With the trades involving Matt Caps and Cristian Guzman, the direction of the Nats is becoming a bit more clear.

Conclusion 1 -- The club does not see Jesus Flores as the long-term catcher

Conclusion 2 -- The revolving door approach at 2B has proved to be a disaster

When he joined the Nats in 2007, Flores surprised a number of people.  Rather than being a typical Rule 5 draftee to be hidden on the bench, Flores rather quickly supplanted Brian Schneider as the Nats starting catcher.  He impressed with the glove, arm and bat.  But he couldn't shake ongoing injuries that have left him inactive for more than a year now.  The Nats' conclusion:  it's time to move on.  See Jeff's blog to find out more about Pudge's likely successor, Wilson Ramos. 

As for Guzman, whose contract expires at the end of the season, it had become clear that the Nats were not likely to keep him for 2011.  In press interviews Friday, Mike Rizzo was especially critical of the Nats' poor defensive play, an implicit criticism of Guzman.  But poor defense at 2B (12 errors so far this year) also might have resulted from players being shuttled in and out, without the ability to gain any consistency.  Same could be said about batting.  

After all, is Adam Kennedy really as bad as we have seen so far this year?  Well, we're about to find out, with Kennedy likely getting more consistent playing time.  He certainly made a statement in Friday's game, going 4-5 at the plate (ok, one of the hits obviously was a sacrifice, not a hit) and a clean game in the field.

And then there's Adam Dunn.  One way or another, his future with the Nats will become more clear by 4 PM today.  As Bob Carpenter would say, we'll about to found out in "just a little while."  

      

With all the should-they-or-shouldn't-they talk, baseball pundits seem to skip over a rather obvious question: if the Nationals trade Adam Dunn, who would replace him at 1B?  The Nats have a lot of gaps -- starting pitching, middle infield defense, long-term catcher, to name a few.  So we can't be sure which needs Mike Rizzo might fill through a prospective Dunn trade.  Which means it might be best to assume that the Nats would backfill Dunn from within the current roster.  And Mike Morse is the most likely candidate.  

He has the power numbers of a 1B: a .619 slugging percentage and a HR every 14 at bats this year.  He has height (6'5") and range that approach Dunn.  And the Nats have been looking for ways to get Morse more playing time.  

The downsides?  Morse has logged just 28 innings at 1B this year and thus might be a defensive project initially.  By removing Morse from his current platoon role in RF, the Nats would be depending on Roger Bernadina to be more consistent with the bat (the glove seems to be coming around).  As a full-time starter, Morse would have to face more right-handed pitching.  And, let's face it, even Morse at his best wouldn't match Dunn's offensive numbers.  

That said, these trade-offs might be acceptable if Adam Dunn is no longer a National after July 31.  With Morse and Bernadina in place as regulars, Rizzo would have plenty of performance to judge whether one or both fit the longer-term plan.  And identifying more of those pieces and plugging oh-so-visible gaps are pretty much what the second half of the season has come down to.  

      

The Nats head up I-95 to play the Orioles this weekend.  And there's something to be learned up there.  Namely, the limits of a youth movement.  It's become standard operating practice in baseball to rebuild from within and later add a few high-end free agents "once we're ready to win."  During the past few years, the O's GM, Andy MacPhail, has implemented such a plan.  He traded away a few high-profile veterans for lots of prospects.  Drafts seemingly went well.  And core players were identified.  

Results were not expected to be immediate, and that's a good thing since the O's finished 2009 with the third-worst record in baseball.  (You remember who had the worst, don't you?) Still, heading into this year, there was a fair amount of optimism in Baltimore.  But then the bottom dropped out: just 20 wins in three months, a managerial change, and the worst ERA and most blown saves in the AL.  

