Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity
On Twitter: AdamKilgoreWP and PostSports  |  Facebook  |  E-mail alerts: Sports and Redskins  |  RSS

Explaining Matt Chico's designation

The bottom line to the transaction the Nationals made this morning in regard to Matt Chico is this: Chico will remain on the 40-man roster and the Nationals are at no risk of losing him. The process that mase that happen is pretty involved. It's not radical, but not all that common, either. Assistant general manager Bryan Minniti decided on the procedure, which Mike Rizzo explained.

"It's a paper transaction," Rizzo said. "Because he's had over three years of service time, you have to get optional waivers on him before you option him back to the minor leagues. That takes 48 hours. Because he was in Double A, we brought him for only 16 hours, or one service, we couldn't obtain optional waivers on him. What we do is, we designate him for option. A lot of times, when you designate for assignment, it's for assignement for release. This is designate for optional assignment. On Monday, we will put him on optional waivers. He will get through, and then we'll send him back to Double A. He won't be claimed, he can't be claimed and we're not going to lose him."

I don't know that clears it up or further confuses things. But, again, the main point is that Chico's is not a typcial DFA. The Nationals stand no chance of losing him.

By Adam Kilgore  |  May 9, 2010; 11:56 AM ET
 
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Jason Marquis set for rehab assignment
Next: Where Doug Slaten fits in

Comments

Alternate headline for this thread:
"The Line for Internet Geniuses to Apologize to Gene Wang Begins Here"

Posted by: mjhoya12 | May 9, 2010 12:18 PM | Report abuse

Well, well done for Adam on following up and getting the bottom line story!

The life of an assitant-GM can't be easy; keeping track of all these rules and nuances...

Posted by: Barney001 | May 9, 2010 12:30 PM | Report abuse

Sure, I get it. You designate someone for optional assignment when you know there is no option of him being claimed. And if he is claimed, then the option can be reoptioned, unless a further designation reveals that "options" are grater than the "claims" involved. In that instance, a team is allowed its discretion in denoting that a player is cleared, even though no clearance was involved or implied. The fact that only 16 hours were involved in the transaction instead of the full 48 means that you have 32 hours to reoption the initial option, assuming a claim is made in the first place.

Posted by: EdDC | May 9, 2010 12:40 PM | Report abuse

I am officially too stupid to continue to read this...

Posted by: PNatsFan | May 9, 2010 2:12 PM | Report abuse

Me too. I was just pretending to be smart. I have no clue.

Posted by: EdDC | May 9, 2010 2:23 PM | Report abuse

(In best Aflac duck): WHA??!!!!

Posted by: dovelevine | May 9, 2010 7:06 PM | Report abuse

I think we should just adopt the flat tax.

Posted by: Sunshine_Bobby_Carpenter_Is_Too_Pessimistic_For_Me | May 9, 2010 9:23 PM | Report abuse

I'm joining the clueless line -- but just for the heck of it, do we have new terms now: "optional waivers," "designate for an option", and "optional assignment"? Oh boy.

Posted by: RLFWDC | May 10, 2010 11:20 AM | Report abuse

"So, if the Beers beat Detroit and Denver beats Atlanta in the American Southwestern Division East Northern, then Milwaukee goes to the Denslow Cup, unless Baltimore can upset Buffalo and Charlotte ties Toronto, then Oakland would play LA and Pittsburgh in a blind choice round robin. And if no clear winner emerges from all of this, a two-man sack race will be held on consecutive Sundays until a champion can be crowned."

Posted by: MAlvino | May 10, 2010 2:56 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company