, 2013 at 2:56 PM

    Theo, Tampa didn't want Bernadina and his $1 million contract ($200,000) remaining. Can't blame them.

  38. Faraz Shaikh - Aug 22, 2013 at 2:57 PM

    I will take Alex Torres or Jake McGee, Friedman. Thanks!

  39. Ghost Of Steve M. - Aug 22, 2013 at 2:58 PM

    Faraz, me too!

  40. Holden Baroque - Aug 22, 2013 at 3:05 PM

    One thing about DC, It's A Bourgeois Town.(because the song is NSFW)

  41. Theophilus T. S. - Aug 22, 2013 at 3:06 PM

    And they want DeJesus for $2.5MM? Not makin' sense, bro. Moore probably would have been fine this year, with ABs. Because opportunities were fewer, and farther between, and irregular this year, he floundered. I give him half a pass and welcome him back for next year. Bernadina after five years was never going to turn into Al Bumbry. They should have known that, probably did know, and they hung onto him even when he was at his most marketable. That's a bad trick on the ticket-buying public.

  42. hiramhover - Aug 22, 2013 at 3:24 PM

    JDI never called Rizzo an idiot. I don't think he is one, and there's enough name calling around here anyway.But the fact is, Rizzo clearly did something unorthodox–it simply isn't that common for a team to claim a player off waivers in mid-August so they can try to flip him to a third team in return for significant value to themselves. That's one reason why there were so many WTF reactions to the acquisition in the first place (and not just in the comments here).Now, the fact that it's unorthodox doesn't make it idiotic. Maybe it will turn out to be a genius move–it will work out brilliantly, more GMs will follow suit, and we'll later wonder why more of them didn't do it in the first place.As I said, I'm skeptical, but will be happy to be proven wrong.

  43. Teddy Rochlis - Aug 22, 2013 at 3:29 PM

    I would rather Rizzo instead of going for a guy like Bourgeois, we go for a lottery pick some 18 yr old PBL high upside prospect. I understand its a risk but i would rather use that as a risk than as a 4th outfielder.

  44. Ghost Of Steve M. - Aug 22, 2013 at 3:32 PM

    hiram, fair enough. I think we are all wondering how this will play out.

  45. JD - Aug 22, 2013 at 3:39 PM

    HH and Ghost, Agreed. I don't think it's genius but I don't think it's high risk either.

  46. James Joyce - Aug 22, 2013 at 3:45 PM

    Rizzo did not know that some other club had claimed DeJesus until after he had already claimed him. If his plan was to flip, then he took a big risk.No one really knows what Rizzo was thinking when he made this claim, it is a headscratcher. He is no idiot but he has some dumb luck in that another club does want the guy. If he manages NOT to make a deal to send DeJesus to Tampa, then it really does turn into a WTF kind of response for me at least.

  47. Ghost Of Steve M. - Aug 22, 2013 at 3:46 PM

    Teddy, Tampa likes cheap and controllable players not on their 40 man and they don't want to give up those type of players. They have no problem giving up a Cutter Dykstra type. Bourgeois is Arb Eligible next year which Tampa doesn't like. I think they will release him anyway. Low risk.

  48. JD - Aug 22, 2013 at 4:02 PM

    JJ'Rizzo did not know that some other club had claimed DeJesus until after he had already claimed him.' And you know this… how?

  49. JD - Aug 22, 2013 at 4:07 PM

    When the Cubs put DeJesus on wavers there could have been multiple claims and the Nats claim won out because they were the highest on the claim list. At that point Rizzo knows that there is interest in the player. What if Rizzo's claim came in as a result of that knowledge?