What happened?  Well, injuries to key players (Brian Roberts) account for some of this.  Add to that filler veterans who underperformed (Garrett Atkins, among others).  But most of all, the young core simply has disappointed.  Adam Jones too often looks like Lastings Milledge in CF.  Matt Wieters has struggled at the bat.  Brian Matusz has not been the Strasburg-like pitcher that some had expected.  Other young pitchers (Chris Tillman, Brad Bergesen) have looked overwhelmed by major league hitters.  Nolan Reimold was sent back to the minors.  And Nick Markakis, who remains the stud of this team, has been so exasperated that he called out his teammates and begged the owner for help.  

In other words, this is a team that has relied on several young players to step up their performance, and do it all at the same time.  Instead, many players got worse.  Therein lies the lesson: young players can regress as well as progress.  And you're gambling a lot by relying on so many of them at once. 

In contrast, the Nats seem to favor a more balanced approach.  Sure, they are feeling the pain of putting prospects (Bernadina, Desmond) into the starting line-up.  But the Nats rely more on proven veterans (Zimmerman, Dunn, Willingham) who still have productive years ahead of them.  In some ways, the biggest change from Bowden to Rizzo has been a shift in emphasis from youthful potential to proven veterans even if those veterans (Morgan) have more limited upsides.  To this core of veterans are added young players (Strasburg) instead of veterans being added to a young core (Orioles).  

So as this series kicks off tonight, it'll be interesting to see how the differing approaches of both teams affects the win-loss record over the next few days.  I'll be heading up to Camden Yards for the Sunday game.  Looks like a great weekend for baseball.  

      

Folks, take a deep breath.  When I read talk of disloyalty and tough guys gone amuck, I'm thinking we must be referring to the rogue general who stabbed the President of the United States in the back.  Actually, it describes a baseball pitcher.  A nice pitcher, even a darn decent one.  But a pitcher nonetheless who needs some help.  And unlike the general who is about to get his comeuppance, John Lannan will get another chance. 

As I wrote just a few days ago, Lannan will be a determining factor in the Nats' long-term rotation.  If he's there pitching like we have seen the past few years, then the Nats will be well positioned.  If he isn't because he cannot, then things get complicated.  That's why the decision to send him down to AA now is a good one.  For the better part of this season, he just hasn't been pitching like the Lannan we have grown accustomed to.  So why not take a step back, get out of the limelight, and work on some mechanics?  If things go well, we'll see a reset Lannan after the All-Star Break.  If not, then it means there's something more problematic that needs attending to.  Either way, the correct move.  

Now, what does this move say about the new sheriff in Nats Town?  It's become obvious to anyone that being a starter doesn't necessarily secure you a spot in Mike Rizzo's game book.  Milledge, sent down and then traded.  Dukes, sent down and later released.  And now John Lannan.  You and I know that Lannan should not be grouped with those other two. After all, Lannan has a track record of proven results and seems like a terrific guy to boot.  But there's no escaping the fact that, by sending him down, the Nats have put Lannan one step closer to the fate shared by the other two.  And you gotta wonder how all this will test Lannan's confidence.  This is the risk that the Nats now must manage. 

That's why, over the next few weeks, I'll be watching at how the Nats treat Lannan.  Like a disposable part they viewed Milledge and Dukes?  Or like a classy veteran they want to see back again?  We're about to find out.  

      

As John Lannan takes the mound Sunday, he will try to end a five-game losing streak for the Nationals.  But he also might be pitching for something else:  his future as a Nat.  Not in any immediate sense, but as a longer-term piece in the starting rotation.

I've written before that 2010 is pretty much a transition year for the rotation.  That's why we've seen Stephen Strasburg held back in the minors to save money adjust to professional baseball.  Stop gaps are a plenty (Livo, Olsen).  Young guys are coming and going without much notice.  (Does anyone care whether Atilano is better than Stammen?)  And the disabled list is filled with starters who have excelled in the past but God only knows whether they will in the future (Wang, Marquis).

But throughout the morass, you could always point to 2011 and actually be optimistic.  Strasburg and Jordan Zimmermann figure to be as good a 1-2 as you will find in the National League East and probably beyond.  Why?  They miss a lot of bats.  Add Lannan as a solid number three with experience and guile.  With those three spots locked down, you wouldn't need to obsess about the remaining two.  Assume one emerges from the current MASH unit (Detwiler, anyone?).  And then maybe the last slot is a revolving door of system guys.  Put it altogether, and that's not a bad plan.

