When this columnist was a tot, roughly during the Don Draper generation, a popular saying in business circles went something like "Nobody ever got fired for buying IBM."

Meaning that -- whether in reference to the company's stock, which might tank (as it did in 1973-74) or its products, for which cost-effective alternatives might become available (as they did in the '70s and '80s) -- buying IBM might be an unfortunate decision, but not a damnable one, because everybody else was doing it too.  Or so it seemed.

Over time I've been about as successful at selecting pennant races as at playing the market.  (There are still some Pan Am stock certificates in the back of my filing cabinet.)  But some of the predictions I've seen this spring have been real head-scratchers.

Why?  Not because they go out on a limb, but because they seem to go out of their way not to.

Sporting News Today is typical.  Here's who they think will make the playoffs in 2010, and what I think about what they think.

AL East:  Yankees.  (Nuts.  No matter how much money they spend, they're in too competitive a division -- no, really they are -- to be elected by acclamation.  They could even be edged out of the playoffs entirely, not for want of effort.)

AL Central:  Twins.  (Fine, but it's a pure guess.  This may not be the tightest race ever but it will be tight enough that Manny Acta's Indians could luck into an 82-80 record and slip away with the prize.)

AL West:  Angels.  (Another tight race, and I'm not sure who'll be first on closing day, but I'm picking Anaheim to miss.)

AL wildcard:  Red Sox.  (As predictions go that's just kicking the can down the road.  Why shouldn't they win the pennant?  And the Rays are not going away.)

NL East:  Phillies.  (I'm down with that, but not as confidently as I'd be if both Joe Blanton and Brad Lidge weren't starting the season on the DL.)

NL Central:  Cardinals.  (This is the hardest to argue with.)

NL West:  Rockies.  (Most likely, but I wouldn't rule out anyone but the Padres.  Especially with Huston Street and Jeff Francis on the Rox' DL.)

NL wild card:  Cubs.  (Breathes there the man with soul so dead, / Who never to himself hath said, / The Cubs could win a ring this year?  Yes, there does:  me.  The serious, thoughtful answer would be the Braves who -- granted, a bit unexpectedly -- are going all in on Jason Heyward, and are also strong in the bullpen and behind the plate.)

World champion:  Yankees over Phillies.  (Is it Groundhog Day at SNT?  The Phillies will win and it won't be over the Yankees.)

      

As this column reported last week, a number of Washington Nationals alumni have migrated to the Cleveland Indians' organization.  The best known, of course, is former Nats manager Manny Acta.

Two other ex-Washingtonians who went to the Tribe's spring training camp in Arizona were outfielder Austin Kearns and pitcher Saul Rivera.  Neither was awarded a major-league contract at the outset, but both would surely like to get back onto a 40-man roster.

What are their chances of doing so?  See if you can judge by their spring-training performances:

• Rivera has made eight appearances totaling 8 2/3 innings.  He's struck out six and given up six hits and three walks.
• Kearns has made 40 trips to the plate, during which time he has collected 13 hits (including five doubles and two homers) and seven bases on balls.  He's also struck out 13 times, staking an early claim to the chairmanship of the Cleveland chapter of the Three True Outcomes Club.  Summary batting line:  .325 / .417 / .600.  (He also had a hot spring in 2009, so don't get all excited.)

Surprisingly or not, there's at least one report of the Indians trying to pry open a spot for Kearns on their 40-man roster.

However, that same report says that Rivera -- that good-looking stat line notwithstanding -- "did not make the team."  It doesn't indicate whether he was waived out of the organization, or retained to bolster the triple-A bullpen in Columbus.  One would assume the latter but keep an eye on this Hutch in case it's the former or something else.

      

If there's one thing for which Manny Acta should be thankful about his new gig as manager of the Cleveland Indians, it's that -- unless ownership loses its sanity altogether -- he won't have to spend much time worrying what bizarre and futile move his general manager will perpetrate next. That's a win right there no matter how many games his team loses on the field.

While Acta's no doubt pleased not to have to report to Jim Bowden, he'll nonetheless be challenged as he skippers a club in transition.  Far from contending in the AL Central as had been hoped at the beginning of 2009, the team ended up being torn down by GM Mark Shapiro who proceeded to ship out as many over-30s (plus Ben Francisco) as he could find willing takers for.

Shedding Rafael Betancourt, Mark De Rosa, Cliff Lee and Victor Martinez didn't improve the short-term chances of the Tribe which slid to a final 2009 record of 65-97 and a tie with Kansas City for the division's basement.

