Mar 17, 2010, 11:07 AM EDT
11:07: A couple of conflicting reports are emerging regarding Dukes. A few minutes ago former Nats’ GM and current XM radio host Jim Bowden said “After latest incident, credit Nats for making right decision.” No mention of what the “incident” was. Bowden can be a tremendous tool at times, but he also still has some connections in the Nats’ front office who have passed him information on the sly in the past. (UPDATE: Jim Bowden has apparently now deleted all of his tweets, so perhaps it’s best not to listen to what he has to say about Dukes. Not that we ever should have been listening anyway).
Meanwhile, MASN’s Ben Goessling is being told by Jim Riggleman and Nats’ officials that the Dukes release is “strictly a baseball decision” and that the team “feels they can get better production from combo of others.” With respect to off-the-field issues, someone else tells Ben that “You can dig and dig all you want. There’s nothing.”
For Dukes’ sake you hope that Goessling is correct. For the Nats’ sake you hope Bowden is. Why? Because absent any off-the-field junk, Dukes had real trade value, and the Nats just gave him away for nothing.
10:14 A.M.: MASN’s Ben Goessling tweets that he was just told that the release does not have anything to do with off-the-field issues. Which, while perhaps comforting for Dukes’ sake and for the sake of the innocent civilians of Viera, Florida, makes this move even more bizarre. Why don’t you send him down? Why don’t you explore a trade?
The Nats’ official Twitter feed just announced that the team has released Elijah Dukes. No reasons given yet. We’ll obviously update when we hear something.
Quick reaction: Dukes is a pretty decent player, and despite his history, he’s more or less been a good citizen for a year or two. He is cheap too. If the Nats wanted to get rid of him, why wouldn’t they try to trade him? Or send him down to the minors? Why the unconditional release? There has to be something major behind all of this.
One hates to assume but, apart from a serious off-the-field issue, what possible reason would the Nats have for releasing him unconditionally? Doing so is a statement that he has no value, and the only thing I can think of that would transform Dukes from a moderately valuable commodity to zero value is an incident of some sort.
Also: does this open up a spot for Ian Desmond? Can he play right? Can Cristian Guzman?
- Tigers acquire closer Joakim Soria from the Rangers 9
- Phillies officials “have contemplated the possibility of paying off” and releasing Ryan Howard 29
- The dizzying intellect of Tom Glavine 17
- Verducci: baseball should think about an “illegal defense” rule to combat shifts 158
- Chase Headley plays the hero in his first game in pinstripes 30
- And That Happened: Tuesday’s scores and highlights 29
- Rockies place Troy Tulowitzki on the disabled list 18
- Rob Manfred “heavily favored” to be Bud Selig’s replacement 29
- Verducci: baseball should think about an “illegal defense” rule to combat shifts (158)
- Luke Scott released from Korean team after calling coach a “liar” and a “coward” (108)
- Yankees acquire Chase Headley from Padres (108)
- Who is the next Face of Baseball? (97)
- David Ortiz passes Carl Yastrzemski on the all-time home run list — is he a Hall of Famer? (92)