2:45PM update: It was fun will it lasted. According to Buster Olney, Guzman cleared waivers meaning no one claimed in. The Nationals are now free to trade him to any team but odds are it will be tougher than a claim deal with an almost guarantee the Nationals will have to pick up a chunk of his salary to get anything in return.
Nick Cafardo of the Boston Globe had the news yesterday that the Red Sox put a waiver claim in on Nationals SS Cristian Guzman this weekend. This does not necessarily mean that the Sox will be awarded the claim, the entire NL will get the first crack at him in reverse order of standings and then he would have to go unclaimed through all the AL teams with records worse than Boston. But the bottom line is the Nationals are potentially in a place where they can free themselves of Guzman’s 2010 contract.
After July 31, MLB teams will typically place all of the players on their 40-man roster on what is called revocable waivers. This needs to be done in order to get players to clear waivers in order to deal them during the month of August.
The thing about revocable waivers is that if any team puts in a claim on a player, the player’s current team has three options:
- Pull the player back off of waivers. Once they do this, the player cannot be placed on revocable waivers again this season (though they have the option of irrevocable waivers but that involves dumping the player).
- Work out a deal with the claiming team for the player. Teams have 48 hours (and I believe they are business hours so during the week) to work out a trade
- Simply let the claiming team assume the contract of the player and move on
If, in fact, the Red Sox did put a claim in on Guzman, I sincerely hope the Nationals focus on either option 2 or 3.
Cristian Guzman is owed roughly $2M for the rest of 2009 and $8M in 2010. He is a solid enough offensive shortstop but his glove is quickly becoming a detriment at short. If the Red Sox (losers of six straight and down a few shortstops) are willing to take on Guzman’s contract, I would hope that Mike Rizzo and the Nationals do whatever it takes to get him in a Boston uniform.
Guzman is not part of the future for the Nationals. He is going to put the Nationals in the exact same position they were in with Nick Johnson this year. An aging player in his contract year who realistically offers little value to the team beyond the July trade deadline. If the Nationals were to hang onto Guzman into 2010, they would almost certainly have to absorb the majority of his contract to move him at next year’s trade deadline.
And the “keep him for a draft pick” argument should not be made here. Right now Guzman is solidly a Type B free agent meaning he would return a supplemental first round pick if he were to sign with someone as a free agent (assuming he keeps performing at a comparable level though 2010).
But don’t forget that the Nationals would have to offer Guzman arbitration to get that draft pick. And there is almost no way the Nationals would risk doing that because I can almost guarantee he’d accept arbitration and the Nationals would be on the hook for >$8M for a 33-year old SS with declining skills in 2011.
With that assumption, I hope to see the Nationals try and get a prospect or two out of the Red Sox (or whatever team is awarded the claim). I don’t expect the return to be a top 20 guy given that the claiming team is assuming a $10M expenditure on a player whose best days in the field are behind him.
And, if push comes to shove and the claiming team isn’t willing to offer any prospects of note, I hope the Nationals simply walk away and let whatever team it is take on what I view as a bad contract for the Nats in 2010.
Bring up Ian Desmond from Syracuse and give him a 50 game tryout at shortstop during the rest of the 2009 season. Desmond is reaching the point in his development where the Nationals need to see if he has the ability to be a long term answer and there is no better time than now to start finding that out.
In the off-season, the Nationals can look at stopgap measures for one season if Desmond proves he’s not ready. Names like Khalil Greene, Bobby Crosby, Adam Everett and John McDonald will be out there and that does not even take into accouont any SS who might be non-tendered in the off-season. I would imagine the Nationals could find a competent replacement out there for far less than the $8M they would spend on Guzman in 2010. And given the current focus on SPs who pitch to contact, targeting a defensive SS would certainly be a better allocation of resources.
I know that many people will view this through the prism of the “Lerners are cheap.” But I don’t see it that way at all. Getting out from Guzman’s 2010 contract is a solid baseball decision for a team that is still a couple of years away from being a contender. By jettisoning the $8M in 2010, the Nationals can better use those funds on the free agent market to find answers at 2B, SS, the bullpen and a veteran or two for the starting rotation.
