Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity
On Twitter: AdamKilgoreWP and PostSports  |  Facebook  |  E-mail alerts: Sports and Redskins  |  RSS
Posted at 3:01 PM ET, 12/15/2010

Jayson Werth has a full no-trade clause

By Adam Kilgore

With the official introduction of Jayson Werth and plenty of interviews that followed complete, perhaps the most interesting piece of new information, confirmed by agent Scott Boras, is this: General Manager Mike Rizzo relented on his general philosophy and included a full no-trade clause in Werth's seven-year, $126 million contract, a stipulation Werth felt was crucial to come to Washington.

Werth mentioned two factors more than any other as to why he signed with the Nationals (leaving the $126 million an unspoken reason): His conviction that the Lerner family is willing to win, and the security provided by the length of the contract and the stipulation that he must approve any trade. Werth and his wife are currently house hunting. They're not buying a second home in Washington. They're buying a home, period. That's what Werth wanted.

"This is my first chance at being in free agency," Werth said. "I worked so hard over the years. I went through so much. I had a wrist injury that was misdiagnosed a couple seasons. I missed an entire season due to that. You finally get to free agency, you have a chance to do something special for yourself and for your family. There's a lot of things that go into it. The years were important to me. The chance to come to a city, guaranteed to be here for a long time, the no-trade was a big deal for me. Have a chance to set my family up for years to come here."

If it wasn't crucial, then the no-trade at least helped land Werth in Washington. The clause could become troublesome in the future. Some teams have a strict policy against them, which the Nationals can no longer claim in their negotiations with future free agents. Rizzo made clear, though, how difficult it was to give one to Werth and that he will not make a habit of handing them out.

"It was very difficult, one of the last sticking points that we had," Rizzo said. "I'd rather not have a no trade clause, because it's another impediment to roster construction. I would term it that way. A no-trade clause gives the players more control. That's why we're reluctant to do it. It's something that for an elite free agent like this, I thought I would relent on it. Because we had to do it to get the player."

By Adam Kilgore  | December 15, 2010; 3:01 PM ET
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Live: Jayson Werth news conference
Next: Cliff Lee talked to Jayson Werth about playing together


"General Manager Mike Rizzo relented on his general philosophy and included a full no-trade clause in Werth's seven-year, $126 million contract, a stipulation Werth felt was crucial to come to Washington."

That was always Kasten's general philosophy as he frequently informed the press, not so sure it has been Rizzo's. Might have been one of the things they disagreed on while Kasten was in charge.

Posted by: FeelWood | December 15, 2010 3:26 PM | Report abuse

"The clause could open become troublesome in the future."

Especially if they rely on a professional wordsmith like Kilgore to explain it.

Posted by: FeelWood | December 15, 2010 3:30 PM | Report abuse

Man, I've missed a couple of opportunities today!

1) I thought the no-trade clause was the $126 million for seven years. Zing!

2) Phase 2 leaves the perfect opportunity to cite South Park's underpants gnomes.

Phase 1: Collect more underpants
Phase 2: ?
Phase 3: Profits!

Posted by: Section506 | December 15, 2010 4:00 PM | Report abuse

There can't be any one who still thinks this is a good deal.

Posted by: Aerowaz | December 15, 2010 4:18 PM | Report abuse

Welcome, Werth!

This guy's a class act and has his head together.

This deal will go down as a no-brainer 3 years hence.

Posted by: MerlinTerps | December 15, 2010 4:33 PM | Report abuse

Pointing out factual errors in a story is fine by me, but jumping on every little typo or, horrors, grammatical error is getting lame. As for the contract, the bad news is that it limits the team's future flexibility; the good news is that it shows that he wants to be here. Just hoping there's still more to come this winter.

Posted by: justmike | December 15, 2010 4:54 PM | Report abuse

Now, how about signing LaRoche and a trade for a pitcher to show Werth and the rest of us that you are really serious about winning, and before 2016.

Posted by: RoyHobbs4 | December 15, 2010 5:06 PM | Report abuse

Enjoy the next 7 yrs of last place finishes Jason because the NATS pitching stinks.Oh,I almost forgot,let's see what your RISP numbers are when you don't have the philly bats around you.It's all about the money with you and nothing else.Enjoy.

Posted by: biggdogg1 | December 15, 2010 6:44 PM | Report abuse

What worries me in this article is Mark Lerner's insertion into the process. Him saying who can and cannot be traded sounds too much like another very shrewd lawyer who owns a Mid-Atlantic baseball team and thinks his knowledge of state and federal statutes qualifies him to make decisions about a baseball team.

Posted by: Juliasdad | December 15, 2010 7:05 PM | Report abuse

I am always amazed at the people who, on the one hand, expound at length and with certitude about their baseball judgments on this blog and, on the other hand, lambaste the owner for the temerity to think he knows anything about baseball.

Why do you think Mark Lerner knows less about baseball than you do, and, more to the point, if it were your money and your team, do you REALLY believe you would play no role in decisions of this magnitude? Do you really think you would spend all that money to buy a team so that you could have no more input into running it than the man on the street?

All owners, especially these days, get involved in big-money decisions. Steinbrenner, Cuban, Snyder, Angelos, Lerner, Leonsis. Some do it better than others, some are luckier than others. For the Lerners, time will tell.

Posted by: Meridian1 | December 15, 2010 7:42 PM | Report abuse

Good grief. Did Dan Snyder take over the Nationals?

Posted by: MillPond2 | December 15, 2010 7:50 PM | Report abuse

Hey Werth,

Welcome to DC and check out all the articles on Fat Albert Hayneworthless for how not to act as a player in DC with a bloated contract. We wish you the best, but as a Washington, DC sports fan...we fully expect you to be a bust like all the others that preceeded you. Sorry, just the truth.

Posted by: DaveLopan | December 15, 2010 8:47 PM | Report abuse

Post a Comment

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.

characters remaining

RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company