But the players Shapiro traded did bring back some interesting young guys, among them catcher Lou Marson and pitchers Carlos Carrasco, Justin Masterson, Chris Perez and Jess Todd.  This is a far better situation than what Acta was saddled with in Washington, where excessive amounts of his time and the team's resources were expended on projects like Dmitri Young and Elijah Dukes, even as the Nationals' prospect pool had (and still has) far to go to recover from the desiccated condition into which it sank under MLB's ownership and Bowden's wayward fancies.

There will be some familiar faces in Acta's new organization. Nats-alumnus signees this offseason have included replacement-level infielder Anderson Hernandez -- whom Cleveland just acquired this past Wednesday off waivers from the Mets -- and sub-replacement-level outfielder Austin Kearns, neither of whom should cause Acta any difficult lineup decisions.

On the other hand, 32-year-old reliever Saul Rivera may be pitching his way onto the Indians' 40-man roster:  he's produced five scoreless innings in five relief appearances this spring, issuing three strikeouts, three hits and a base on balls.  With Kerry Wood now on the sidelines, Chris Perez' likely promotion to closer could open a spot for Rivera in middle relief.

Whatever the incremental contributions of Acta's ex-Nats, he's still apt to be leading an improved Tribe.  If nothing else, their spring performance has earned them a record of 11-5 so far in Cactus League play, although by no means does that translate into a winning record in the regular season.  All the same, if Manny Acta's Indians stay healthy in 2010, they should make their share of noise in what rates to be a tight AL Central race.

      

Hardly did the baseball world have time to digest the news of the signing of ex-Nationals relief pitcher Saul Rivera by the Cleveland Indians -- there to be reunited with his erstwhile manager Manny Acta -- than we are informed that outfielder Austin Kearns, who ended his D.C. career on a resounding note of anticlimax, has signed up with the Tribe as well.

Let it be noted that the Kearns transaction is a minor-league deal, with an invitation to major-league spring training.  Best of luck to all involved.

      

From the perspective of the people responsible for improving the Washington Nationals, it's hard to deny that the past two months have been productive ones, particularly with respect to the upgrades they've made to the pitching staff.

The back end of the bullpen has been bolstered with Brian Bruney and Matt Capps.  When considered alongside the acquisitions of left-handed relievers Doug Slaten and Eddie Guardado and front-line starter Jason Marquis, as well as the re-signing of starter Scott Olsen, pitching coach Steve McCatty should have fewer worries come Opening Day 2010 than his predecessor Randy St. Claire had at the beginning of 2009.

But the Nats shouldn't be thinking that the work is all done.  A strong case can be made that the team should try to solidify the 2010 rotation even further by bringing either Jon Garland or Joel Pineiro into the fold.  Both are available via free agency and either could help to provide something the Nationals have never possessed during their time in Washington:  a rotation containing three members (the other two being Marquis and John Lannan) each capable of producing 200 innings of work, and work of reasonable quality at that.

Before we get all excited, though, it's important to consider that not every weakness on the team has been addressed to everyone's complete satisfaction.

While we'd like to think that the catching situation isn't in as much turmoil as it appeared to be this past September when Jesus Flores and Wil Nieves were lost for the year, it's far from worry-free.  True, Ivan Rodriguez brings the team both veteran experience and a measure of cachet.  But nothing short of the return of Flores to complete health will really convince either the Nationals or their fans that the team has matters anywhere near settled behind the plate.

Meanwhile, the middle infield remains an issue.  Spring Training 2010 will be far advanced before it's known whether the team's defensive woes can really be mitigated by deploying Ian Desmond at shortstop and repositioning Cristian Guzman at second base.  Unless the Nats can bring an effective free-agent infielder on board, they may find themselves juggling combinations involving guys like Alberto Gonzalez, Willie Harris and Pete Orr and hoping for the best.

So should the Nationals put additional pitching improvements on hold until matters are settled up the middle?  Not unless they want to risk making it look as if they're ready to write off the 2010 season before it even starts.

Just as in past years it's been possible to be too optimistic, it's also always possible to be too gloomy -- and to allow that gloom to justify needless inertia.

To be sure, the envisioned middle infield of Desmond and Guzman will have a hard time trying to match the defensive prowess of, say, Jimmy Rollins and Chase Utley.  But, as mentioned above, alternatives -- whether or not of All-Star caliber -- do exist on the present 40-man roster.

And the infield challenges needn't last forever.  If Danny Espinosa can continue to clean up his glove work, he may earn some time at shortstop at Nats Park in 2011.  Likewise, Steve Lombardozzi appears to be on track to challenge for the keystone position in 2012 -- which, if all proceeds on course, should also be about the time the Nationals are ready to give his teammate Derek Norris a major-league audition at catcher.