Hopefully we will have out answer by the middle of this week. Here’s to hoping Guzman will be elsewhere for the future of the Nationals.
#1 by Marcus - August 10th, 2009 at 08:59
Good write up…
#2 by Sec 204 Row H Seat 7 - August 10th, 2009 at 09:14
Brian A poster ovr at NATS Journal said that a radio station stated the Boston denied placing a claim. How long before, we know who, if anyone, made a claim and the clock on pulling back, letting go or making a trade commences? Today, tomorrow?
#3 by Chris - August 10th, 2009 at 09:15
Fantastic post Brian.
#4 by Rocket Surgeon - August 10th, 2009 at 09:17
I also heard the rumor on XM’s MLB channel. Like you, hope it’s true.
#5 by Hendo - August 10th, 2009 at 09:25
Well put, Brian.
The “CHEEEeeEEp LerneRZ!!!!!!1!!” mob will never be satisfied. Let ‘em root for the Redskins; they and The Danny deserve each other.
#6 by Jane - August 10th, 2009 at 09:37
Ian Desmond would be a GREAT choice, as well as Seth Bynum…each player has paid his dues and needs to be given a chance in Washington!
#7 by Scott W - August 10th, 2009 at 09:43
The Lerners were a poor choice by Selig and do not know how to run a baseball marketing organization. Having said that, dumping Guzman’s salary would be a wise decision, provided that they will use the available funds as described above. Unfortunately, that is not a given.
#8 by Marc - August 10th, 2009 at 09:43
Brian – very well argued. I agree – what I’d most like to see is some deal where the Nats agree to eat some portion of the contract (maybe like the $2m for the rest of the year) and ask for a better prospect in return. If that’s not do-able, a weaker prospect. If that’s not do-able, walk away and let the claim go through.
People – particularly old-school types – will point to Guzmania’s .310 BA and his slap-happy-singling ways as proof of value. However, realistically, that’s all he does. He slaps singles. He doesn’t walk, has basically zero power (except when he accidentally slaps a single down a line, when it becomes a double), and can’t really field. That leads to a classically overvalued player – they look at all those hits and presume there must be value, when in fact, he’s a 102 OPS+ player over the last year and a half – basically dead-on league-average. And that’s before accounting for his -11-ish UZR over that same period. So he’s league-average, but slightly worse – he’s also likely to see a significant further decline in his defensive skills next year, making his single-slapping even less valuable.
Make a deal, but by all means, let him go if you can’t make a deal. The cost savings alone, plus the clear need to upgrade makes it worth it.
#9 by Scott W - August 10th, 2009 at 09:50
Brian and Marc – I think you have nailed it on Guzman. I just want to add that he seems to fall asleep in the field and makes more than his share of mental mistakes.
#10 by cjrugger - August 10th, 2009 at 09:56
Agreed, well said Brian
The sox have a lot of SS depth in their system, if we could get a player like Oscar Tejeda or Ryan Dent I’d be estatic
#11 by Jay - August 10th, 2009 at 09:56
Here’s a question: if multiple clubs put in a claim, can the Nationals negotiate a trade with any of them? If that is the case, and if more than one club has claimed Guzman, it would put the Nats in a much better bargaining position here in terms of getting something in return.
#12 by Brian Oliver - August 10th, 2009 at 10:01
I need to double check but I believe there can only be one team awarded the claim and one team with which to negotiate.
I’m almost certain that’s the case, because if it weren’t then there be no such thing as blocking a team ahead of you in the standings by placing a claim.
#13 by cjrugger - August 10th, 2009 at 10:08
Jay- no, only the team that “wins” the claim
#14 by expo_ram - August 10th, 2009 at 10:17
If any team puts in a claim, can’t we just let that team assume Guz contract (at the very least)?