  50. NattieNation13 - Aug 22, 2013 at 4:19 PM

    JD-To answer your earlier question about who gets a tie break between Cincinnati and Tampa with identical records:Waiver order is determined by record, with the worst record team getting first shot. However, for an AL team to claim an NL player off waivers (and vice-versa), all NL teams must pass on the player first before any AL team can claim, meaning the Braves are higher on the waiver wire than the lowly Astros and White Sox. Cincinnati would, in this hypothetical, then be much much higher on the order than Tampa and would have gotten DeJesus.I see this as a very tactical move by Rizzo, potentially blocking a playoff team like Cinci or Atlanta from acquiring a key player at no cost to the team, while also creating an opportunity to obtain a prospect. I wouldnt be at all surprised if this kind of thing happened between teams in the same division trying to out-maneuver each other. Again, the waiver wire transactions are almost always confidential so no one knows what goes on, but I would guarantee August is more of a chess match than anyone would think.

  51. D'Gourds - Aug 22, 2013 at 4:24 PM

    c'mon. We're not going to catch the Reds. This was a really stupid mistake. I just hope we only gave up garbage in the ptbnl. If we end up losing a valuable prospect, this was just moronic. It makes no sense why we would risk losing talent and money for tne incredibly slim possibility that we will leapfrogArizona and bypass the Reds. Part of being a good GM is knowing when to give up and plan for next year.

  52. D'Gourds - Aug 22, 2013 at 4:30 PM

    what about the ptbnl to the cubs?

  53. NattieNation13 - Aug 22, 2013 at 4:33 PM

    Seems like a simple decision for Rizzo:-The front office is privy to waiver transactions, so Rizzo knew who claimed DeJesus-He calls the reds and says hey, we're still trying to catch you (crazier things have happened), so we might claim him. if you want DeJesus we want something in return-He calls the rays and says, hey, we dont want the reds to have this guy since we still think we have an outside shot at this thing, and we know you want him too, if we do this, can we work something out?-if both say no thanks no trade, Rizzo doesnt pull the trigger and DeJesus goes wherever he was going to go in the first place

  54. D'Gourds - Aug 22, 2013 at 4:37 PM

    tracy was good in '12 also. The mistake was takimg so long to make a move to bolster the bench on '13.

  55. D'Gourds - Aug 22, 2013 at 4:44 PM

    do you know, for a fact, that Rizzo had any idea how many teams put a claim in when he put the Nats claim on DeJesus?

  56. Theophilus T. S. - Aug 22, 2013 at 4:51 PM

    "tracy was good in '12 also" The failing of many people on this blog is to assume that what happens this year, or last year as the case may be, is a sign of what is likely to happen in the following season. Rizzo is guilty of that to some extent; .265 for Tracy was not a harbinger of a flourbishing resurgence. Rizzo, I'm sure, knew that. For him it was a gamble. The problem is he didn't hedge his bet, and stayed with Tracy when he had a chance to cut his losses.

  57. The Real Feel Wood. Accept no substitutes. - Aug 22, 2013 at 4:59 PM

    "D'Gourds said… do you know, for a fact, that Rizzo had any idea how many teams put a claim in when he put the Nats claim on DeJesus?"Do you know for a fact that he didn't? The waiver process is not publicly announced, except when it's announced that a claimed player is changing teams. GMs know all the facts during the process, everyone else is just tracking in rumors.

  58. NattieNation13 - Aug 22, 2013 at 5:07 PM

    D-GourdsYes, GMs are privy to that information. This isnt to say its not a risky move to try and block a player from going to a competitor. For instance, look at what happened with Randy Myers in 1998. The Padres put in a waiver claim to block the Braves, expecting for the Jays to pull Myers back off and keep him. They were successful in blocking the Braves, however the Jays let Myers go and San Diego was on the hook for his $12mil contract. Maybe that's what happened here and Rizzo was overly risky, but the Randy Myers fiasco is the most famous waiver blunder in MLB history, so you have to think GMs arent stupid enough to make the same mistake without vetting their plan prior to the move. This move is guaranteed not to be a mistake of that proportion because DeJesus can be bought out, but regardless, Rizzo has to have a solid plan to flip him, or genuinely likes him on our bench for a stretch run

  59. A DC Wonk - Aug 22, 2013 at 5:55 PM

    James Joyce said……I am not pretending to undersatnd,So, in summary, you don't understand it, *and* it's not fully played out yet, but you're still criticizing the heck out of it.Do I have that about right?