All that said, the Nats should continue to do everything they can to build league-contending rotations both for 2010 and for future seasons.

Imagine a starting five in 2010 that looks something like Pineiro, Marquis, Lannan, Olsen and Craig Stammen.

Now add Stephen Strasburg and Jordan Zimmermann, and maybe Brad Meyers or Erik Arnesen, in 2011.  (Not to mention guys like Collin Balester and Ross Detwiler if they reach the next level.)  You could be looking at some of the deepest starting pitching in the majors, as opposed to the patchwork rotations of the past few seasons.

That can be the basis for a team that contends -- not just for NL East pennants in the future, but for legitimacy and fan dollars today.

Which is the real point.  The novelty of both the Nationals and of Nats Park has worn off.  After five seasons of never seeing the Nats finish above .500, even die-hard fans are weary of the prospect of trooping to the ball park to witness yet another campaign that's practically over by the end of May.

And they shouldn't have to.  For about another $10 million per annum -- what Garland or Pineiro would likely fetch on a two- or three-year deal -- the starting pitcher that the Nats need in order to end their days as yet another joke of a Washington baseball team may be within their grasp.

It's none too soon for the Nats to show this town and its fans that they're ready to look like a winner.

      

Nationals fans will likely look back a few years from now and identify the period from mid-2008 to mid-2009 as the year that the franchise hit rock bottom in Washington.

By the last morning of June '08 it had become apparent, at least to this columnist, that the team's 33-50 record wasn't just an aberration.  Injuries took their toll, to be sure.  But a systemic malaise was also in evidence, responsibility for at least part of which had to be laid at the feet of then-manager Manny Acta.  Then-general manager Jim Bowden earned his share of (increased) opprobrium a few weeks later when he stunned the Natmosphere by announcing publicly, and prematurely, the team's intention to let go of injured fan-favorite relief pitcher Chad Cordero. 

After the 2008 Nats scuffled to a record of 59-102, management seemed not to be in any hurry even to sketch a road map for the team's return to contention.  Early offseason activity was typified by the acquisition of free-agent pitcher Daniel Cabrera in December, a predictably Bowdenesque roll of the dice that came up snake eyes in spring 2009.  To no one's surprise, Cabrera was shown the exit sign at the end of May, treading a path that had seen Bowden depart under a cloud a few months earlier and upon which Acta would follow a few weeks later.

By the 2009 All-Star break, no one could deny that the team was in free fall.  A young, largely unproven starting rotation and a patchwork bullpen couldn't make up for wretched fielding, and the Nats were losing more than twice as many games as they were winning.

That was when the Nationals front office, by that time under the guidance of Mike Rizzo, started making it clear that the drama was going to stop.

Whatever his intrinsic merits as a manager, Acta had failed to convince the front office that he was capable of leading this team out of the mess it was in.  On Monday, July 13, Acta was dismissed and veteran skipper Jim Riggleman was promoted to field manager from bench coach, thereby inheriting the thankless chore of trying to help clean up a mess virtually none of which was of his making.

It is easy to cite Riggleman's 33-42 record in the second half of 2009 as evidence of improvement, but the improvement goes beyond the numbers.

Riggleman wasted no time in making it clear to the members of his team that, as professional ball players, they owed it to the fans to play up to their potential.  However many times and in whatever words it might have been stated before, the message seemed to stick better with the players this time.

Still, the Nats need more than an occasional in-season butt-kicking to improve fielding and reduce the number of blown saves.  For one thing, roster changes will continue to be required, and Rizzo's front office has shown itself capable of making bold ones.

What the Nats needed more than anything in 2009, though, was reason to be confident that the expectations of management consisted of more than occasional feel-good phrases or daring, wishcasting personnel moves.  The players needed to be convinced that the execution of a winning plan wasn't only a matter of managerial button-pushing or front-office caprice, but of internalizing expectations and of carrying them out daily on the field.

In short, the strategic direction of the ball club had to change to one in which the players would be transformed from puppets on a string to stakeholders in the team's success or lack thereof.

Sending such a message with conviction requires credible leadership.  The Nats asserted that in 2009 with the appointment of Rizzo to the general manager's post and of Riggleman as interim -- and, this past Thursday, as permanent -- successor to Acta.

But it also requires continuity.  If the first few months of Riggleman's leadership in the dugout resulted in demonstrable improvement, consistent with the newly stated strategy, then an honest front office had to ask itself what message would be sent by installing new field leadership for the second time in six months.

The message heard at the Hutch this week from Rizzo and company is this:  We did not get here by accident.  We know what we are doing, and we have confidence both in the leadership team that we are building and in the process by which we are building it.