#15 by Brian Oliver - August 10th, 2009 at 10:18
expo_ram – Yes, that’s option 3 above. The Nationals can simply allow whatever team wins the claim to take the contract and walk away.
#16 by Dick - August 10th, 2009 at 10:23
The Nats clear over $30 million of the $60+ opening day salary for next year. If they get rid of Guzman, another $8 million goes. That would be almost 2/3 of the opening day salary cleared for next season, and could be over $40 million if they non-tender Olsen. Talk about starting with a clean slate! They are really fortunate to be saddled with no albatross contracts if they let Guzman go.
#17 by SlowPitch63 - August 10th, 2009 at 10:26
Let Guz go. Get the best prospect we can and then immediately “spend” the savings on this year’s draft choices. Leaving out SS, for whom we hopefully have a separate budget established, we still have numbers 5, 8, 12, 15, 18 and 25 to sign. $10M ($2M this year and $8M next year)could go a long way to signing them and might quiet the Learners are Cheap crowd.
Let’s play two!
#18 by Ronny/Daggerrrrrr - August 10th, 2009 at 10:59
Off topic. What do you guys think of my new Nats farm player rankings.
1.) Stephen Strasburg(he will sign) 2.) Chris Marrero 3.) Derek Norris 4.) Drew Storen 5.) Destin Hood 6.) Ross Detwiler 7.) Danny Espinosa 8.) Michael Burgess 9.) AJ Morris 10.) Brad Meyers
#19 by Pilchard - August 10th, 2009 at 11:02
A few things:
Whether or not Guzman goes should have no bearing on the Nats ability to sign draft picks. This team is turning a healthy profit; if Guzman goes the Nats will need to pick up a FA middle infielder next season (the Nats are not going into next season with Alberto Gonzales and Ian Desmond as their MI combo), so the $8 million not spent on Guzman will be spent on someone else (perhaps not as attractive); there should not be any linkage between Guzman situation and the signing of picks.
Realize I am in the minority here, but Guzman is a significant reason why the Nats are rolling. When he hits, this team scores runs; a big reason for the Nats improvement under Riggleman is that he put Guzman back in the two hole after Morgan, and the lineup has clicked. I don’t see Desmond or any of the available free agent dreck at SS (Greene, Crosby et al) being able to fit in as well in the lineup; so, much easier to pencil in a productive lineup when you can put a middle infielder at the top.
Guzman is only 31. Reading Brian’s post it sounded like he was pushing 40. He still has productive years left.
If the Nats are convinced that Desmond is the future at SS (which I doubt), letting Guzman go for next to nothing makes some sense, but if he is not, the Nats have nothing but journeymen at the 2 middle infield spots, which will force the Nats to go out in the free agent market to suspend a lot more than $8 million a year to find a better option(s) at SS or 2B.
#20 by Dick - August 10th, 2009 at 11:33
Boston Globe reports Sox did NOT put in a waiver claim for Guzman after thinking long and hard about it.
#21 by Scooter - August 10th, 2009 at 11:37
You’re a very persuasive writer, Brian. You’ve convinced me that even Option 3 is a viable one.
This being the Internet, however, I’ll go ahead and argue with you: rather than calling it a good baseball decision, I would characterize Option 3 as a defensible baseball decision and a good business one. Cuz, you know, I really don’t give a rat’s patookie what the team pays its shortstop. If they decide they don’t have $8 million, then fine, that’s their call, and I’ll live with it. But Khalil Greene (to cherry-pick a bit) is not an upgrade, and Diamond Ian Desmond doesn’t set my heart aflutter.
But like I said, you did convince me. If the team thinks Desmond is worth a shot, well, I lived with Gonzalez and Hernandez this year. That’s what trying prospects is all about, and I do buy into that.
#22 by Willie - August 10th, 2009 at 12:21
Wow…I’m shocked that hardly anyone is defending Guzman (assuming he wants to stay). But Khalil Greene, seriously?