Trouble is, the reliable veteran has been anything but.  Lannan's woes have been widely chronicled.  The Cliff Notes version: he has been walking too many batters, forcing him to come into the zone more often, where his sinker has not been sinking, more balls have been put in play, where the defense has been kicking around more balls than a World Cup team.  Why has all this been happening?  Everyone's got a theory.  A hangover from arm injury?  A mechanical flaw?  Batters have finally figured him out?  A crappy defense?  Sure, there's probably an element of truth in all these.  All I know is that the results have been very un-Lannanlike.  

Even more problematic, the 2011 plan is becoming more iffy.  Remember how I said that, with Stras, J-Zimm and Lannan in place, you could fill out the other two without much effort?  Take Lannan out of the equation, and now you'd be looking for three.  And that becomes a much bigger deal.  The situation changes from being able to pick and choose from recovering and emerging pitchers to, instead, absolutely needing solid performance from that same group.

All this is the backstory right now with Lannan.  Let's see if he can turn it around.  Things will be so much better if he can.

      

"It's a depressing time." 

That's how Jim Riggleman describes being fired as a major league manager.  In a session with Internet writers Saturday, I asked Riggleman to comment on the recent dismissal of Dave Trembley from the Baltimore Orioles.  Riggleman can relate better than most.  While with the Chicago Cubs, Riggleman was fired by the same general manager who did the deed with Trembley, Andy MacPhail.  

"I've got a lot of empathy for Dave," Riggleman shared.  A baseball lifer like Riggleman or Trembley works hard to become a major league manager, finally gets an opportunity, and knows what is needed to improve a ballclub.  "These jobs are so precious because there are so few of them," Riggleman said.  But the inevitable frustration kicks in when, as Riggleman explained, "you know the things coming out of your mouth are the right things, but you're not getting the results."  Thus, the elusive but often embraced desire for "a different voice."  

It doesn't matter that the ballclub was assembled by someone else.  Too many looses, and you'll be gone. "It's understood going in," Riggleman added.  But it doesn't make it any easier to accept when the dreaded meeting occurs with the general manager.  Hopefully, Mike Rizzo and Riggleman won't be having the same conversation anytime soon.

______

* I also asked Drew Storen whether he, as a rookie, had received any razzing from the veteran players.  "No, not anything too bad.  I have to carry the backpack out to the bullpen.  But that's about it."  Then Josh Willingham arrived in the press room, took over the microphone, and told Storen to "get out."  Perhaps the razzing has only begun.

* Does Willingham mind being taken out of games late for defensive purposes?  After all, the defensive gap between Willingham and the normal sub, Willie Harris, has closed quite a bit.  The Harris-Willingham UZR/150 ratings (left field only):  2009:  +13.6 (Harris) vs. -7.6 (Willingham).  2010: +6.1 vs. +0.9.  (Thanks to FanGraphs.)  So I put the question to Willingham.  His reply:  "Not at all.  Willie is a faster guy.  So it's fine with me."  Sounds like Riggleman's voice is still being heard. 

      

Ever since the Nationals moved to town, I have purchased season tickets, mostly settling on 41-game plans as about the right fit for my family.  And I was impressed at how so many people attended Friday night's game against the Reds.  Sure, the team has (mostly) been playing better.  But of course, the real reason for the 33,000 in attendance?  Lots of people thought it would be Stephen Strasburg's major league debut.  

Well, it just so happens that his real debut, next Tuesday, falls within my ticket plan.  And with the game already a sellout, I have a dilemma.  Should I go to the game for the experience or sell the tickets to subsidize my season-ticket plan?  I asked my wife, and she said, "Are you crazy?  Sell the damn tickets and let's pay some bills!"  But what about the experience?  "You mean horrible traffic, long lines, and people who are there just to be seen?"  She's got a point.  

