Jun 18, 2012, 2:48 PM EST
California high school right-hander Lucas Giolito was in the mix for the No. 1 overall pick before an elbow injury ended his season and he fell to the Nationals with the 16th pick.
Because of the new rules for signing bonuses the Nationals are somewhat limited in terms of what they can offer Giolito and even by saving money with other picks they have “only” $3 million or so to lure him away from college ball at UCLA.
If they truly felt Giolito is a No. 1 pick talent the Nationals could exceed their allotted money and accept the penalty of forfeiting next year’s first-round pick. And that’s perhaps not as far-fetched as it might initially seem considering the Nationals have a top-five record and would be picking near the bottom of the first round if the season ended today.
However, according to Amanda Comak of the Washington Times the team has ruled out that possibility and “under no circumstances” will give up next year’s first-rounder to sign Giolito. Of course, as the mid-July signing deadline approaches we’ll see if sharing that stance with reporters is partly a negotiating tactic.
- Video: Watch Matt Harvey’s return to action against the Tigers 3
- Matt Harvey makes his return. And he was really impressive. 23
- Hector Olivera’s camp denies any damage to ulnar collateral ligament 3
- UPDATE: Hunter Pence out 6-8 weeks with fracture in left forearm 28
- MLBPA: leaks are from people “who want to see Josh Hamilton hurt personally and professionally” 36
- Suspending Josh Hamilton for a year would be obscene 147
- Report: MLB panel split on rehab for Josh Hamilton; one-year suspension is in play 45
- Joc Pederson goes 2-for-2 in Cactus League debut 6
- Daniel Murphy on Billy Bean: “I do disagree with the fact that Billy is a homosexual” (380)
- Suspending Josh Hamilton for a year would be obscene (147)
- Curt Schilling lowers the boom on some men tweeting threats against his daughter (137)
- That facts of Josh Hamilton’s case should not be a matter of public record (94)
- Billy Bean responds to Daniel Murphy’s comments (90)