The team is humming along right now. Guzman has played very well and is a key component to the offense, especially since Morgan has arrived on the scene and put him back in his preferred #2 slot.
Everyone has talked about the uptick in production in Zimmerman thanks to Dunn (and more recently to Willingham) protecting him. But having Guzman and Morgan up top really makes this a lineup to be contended with.
Guzman and Zimmerman are covering the left side of the infield very well – and BOTH have improved since Manny left and Riggleman started focusing more on defense.
SAVE CRISTIAN!
#23 by John IV - August 10th, 2009 at 12:40
Willie – Guzman is shielded very, very often by Zimmerman’s superior range to his left.
keep that in mind.
#24 by Jhouston - August 10th, 2009 at 13:09
I’ll take the other side. Check out Guzmans VORP. This is not the be all end all stat, but it says any replacement player the nats put out there would be a significant step down. Gonzalez is about 0 Vorp. I don’t think this team is better with an average shortstop. I think this is a case of not understanding what we have. I want a team that I can enjoy watching.
#25 by JCA - August 10th, 2009 at 13:22
Brian – this is a clear case of addition by subtraction. As you point out, we have pitch to contact pitchers. Having Guz at SS in 2010 will not help their development. Any of the defense first SS who will be FAs would be better for our pitching staff. Adam Everett, Alex Gonzalez, and John McDonald could be had for a $1.5m, 1 year contract as a replacement. Whoever our second baseman ends up being next year can be an adequate, perhaps superior #2 hitter – one that gets on base, works the count, and allows Nyjer more pitches on which to steal. .330 OBP should not be irreplaceable.
#26 by Wallyball - August 10th, 2009 at 13:45
I am fine with option 1, prefer Option 2 if it is available, but against Option 3. If there were evidence that the Nats needed the money saved to do something productive with the team like sign SS or some more international FAs or major league FAs, then ok, but they have made the most operating money the last few years of any MLB team, and I find it hard to believe that this would be the case. Guzman has been a productive player the last few years, and letting him go for nothing hurts the big league team with no corresponding benefit. To paraphrase Brian and offer a rebuttal, if they are going to let him go now for nothing, then I prefer that they hold on to him for another year and two months and then let him go. And as for getting a more defensive minded SS to help the pitching, I like the idea. Sign McDonald or Everett for $1.5m and switch Guzman to 2b, where his lack of range will be less of a detriment.
#27 by Brian Oliver - August 10th, 2009 at 13:50
Guzman at 2B doesn’t seem a great choice to me from a defensive point of view
But to each their own
#28 by Steve - August 10th, 2009 at 14:02
One of the options can not be to get rid of Guzman for a salary dump, not for this team anyway. If the Nationals end the season with a respectable finish they may not destroy their season ticket holder base. You’re typical baseball fan will not understand Brian’s rational even if it may be the best “baseball” decision. Unless Ian Desmond is nearly as good as Guzman his loss could be extremely detrimental. The team could easily lose 8 million dollars in revenue without Guzman. You could argue that this is Guzman’s best year and after his Lasiks eye surgery he has topped his career average numbers, in fact his numbers from 2007-2009 are
.318 BA .348 OBP .443 SLG .791 OPS
Now if they can work out a trade that makes sense I think you can sell that but otherwise the Nationals must keep Guzman until the off season or next July’s deadline. So I agree with the analysis from a baseball perspective, but this is not what the Nationals need to do right now.
#29 by Ted Leavengood - August 10th, 2009 at 14:05
Nicely put. I think a better example of the market is Marco Scutaro. He is a free agent, 34 all next season, plays abover average defense, and is currently making less than $3 million and unlikely to make much more in 2010. As a better defensive shortstop he would be cheaper and fit better into the lineup batting second–though his .383 OBP this season is an anomaly. Batting eighth he is still a better option dollar for dollar than Guzman.
The bottom line is that Guzman is not the best option available and he costs the kind of money only Jim Bowden was willing to “give” away–other four letter words may be substituted. For probably not much more than the $8 million Guzman will get next season the Nationals could have Orlando Hudson, who would fit better batting second, and Scutaro.