That message, a hard sell to a weary fan base that has heard promises before, would have been a much harder sell had Riggleman been let go.

In an internet writers' teleconference on Friday, Riggleman acknowledged, but did not overemphasize, his qualifications to continue to lead the Nationals.  The impression he gave is that, while he understands the responsibilities the job entails, he also understands his selection and continuation as manager -- as well as his own execution of the job moving forward -- to be a deliberate implementation of strategy rather than a plea for him to pass miracles.

Riggleman won't, of course, be expected to carry out his mission alone.  While the field leadership team isn't fully built, Riggleman indicated on Friday that announcements regarding his coaching staff would be forthcoming over the next few days.  Expect that staff to include some newcomers to the Nats' organization, probably in new roles:

. . .  [T]here are people that [we] might want to bring in, but [we]'ve got to get permission from the existing club that they're with to talk to them.  And in most cases that's just a formality because [we]'re not asking the person [we]'re getting to make a lateral move . . . There will be a couple changes on the staff.

If the changes are wise ones, they'll produce a cohesive, effective coaching staff that will mirror the increased cohesion and improved performance of the Nats' players in the second half of 2009.

While this columnist has at times puzzled over the wisdom of Riggleman's battlefield promotion and pondered the merits of alternative candidates, it is hard to deny that Riggleman understands what is expected of him, which is that he be an active, invested participant in the execution of a plan that has arguably lacked form (not to say substance) over the Nationals' first five seasons in Washington.

For the Nationals to become contenders, it is vital that Riggleman, unlike his predecessors, be not only a tool of organizational strategy but also its agent.  Also unlike his predecessors, he is part of an organization whose strategy is now a credible one.

The spotlight in 2010 will thus focus strongly on Riggleman, but in a fairer way than it did on Acta or on Acta's predecessor Frank Robinson.  And if the Nationals achieve success on Riggleman's watch, credit will fairly accrue both to him and to an organization that finally may have understood how to implement a strategic direction toward success.

      

Whether or not you think the Nationals' ownership should be spending Dodger-type money on a field manager, Ben Goessling and Mark Zuckerman of the Washington Times report this morning that they won't be spending it on Dodgers bench coach Don Mattingly.  Mattingly thus joins Bobby Valentine and Buck Showalter as big-name managerial candidates whose names have apparently been crossed off the search list.

That would seem to improve the chances that current manager Jim Riggleman's status will advance from "interim" to "permanent."  This Hutch can see the reasoning there:  having had the opportunity to participate in an internet writers' question-and-answer session with Riggleman a few months ago, we were impressed by Riggleman's experience, perspective, and forthright commitment.

Invested with a level of responsibility that, under the Bowden regime, never seemed to accrue to his predecessor Manny Acta, Riggleman has not been afraid to step up and to ask his players to do the same.  The team's improved record and quiet cohesion under Riggleman surely argue in his favor as the clock winds down.

But Riggleman may not be the only candidate left.

The Times piece also mentions Bob Melvin as a possibility.  Melvin posted a disappointing record at Arizona in 2009 prior to being fired after the first month of the season, but some part of the poor performance might be attributable to organizational flux since the departure of former Diamondbacks owner Jeff Moorad for San Diego.

To add a degree of intrigue, consider that the Nats are said to have offered jobs for 2010 to all members of the 2009 coaching staff -- and that Tim Foli, who in 2009 guided the triple-A Syracuse Chiefs to second place in the International League Northern Division, will be replaced at Syracuse in 2010 by Trent Jewett, who managed the high-A Potomac Nationals to winning records in both the first and second halves of the 2009 Carolina League season.

Foli -- who spent a month as part of Riggleman's MLB coaching staff after the close of the minor-league season -- professes not to know what his future holds, although the organization seems quite pleased with the results he's produced.  It doesn't seem unreasonable to assume that Foli will remain in Washington -- and in that event, the only question would be what title will grace Foli's office door come Spring.

      

Considering that former Nationals manager Manny Acta -- dismissed by Washington at midseason 2009 after accruing a 158-252 record over two and a half seasons -- was reported to be in the running for a number* of vacant managerial positions, it's not surprising that he has come to terms with the Indians on a three-year contract with an additional one-year club option.

Acta will have his work cut out for him.  Cleveland, which was AL Central champion as recently as 2007, has joined Kansas City in the division's basement just two seasons later.

What are the chances that he will be able to accomplish in Ohio what he could not in D.C.:  leading a struggling ball club back to success on the field?

