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?
- And That Happened: Wednesday’s scores and highlights 75
- Astros vendor brings snow cones into bathroom stall, gets fired 40
- Don Mattingly will still be the Dodgers’ manager on Friday 14
- Jake Westbrook feeling lingering discomfort in right elbow 5
- Las Vegas police investigating Jose Canseco as a suspect in sexual assault case 70
- MLB is putting players in camouflage uniforms on Memorial Day. Which is kinda weird. (117)
- Barry Bonds: Miguel Cabrera is the best … but not as good as me (111)
- And That Happened: Wednesday’s scores and highlights (81)
- And That Happened: Wednesday’s scores and highlights (76)
- Albert Pujols doesn’t matter anymore (74)
- Lochte says Phelps will return soon
- LeBron stuns Pacers with OT winner in Game 1
- Pens overwhelm Sens, take 3-1 series lead
- Tiger calls Sergio's comments inappropriate, hurtful
- Bears great Urlacher announces retirement
- HBT: Canseco suspect in Vegas sexual assault
- Posnanski on Golf: Sergio shows disdain for Tiger