#30 by Wallyball - August 10th, 2009 at 14:13
I know, he isn’t ideal there either, but I am only trying to say that I think his offense has value. Let me try it another way – let’s say that (a) they sign Adam Everett in the offseason either way, and (b) the money saved from this release leads to absolutely nothing else – no additional 2009 draft picks, no more int’l FAs nor other MLB FAs. Wouldn’t you rather have Everett/Guzman than Everett/Gonzalez? I know that I am being a little unfair with that example, but I still think that Everett/Guzman performs better in 2010, so unless there is a player benefit to the organization, I’d keep him. But the best case to me is that they kick in some $$ and make a trade where they get a higher level prospect.
#31 by Brian Oliver - August 10th, 2009 at 14:14
Sometimes the best baseball/business decision doesn’t mesh with the casual fan. This team wasted dollars and years on keeping guys around past their expiration dates or because he’s a “fan favorite” (Dmitri Young, Ronnie Belliard, etc) rather than make the right forward-looking decisions. I’d rather the Nationals dump a guy a year early than a year late.
#32 by Brian Oliver - August 10th, 2009 at 14:16
This is the crux of the problem. The reputation that the Lerners have engendered are making poeple have to think that way when they are looking at the Guzman decision. And that’s a shame, because for once the Nationals could shed payroll and it would be considered a smart baseball move. But unfortunately, the track record of this organization has led people to assume the Lerners will never spend commensurate to what they could/should.
They’ve reaped what they’ve sowed.
#33 by Wallyball - August 10th, 2009 at 14:17
Well, it was an interesting discussion, anyway
Cristian Guzman Clears Waivers By Ben Nicholson-Smith [August 10 at 1:08pm CST] Cristian Guzman cleared waivers and can now be traded to any club, according to ESPN.com’s Buster Olney. The 31-year-old shortstop is hitting .317/.337/.437 , but the $8MM salary he makes this year and next seems to have prevented teams from claiming Guzman
#34 by Wallyball - August 10th, 2009 at 14:24
Brian – although I meant that more as a hypothetical to try to show that Guzman has some value, I admit that your comment #32 captures my viewpoint these days. Although they can change it easily enough with some concrete actions.
#35 by Steve - August 10th, 2009 at 14:35
Good discussion and I am in agreement with your post #32.
I do not want to keep Guzman because he is a fan favorite, I just don’t think they have a replacement for him and I’m not positive they can sign one. As for Dmitri Young there is no way I will every understand how you could have given him a two year contract? That no one in the organization including the Lerners stop this speaks volumes for how dysfunctional this organization was (I hope was). Guzman’s contract while inflated by today’s standard is not a Young, or Kerns debacle. Guzman does have some value.
#36 by carolync - August 10th, 2009 at 15:00
Ian Desmond’s fielding is just not good enough to consider him a viable SS option for the Nationals.
Is there any word on Jeff Kobernus, the college 2B the Nats took in the draft? I had high hopes for him. Vermont put him on the 7-day DL on July 24 and he disappeared off the radar.
#37 by Scott in Shaw - August 10th, 2009 at 15:02
Wallyball — not just a good discussion — this is actually just as good, if not better, news. Now that Guz has passed through, the Nats can not only trade him to the Sox, who are by some accounts still interested, but to anyone who wants him, thereby expanding the market. The Sox don’t have the exclusive negotiating rights they would have had if they had put the claim in. Now, Rizzo, work out a deal — eat some salary and get it done!
#38 by Dick - August 10th, 2009 at 15:06
Or, now they are stuck with him. Had Guzman been claimed on waivers, it would have been Chrismas in August for the Nats.
#39 by ckstevenson - August 10th, 2009 at 15:23
Rizzo SOP at this point would be to get rid of Guzman whatever any offer or not would be.
#40 by Will - August 10th, 2009 at 15:26
Dick, a waiver claim doesn’t guarantee anything.