Acta has two large systemic factors in his favor this time around.  First, while the Indians undoubtedly miss the services of players like CC Sabathia and Victor Martinez, it's hard to argue that their organization has been emaciated to anything like the degree that the Nationals' had been not too long before Acta arrived on the scene.  Second, he will be reporting to Mark Shapiro, a general manager who -- unlike Jim Bowden who was Acta's front-office boss for the first two years of his Washington tenure -- appears to enjoy both the confidence of his team's owners and the respect of his peers.

The determining factor in Acta's longevity in Cleveland, we feel, will be Acta himself.

If he has learned anything from his first major-league managerial experience, it's that he will have to remain engaged and to demonstrate active leadership with a visible bias toward accountability.  Not to do so would likely make his stay with the Tribe an unhappy one and a short one.

But if he can bring the right degree of intensity and involvement to his new posting, Indians fans may find themselves with a contending ball club quite soon -- and with an intelligent young manager to thank for it.

* Granted, that number was just two at the time of writing. It will, however, increase, even as the number of candidates has just decreased by one.

      

In case you, as we, missed Thomas Boswell's sports chat this morning on washingtonpost.com, you might be interested in his take on the Nationals' search for a new manager, specifically his evaluation of the relative merits of various candidates, including those we mentioned earlier this week:

Silver Spring, Maryland: I am glad that Bobby Valentine is being considered for the Nats job. Why isn't he at the top of the list? He has won a pennant and managed several competitive teams. What has Don Mattingly done as a manager/coach to merit being at the top of the list?

Tom Boswell:  [Nats GM Mike] Rizzo really likes Mattingly. If they don't hire [Jim] Riggleman back, still the highest probability, it will probably be Don.

Valentine will be interviewed but there is little chance he will be hired, though [team president Stan] Kasten likes him well enough personally. But Bobby V has 100-pounds of [Jim] Bowden-like baggage -- enemies left behind everywhere he's been. . . .

Doug Melvin, whom I've known since he caught for the O's, will also get a look.  [We're pretty sure Boz meant Bob, not Doug, but we can understand the confusion; Doug Melvin was an Orioles executive during Bob Melvin's playing days in Baltimore.] . . .

I'm a big Mattingly fan, have known him much longer than Riggleman, whom everybody likes. The DC connection hits home with me. Mattingly is a combination of charisma and grunt worker. Fans here would love him. But I think he may get a quicker and better offer than the Nats. Riggleman deserves the job. He took a team that was .299 under [Manny] Acta and played 33-42 (.440). And after the 0-5 losing streak to start, he was .471. How do you overlook the possibility (even if it is overly optimistic) that even before you make off-season improvements, the Nats might play .440-to-.471 ball for Riggleman?

But, believe me, you'd love Donny Ballgame.

      

Not to detract from everyone's enjoyment of the league championship series (Vicente Padilla, again?) but we can't help noticing that Nationals GM Mike Rizzo has, since season's close, been proceeding methodically and with dispatch to fill the vacancies on the team's executive staff.

There's one hire remaining, of course:  the field manager for 2010 and, one hopes, beyond.

Having examined the dugout leadership situation on numerous occasions, we're pleased to note that the Nats now have several strong alternatives to choose from.  Here are the three whose names we think should be at or near the top of the finalists' list:

Jim Riggleman:  The Nats' interim manager took charge of a ghastly state of affairs -- 26-61 record, dismissal of young rising-star predecessor, hideous defense, young rotation, ineffective bullpen -- and guided the team to a 33-42 finish after the 2009 All-Star break.  Hardly shy about his passion for the game, he's unafraid to call his squad to account, yet distinguished himself by taking a purposeful and ultimately calming hold on what had looked to be a very shaky rudder.

Tim Foli:  Even as the Nats slid to the big-league cellar for the second season in a row, Foli's triple-A Syracuse Chiefs were contenders in the International League's Northern Division for most of 2009, eventually posting a second-place 76-68 record.  As with Riggleman, it all comes down to accountability.

Don Mattingly:  The name of the popular former Yankee captain and hitting coach, who's now a member of Joe Torre's staff in Chavez Ravine, continues to pop up on the list of candidates for the several vacant managerial positions around the majors.  If a freshman skipper is in order, the Nats would do well to take a long, hard look at a man of Mattingly's reputation who's been associated with two of the most formidable organizations in baseball.

That's whom we'd count in.  Is there anyone we'd write off?

You never can tell, but a rumor-mill denizen we'd consider pretty unlikely to assume the Nats' helm would be Bobby Valentine.  While his experience and qualifications eclipse those of Riggleman, Foli and Mattingly, our bet is that Valentine is either staying with ESPN or going to the Mets.  (Which must make Jerry Manuel feel just great -- but baseball, like life, has never been fair.)