So I put the question to my fellow columnists here at Nationals Daily News.  I asked them to answer separately as a Nats fan and as a dispassionate blogger.  What do they think? 

Jeff Bergin:  "100 percent, go.  Do you know why?  Because some of us cannot.  :( "  Well, as Stan Kasten said, if you only had been a full season ticket holder...

Emilie Cole:  "Nats fan says:  Go to the game for the experience.  If you sell the tickets, don't be a d-bag.  Sell them at face value."  I don't think she was referring to being a Diamondback.  "Dispassionate blogger says: Go to the game for the experience.  If you can't make it, sure, bank a few bucks."  Ah, the true Emilie emerges.  

Ian Koski:  "I'd want to be there if I was you, in both situations.  You can still do a write-up but from a fan perspective.  Talk to other fans in your section.  Groan about the massive beer lines that we're not used to. Definitely go."  Our esteemed leader, always looking for a story.

Mike Henderson:  "a) Go for the experience; b) Go to feel and write the experience."  I see a pattern here. 

Mike Kanick:  "I agree with my esteemed colleagues."  Sen. Kanick, do you also wish to revise and extend your remarks?

Tim Lemke:  "Go and go."  Our business writer being economical in his reply.

So the blogger advice is clearly to go to the game.  But as my wife reminded me, "You don't have to live with any of them."  

What would you do?

Update: Check out the Strasburg effect on ticket prices.  Thanks to Gavin at SeatGeek.  

      

Strasburg is on the way.  Oswalt maybe yes, maybe no.  And in the not too distant future, the MASH unit will be releasing a few patients named Detwiler, Marquis, Wang and J-Zim.  So one key question that pops up is:  Who will get bumped from the rotation?  If you have to think for a moment before coming up with an answer, then you're proving a point:  there are multiple candidates.  And that's probably the best way to view the starting rotation these days, as one that will go through a fair amount of flux this year. 

Let's work backwards.  Picture the 2011 starting rotation as one being anchored by Strasburg and Zimmermann.  The other three spots?  Well, there's a whole host of possible combinations there.  So don't worry about that now.  Instead, come back to the present and evaluate the current starting five.  If you had to rank them, you'd probably come up with something like this:  1) Livo; 2) Olsen; 3) Lannan; with Stammen and Atilano about the same as 4 and 5.  The obvious point: neither Strasburg nor J-Zim are there.

Of the current group, you have to think that Lannan likely will improve (he started slow last year but then picked up) while Livo (track record) and Olsen (shoulder plus track record) will come back to the pack a bit.  That still leaves Stammen and Atilano where they are: prime candidates to be replaced by Strasburg, presumably in early June.  (Got your tickets?)

Which one is more likely to go?  Pick your favorite statistics, and you won't find a whole lot of difference between the two.  Atilano has a better ERA.  Stammen has a better K/BB ratio.  But neither is dominant.  So flipping a coin might not be a bad method here.  If I had to keep one, I'd keep Stammen.  He seems to have more upside potential, and is far from an automatic out as a batter.  In fact, he has more RBI than Justin Maxwell.  But does that mean his pitching job is safe?  Certainly not if the Nats somehow convince Oswalt to switch uniforms.  In that event, Stammen either gets bumped from the rotation or, possibly, is part of a trade package to the Astros.  

If Oswalt does not become a Nat -- and I cannot imagine that he will -- then Stammen still needs to protect himself against the MASH unit.  He's likely have a half-dozen or so starts to prove himself there.  Of all the rest, the more important arrival will be J-Zim who, if the Nats plan this right, could actually take Strasburg's slot when Strasburg hits his innings limit for the year, say, around Labor Day.  If that's the case, then the other slots will be one revolving door after another.  Will Lannan break out of his early season slump?  Will Detwiler finally fulfill his potential?  Will Wang come back as anything remotely close to his dominant Yankee days?  Is Marquis done?  

Just thinking about all this makes my head hurt.  Somebody go out, pitch well, and put an end to all this.  