I think Guzman passing through waivers probably is a good thing. If he keeps up his torrid play over the past month or so, he’s going to look more and more appealing to the Red Sox, who are stuck starting Nick Green and his .390 OPS(!!) over the past month, and it looks like Lowrie’s injury might be pretty serious. Do you think they’ll just sit idly while the Yankees expand their lead in the AL East? Besides, what’s another $8mil to the Red Sox?
#41 by Sec 204 Row H Seat 7 - August 10th, 2009 at 15:40
As I said on NATS Journal Boston has to make some kind of deal with Guzman or risk losing the wild card. I don’t know if Boston can hope to get someone better than him (assuming he keeps up his hitting performance).
#42 by Ric - August 10th, 2009 at 15:44
I would only do a baseball trade that makes sense; a trade solely for salary relief is foolish for the Nationals, who have plenty of money and no clearly better options at short for 2010. Guzman is overpaid, but he does have value. He’s not Austin Kearns. He could be very useful in 2010, and the Nations have to try to put a winning team on the field. But, if they can get a good prospect out of it, like the Nick Johnson trade, fine. I would want someone from Boston’s Baseball America top 15. Gonzales and Belliard or Harris can serve as middle infield for 2010.
#43 by Scooter - August 10th, 2009 at 15:50
See, this? This is “baseball decision” talk. (As was the bit about expiration dates; I only pulled my favorite sentence.)
Okay, I think I’m done petting my peeve now. As you were.
#44 by Pilchard - August 10th, 2009 at 15:59
This is where following prospects and player development diverges with reality: the idea that the Nats would be better off with Ian Desmond at SS than Christian Guzman from this point forward (the old “addition by subtraction” theory).
I love this website because of the player development information, but the thought of this team, with essentially one low level middle infield prospect above single A, improving itself by dumping a solid MLB SS for nothing (or next to nothing) does not advance the future of the franchise.
It was a mistake for this team to going into the 2009 season with a rotation of John Lannan and a bunch of non-MLB ready arms; it would be a mistake for the Nats to go into the 2010 season with Ian Desmond, Alberto Gonzales and whatever free agent bargain SS the team can find before next season. I agree that $8 million for Guzman is is a little bit pricey, but he does give the Nats a solid MLB level SS. Simply put, the Nats are not going to have any better options for next year.
FWIW, payroll should not be an issue for the Nats in 2010 as Kearns, Nick Johnson and the Meat Hook all come off the payroll. Really don’t see why the Nats would benefit by having Ian Desmond and Khalil Greene hit .230 in the #8 spot in the lineup next year just so the Nats payroll can be $4 to 5 million less.
#45 by Brian Oliver - August 10th, 2009 at 16:05
The Nationals would be better off with a SS who can actually field his position at an average level. Guzman is not that player and he isn’t going to be moving forward in 2010. My point was not that they should go youth at SS in 2010. My point was see what Desmond brings to the table in the last 50 games. If, as is most likely the case, he is not ready for prime time, look for a solid defensive shortstop to aid the pitchers. If Mike Rizzo is the full-time GM, he has shown a proclivity for arms that pitch to contact and rely on their defense.
My argument was not to go cheap but to target the dollars they are going to spend more appropriately. Sign a guy who is a solid glove first guy and look to bring some offense in elsewhere (be it by trade or free agent signing). Look to add a solid veteran to the rotation. Find a relievers.
#46 by Pilchard - August 10th, 2009 at 16:26
Understand, but disagree the Nats would be better off (i.e., win more games) with Adam Everett or John McDonald at SS next year than Christian Guzman (when he has played well, the Nats score runs).
FWIW, this is a subjective discussion, and get there will be differing opinions on getting rid of Guzman or not. Just don’t see it as the no-brainer that some have characterized it as.
