Nats Trade for Utilityman, DFA Rule 5 Pick
Yesterday, the Nats traded a pitching prospect (Sean Paul Liñan) for a light-hitting utilityman (Jorbit Vivas). To make room, the Nats designated their top 2025 Rule 5 pick.
Sports Illustrated misspelled the word “puzzling” in its breakdown of the trade. While Liñan may have been a Top 30 prospect, that status is primarily because the Nats have so few true pitching prospects. Conversely, the Nats have plenty of light-hitting infielders, including 2023 Rule 5 pick Nasim Nuñez and 2024 trade pickup José Tena. Vivas and Tena are both out of options, while it appears that Nuñez still has one remaining.
Meanwhile, McGarry is available to 28 clubs but his Rule 5 requirement (must remain on the 40-man roster all season long) remains intact, which should further depress his value. If (when) he goes unclaimed, the Nats must offer him back to the Phillies for $50K. While it’s possible Washington and Philadelphia could work out a trade, that seems highly unlikely.
As I said in the previous thread, I don’t get it. We’ve just put ourselves in a spot where we need to DFA Tena. I don’t think we can option Nunez simply because he’s the only player capable of playing SS (Abrams included). So he needs to stick around there, because in over 700 major/minor league games Vivas has played exactly 3 innings at SS. And while Tena used to play SS, he got moved off there because he was really, really bad there.
So then is Vivas an upgrade on Tena? No. Here’s their career minor league stat lines from 2022-2025:
Tena: .277/.339/.437, 109 wRC+
Vivas: .260/.374/.385, 111 wRC+
They’re basically the same with the bat. What Vivas gains in OBP he sacrifices in power. They both have exactly 60 SB in the same period. Vivas rates as a below average defender. Tena does too (albeit with still some unrealized potential to be merely average). They’re both 25. They both hit left handed. Tena is an inch taller.
They’re the same player. But in the end, we’ll swap one clone for another. If it ended there, I’d say whatever and move on, but we just gave away Linan, an interesting piece if anything, for the honor of shifting deck chairs around.
Why? What’s the Devil’s Advocate argument for Vivas’ upside that makes him a much better option to Tena, that he’s worth giving away Linan for?
That’s exactly it. Tena is almost the same player and, if I were pressed, I’d rate him slightly higher. If the team picked up Vivas on the wire and DFA’d Tena, it would fall squarely in the “well, the team knows a lot that I don’t” range, and I wouldn’t have had much reaction at all.
But trading a real, if not spectacular, prospect to “upgrade” from Tena to Vivas is crazy.
What could the team possibly be thinking?
It’s hard to figure this out, but throwing these possibilities out there:
– Trade Jose Tena for someone else’s Sean Paul Linan (seems pointless)
– DFA Andres Chaparro, and keep Tena, Vivas, and Nunez. Luis Garcia plays 1B and we subscribe to the “anyone can play 1B” theory.
– Keep Tena, Vivas and Nunez and go with 4 outfielders (Nunez has played OF).
More to chew on:
03/22/26 OF Samil Serrano assigned to DSL Nationals.
03/21/26 Rochester Red Wings released RHP Drew Smith.
03/21/26 Rochester Red Wings released 3B Warming Bernabel.
03/21/26 Rochester Red Wings released 2B Orelvis Martinez.
Serrano is 17 years old. We knew about Drew Smith already. It’s possible he could be brought back on a regular minor league contract with no opt-outs (giving up his XX(B) rights). The other two guys have great names.
Basic principle: just because I can’t think of a reason why a particular decision or transaction makes sense does NOT mean that there wasn’t such a reason.
I wouldn’t say that’s wrong exactly, but I would argue that if you really can’t imagine a plausible reason that makes some decision make sense, there’s a really good chance that decision doesn’t make sense.
And I wonder – do you apply that same aggressive innocence to your analysis of events outside of sports? Surely when you look around the world you see ample evidence to obliterate the hypothesis that everyone in power always makes well considered and reasonable choices.
And before this escalates, this is one of the few times where the big club could legitimately say there’s information we have that you don’t, even 90% of the time when that’s invoked it’s a smokescreen.
Let’s move on…