      

Okay, how many of you really thought the Nats would have a winning record by now?  Certainly not me.  But I'll take it.  So what are we to make of the first couple weeks of the season?  Here are some somewhat random impressions from my visits to the ballpark.  

-- The Nats should just give Livo a lifetime contract.  The guy will be pitching until he's 40, and then some. 

-- How about that stabilizing force Marquis was supposed to be?  Oh, the plan is to develop young pitchers.  That's right.  I get confused.  In our season ticket package, our next games are Friday and Sunday.  Marquis is scheduled to start on Friday.  When I mentioned this to my son, he said: "Sunday looks like a great day for baseball."

-- If Ray Knight wore the silver Elvis wig, would anyone know the difference?  Kudos to Ray, though, for signing autographs before the MASN pre-game show.  You can tell the guy just lives for being at the ballpark.

-- Zim looks like, well, Zim.  Worth the price of admission all by himself. 

-- Josh Willingham is a better defender than most people give him credit for.  Our seats are in left field, right behind Josh, and he has made some darn athletic plays out there.  

-- I have sold all of my Phillies tickets on StubHub.  Do I need to explain?

-- What's up with the Nats radio signal?  Do you know what Charlie Slowes sounds like on AM 1500 heading to Ashburn, Va.?  Neither do I.  All static, all the time.  At blogger day last summer, I asked Stan Kasten about getting a better radio signal.  And he replied that it's "a really complicated issue" -- gosh, I hadn't heard those words before -- with the need to send signals in so many different directions.  Um, geography 101: When there is a team in Baltimore and a team in Washington, most Washington fans will reside in the Commonwealth of Virginia.  Point the signal that way, and you'll be doing better.

-- Okay, I don't want to end on a negative (this time).  So whoever thought of having day games for both Saturdays and Sundays in April and May, my hat's off to you.  Sure beats the heck out of last year's nighttime freeze.  

Anyway, two weeks into the season, the Nats are hanging in there.  Let's see what the next couple weeks have in store for us.    

      

With President Obama set to throw out the first pitch on Opening Day, Nationals Park will be a festive place indeed.  The majesty of the American flag draped across the outfield.  Lots of entertainment throughout the park.  And a new group of players hoping for a better year.  Who could ask for a better day?

But entering its sixth year, a more profound question faces the team:  has Washington been good for baseball?  And here, the answer might not be as pretty as the cherry blossoms in the outfield concourse.  If you recall, Bud Selig's main reservation for relocating the Montreal Expos to DC was its impact on the Baltimore Orioles.  Would having two teams in the same general geographic area produce two weak teams instead of one with the financial might and fan interest to compete year in and year out?  Would we see two ballparks that are half empty (or worse) rather than one filled to the brim?  

Indeed, it might be hard to recall, but a decade ago the Orioles posted the fourth largest attendance per game (40,700).  The 3.3 millions fans who attended O's games in 2000 were more than all those who went to Yankee games that year.  Since then?  Attendance at Camden yards dropped 17 percent between 2000-2004, and once the Nats came to DC in 2005, another 27 percent.  Thus, last year, just 1.91 million fans attended Oriole games, while 1.82 million visited Nationals Park.  In other words, a single team drawing the fourth-most fans in baseball has been replaced by two teams finishing 21st and 24th out of 30 major league teams in fan attendance, with last-place records to boot.  

Of course, any snapshot is not a perfect picture.  The economy was a lot worse in 2009 than in 2000.  The Orioles were more competitive in 2000 than either team was last year, although, at 74-88, not by much. And fan interest is not the only indicator of financial success.  All true.  But a deeper look at the stats shows that steadily declining attendance at both teams has been the trend, not the exception.  Perhaps not as a coincidence, the win-loss records during the Nats existence:  three fourth-place and two fifth-place finishes for the O's.  And the Nats, well, we know the answer there.  

When it comes to fan attendance and win-loss records, which is the chicken and which is the egg?  At some point, it doesn't really matter.  All we know is that reigniting fan interest needs to become a priority for Nats and O's.  And given the deep hole that both teams have dug for themselves, it won't come easily.