#47 by Will - August 10th, 2009 at 16:27
Pilchard, I’m not trying to be nitpicky, but the Nats problem wasn’t going into the season with a bunch of non-MLB ready arms, it was going into the season with a bunch of arms that have proven to be ineffective in the MLB. Cabrera, Olsen, Ledezma, etc all have proven over the past several years, that they are not MLB-calibre players. The unproven guys (Zimmermann, Stammen, Balester) have fared rather well, considering the circumstances.
There will be cheap replacements out there, and they can be obtained from inside the system (Desmond), or perhaps someone like Cesar Izturis, who the O’s signed for $2.5m/year, and is almost as valuable as Guzman.
I think the Nats should deal Guzman, as long as they get a decent return. He is after all still worth about 2 WAR, which might be considered overpaid now, but two years ago it wouldn’t have been. If I can be sure that the money saved from trading Guzman will be reinvested into quality additions elsewhere on the team, I fully support it. However, if the money is reinvested in a player like Khalil Greene, who like Daniel Cabrera, has proven to be an ineffective MLB player, then I am against dealing Guzman.
#48 by Louis J - August 10th, 2009 at 16:57
As part of a large season ticket group, the Guzman trade/dump would be the straw that breaks our back and we would “dump” our seats and parking passes ($67,000+). We have spend approx. $400,000+ on tickets, food and parking since the team arrived and we are done with waiting for kids to developed. While Guzman is not a Hall of Fame SS, he’s a lot better than Ian Desmond who may or may not make it in the majors. Guzman is hitting 300+ which is dam good and the offense is clicking with him in the #2 spot! Where are a lot of SS worst than him on contenders.
#49 by souldrummer - August 10th, 2009 at 17:19
I’m on the dump Guzman side if the option presents itself. Our offense is solid right now. It will even better when we substitute Flores for the sub .700 duo currently manning the backstop of Bard/Nieves and don’t have to offer ABs to Kearns and Belliard. If we’re going to field defensive liabilities in Dunn and Willingham, it would be nice to have some plus defense at shortstop. That’s not Guzman.
One thing that’s clear to me is that we need to be prepared to spend some money on starting pitching next year. With JZimm’s potential injuries and the inconsistency of the other pitchers not named Lannan, it would be nice to add a solid veteran starter. If money saved from no Guzman enables us to do that, I’m all for it.
For the sake of the fan base, I don’t think that we can just let him walk, though. We need to be prepared to kick in up to half of his salary to get a potentially better prospect.
Him clearing wavers may be a good thing if that enables us to search more broadly for trading partners.
On another front, I know Riggles seems to be liking Belliard in the current hot streak. I think that we need to make sure that we try to float Willie Harris through waivers and play him because he is another guy who might have some value to add to our paltry positon player defense in the minors.
#50 by Wallyball - August 10th, 2009 at 18:47
I have said earlier that I would not give Guzman away for free like Rios, but that I would trade him for some prospects if the package was respectable, and would like to see the Nats kick in some $$ to enhance the return. However, this story, if true and not just some rhetoric to calm down a ballplayer, would be ridiculous.
Cristian Guzman cleared waivers, will not be traded Nationals shortstop Cristian Guzman has cleared waivers and will not be traded to the Red Sox, according to a baseball source.
According to the Boston Globe on Sunday, the Red Sox may have put in the claim for Guzman’s services. Boston is in need of a shortstop, as Jed Lowrie went on the disabled list on Saturday with a left wrist injury.
But the source said the Nationals have no intentions of trading Guzman. In fact, Washington was upset that the story on Guzman even came out….
#51 by souldrummer - August 10th, 2009 at 18:57
“However, this story, if true and not just some rhetoric to calm down a ballplayer, would be ridiculous.”
Alternatively, it could just be rhetoric to make sure that they don’t end up just settling for dumping the money and making it seem to teams that he’s more valuable to them and drive up the price. I don’t really think it’s that, though.
Guzman’s a sensitive chap from what I understand.
I think all Nationals fans are rooting for Boston to lose games these days.
#52 by souldrummer - August 10th, 2009 at 19:14
Oh no, JZimm is going to need Tommy John.