Washington Nationals: Why did they not trade Bryce Harper?

The Washington Nationals realized they were too far out of the playoff picture, so they parted ways with Daniel Murphy and Matt Adams. But why didn’t they trade Bryce Harper, who was claimed off waivers and would have brought back a good return to D.C.?

Tuesday was a bleak day for baseball in the nation’s capital. Sure, the Washington Nationals won their game against the Philadelphia Phillies in 10-4 fashion, which featured a five-run 6th inning and the first career big-league home run for outfielder Andrew Stevenson, who drove six hours in the rain to make his MLB debut.

But it’s what happened before the Nats’ come-from-behind win that’s left a sour taste in the mouth of the team’s fans. Prior to Tuesday’s game —which featured a grueling rain delay that lasted an hour and 42 minutes— Nationals GM Mike Rizzo executed a pair of moves that indicated Washington has given up on making a playoff push.

First, the Washington Nationals traded second baseman Daniel Murphy to the Chicago Cubs, receiving prospect Andruw Monasterio and an undisclosed amount of cash in return. 20 minutes later, first baseman Matt Adams was claimed off waivers by the St. Louis Cardinals. Unlike Murphy, who was traded to the Cubs after getting claimed, the Nationals let Adams go for nothing.

After those pair of moves were made it was clear the Nationals were undergoing a fire sale, and it got even more serious when reports came out that Bryce Harper, who the Nats placed on waivers, had been claimed by the Los Angeles Dodgers.

More from Call to the Pen

• Philadelphia Phillies, ready for a stretch run, bomb St. Louis Cardinals
• Philadelphia Phillies: The 4 players on the franchise’s Mount Rushmore
• Boston Red Sox fans should be upset over Mookie Betts’ comment
• Analyzing the Boston Red Sox trade for Dave Henderson and Spike Owen
• 2023 MLB postseason likely to have a strange look without Yankees, Red Sox, Cardinals

At this point, the baseball universe was on the verge of going ballistic as a deal involving Harper would be the biggest waiver trade in history. Not only that, but bringing Bryce to SoCal means the Dodgers would likely be named favorites to win the World Series, as was the case when the boys in blue acquired Manny Machado at July’s non-waiver trade deadline.

However, the Nationals didn’t trade Harper to the Dodgers after he got claimed. Instead, they let his waiver period expire before they could hash out a deal.

This didn’t come as too much of a surprise, as Dodgers beat writer Bill Plunkett revealed a trade for Harper wasn’t expected to take place. In fact, the Dodgers might have claimed the reigning Home Run Derby champ just to block other teams from making a claim on him.

But should the Nationals have traded Harper?

Washington made a questionable decision in keeping Harper. He’s set to be a free agent this upcoming winter, and by pulling him off waivers the Nats will essentially get nothing if Harper leaves via free agency in the offseason. If Washington would have dealt the 2015 NL MVP, at least they could have gotten something rather than letting him walk at season’s end.

Parting with Murphy and Adams for a feeble return indicates the Nationals have thrown in the towel on contending for the playoffs. At the time Rizzo sold off these players on Tuesday, the Nats sat 7.5 games back with just a 12% chance of playing in October.

This makes it hard to understand why the Nationals wouldn’t unload their most valuable asset so they could have gotten a significant return. Even though the Dodgers —or anyone else who would have gone for Harper had they not claimed him— would have only gotten Harper’s services for the last 5 weeks of the season (plus playoffs), any team would gladly send the Nationals at least a couple of prospects in their Top 30 nonetheless. That way, the Nationals would have gotten some young talent for Harper rather than losing him for nothing.

On the other side, I can see why the Nats would have thought it was a bad idea to trade their franchise player, even if his contract is about to expire.

The Nationals want to do everything in their power to resign Harper to a long-term deal in the winter. Trading him, even if it’s only for the last stretch of the season, could leave Harper upset with the franchise and make it near-impossible to coax him to return to D.C. in free agency. The Lerner family, who own the Washington Nationals, said Harper is ‘like our son’ and are adamant about bringing him back, regardless of the cost. As a result, maybe it’s best that the Nationals pulled Harper off waivers, but only the future can tell.

On one hand, if the Nats thought Harper wouldn’t resign this winter they could have flipped him for some young talent. On the other hand, unloading Harper at the waiver deadline could have severed ties between him and the team and therefore sacrificing the chance of keeping him in D.C. just for a couple of prospects. It’ll be fun to follow this storyline heading into what should be a crazy offseason.