  60. Steady Eddie - Aug 22, 2013 at 6:22 PM

    Oh, Wonk, there you go again, taking all the fun out of vitriolic abuse and pull-it-out-of … the air … rank speculation by using logic, rationality, and from NattieNation13, also facts.

  61. John C. - Aug 22, 2013 at 11:43 PM

    I simply don't understand all the heat about this transaction. It seems pretty clear to me – DeJesus and Hairston were acquired both as incremental improvements this yearand as an option for next year. The cost really isn't that much (they're paying Suzuki $6.5 million to be backup catcher this year, why wouldn't they pay DeJesus the same to be backup OF behind Werth/Harper (injury risks) and Span (coming off the worst offensive season of his career)? Further, from a cost perspective, DeJesus at $6.5 million for a player that has averaged over 1.6 bWAR and 1.9 fWAR over the past four seasons is actually pretty good value. This is also a safety net. The Nats may well have a go at improving their OF in the offseason, whether through free agency or trades. But free agents may sign elsewhere, and potential trading partners ask for the moon. If the Nats have an in-house option, trading partners know the Nationals are trading from an interest, not desperation. If they pick up someone better, *poof* both players are gone and Span becomes the fourth OF. But if they don't pick up someone else, then they have a fallback position. And finally, as a clincher, DeJesus is universally acclaimed as a great clubhouse guy. Some of the same commenters decrying this move have spent much of the season wailing and rending their garments because they miss Michael Morse or even Mark DeRosa, for their clubhouse impact as much as their play (more, in DeRosa's case). Well, DeJesus is one of those guys while over the past four seasons being better than either (Morse was better in 2011) on the field.Is he an IMPACT player? Nope. That's why he was available, and that's also why Rizzo is willing to be talked into flipping him if the price is right. But not all moves can involve impact players, and not all players on a 25 man roster will BE impact players.

  62. D'Gourds - Aug 23, 2013 at 12:20 AM

    uh, that was my point exactly (although stated more eloquently).

  63. D'Gourds - Aug 23, 2013 at 12:22 AM

    thanks, well explained.

Archives

NL EAST STANDINGS

W L GB
WASHINGTON 55 44 --
ATLANTA 55 47 1.5
MIAMI 48 52 8.0
NEW YORK 48 54 8.5
PHILADELPHIA 44 58 12.5
Through Thursday's games

UPCOMING SCHEDULE
FRI: Nats at Reds, 7:10 p.m.
SAT: Nats at Reds, 4:05 p.m.
SUN: Nats at Reds, 1:10 p.m.
MON: Nats at Marlins, 7:10 p.m.
TUE: Nats at Marlins, 7:10 p.m.
WED: Nats at Marlins, 12:40 p.m.
THU: Phillies at Nats, 7:05 p.m.
Full season schedule

Mark joins Rob Carlin and Joe Orsulak every Thursday at 4 p.m. on Comcast SportsNet for a half-hour show on the Nats, Orioles and rest of MLB. Re-airs Thursdays at 11:30 p.m., Saturdays at 9 a.m. and Sundays at 11:30 a.m.

ON THE RADIO

As ESPN-980 AM's Nats Insider, Mark makes daily appearances on the station's various shows. Here's the 2014 schedule (subject to change)...

MON: 12:45 p.m.
TUE: 2:30 p.m.
WED: 4:30 p.m.
THU: 2:30 p.m.
FRI: 1:30 p.m., 5:30 p.m.
SAT: 10:30 a.m.

*All times Eastern. You can also listen to the station on 94.3 FM, 92.7 FM and online at ESPN980.com. Click here for past audio clips.

Follow us on Twitter