"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. 

      

We went up to Baltimore Saturday night to see the Nats play the O's.  And the two franchises could not be more different.  A team filled with young, promising players.  A superior ballpark experience.  And a big crowd not driven by fans of the other team.  All this describes the Baltimore Orioles, circa 2009.

You would think that, several years into a franchise, we would be describing the Nats this way.  But instead, they seem to be going in the opposite direction.  While the O's are building around position players like Markakis, Roberts, Jones, Wieters and Reimold, the Nats likely will have to blow up their current line-up (again) to get better defensively.  Camden Yards remains one of the best ballparks, filled with character (the warehouse) and easily accessible to the Inner Harbor.  In contrast, the Nats' park seems antiseptic, devoid of any defining feature other than a Capitol view that's been obstructed by that stupid red tent.  

But what impressed me the most last night was the crowd.  Not only was it big (40,000), most were there way early.  We got to the park an hour before the game, and Eutaw Street was already packed.  When the P.A. guy announced the starting line-ups, almost everyone was in their seats, wearing their Markakis shirts and cheering at the names of the individual O's. That has never happened in D.C.  Even the music choices seemed smart: Michael Jackson's "Beat It" when the O's took the field; the Beatles "Help" when the O's went to the bullpen.  In Washington, we get Clint.

Baltimore's renaissance is largely due to a solid baseball executive, Andy MacPhail, who traded smartly and drafted well.  In Washington, Jim Bowden's decisions have utterly wasted the Nats' first five years.  Earlier this week, Stan Kasten described himself as "the village idiot."  But it's going to require a big injection of intelligence to rescue this franchise.   

      

Memorial Day falls early this year, as early as it can.  (By the way, don't let it pass without sparing a few moments' thought for those who have fallen in service.)

Even so, next thing you know, it'll be June, which has been known to almost slip by before we get our All-Star ballots filled out.  The online version is a boon, although we'll probably submit a few of the paper kind too.

Here's whom we'd vote for if we punched a ballot today.

NATIONAL LEAGUE

Infield:  1B Albert Pujols, 2B Chase Utley, SS Hanley Ramirez, 3B Ryan Zimmerman.

Pujols is having a season befitting the dean of the NL first basemen.  Much as we are impressed by Joey Votto, he can't pick 'em like Pujols can.

How dare we omit last season's honoree Cristian Guzman, who is having another fine year?  We're pleased to live in an era in which baseball has awakened to the futility of drawing just two bases on balls in 146 plate appearances, even as we are distressed that Guzie has to be the exemplar.  (He says he's working on it.)

Didn't we mean David Wright?  Um, no.  Wright hits for about the same average and gets on base and on late-night television a little more, but Zim hits the ball harder and owns much more real estate around the hot corner.

Outfield:  Raul Ibanez, Carlos Beltran, Scott Hairston.

Alas, that we cannot find a place for Elijah Dukes -- who in our mind fits as well as anyone the criterion by which Stan Musial chooses all-stars:  "those I enjoy watching the most when the ball is pitched or hit in their direction" -- but for Dukes we can only wish a speedy recovery and return to the Nats' lineup.

Meanwhile, it's a treat to watch the renascent Ibanez, who's doing a pretty fair job of making Philly phans not miss Pat Burrell.

We mean no disrespect to Ryan Braun or Justin Upton, but Padres' organizational callup Hairston has earned a write-in vote for helping San Diego transform overnight from "in the tank" to "in the pack."

Catcher:  John Baker.

"Not Mike Piazza at his peak" still leaves room for "pretty darn good," a category Baker occupies comfortably.

AMERICAN LEAGUE

Infield:  1B Kevin Youkilis, 2B Aaron Hill, SS Jason Bartlett, 3B Evan Longoria.

We won't blame you if you punch the dot beside the name of Justin Morneau, but Youk's glove leather gives him our nod.

And speaking of Red Sox, whatever happened to Dustin Pedroia?  Sucks to have to play in the same league with Hill and Ian Kinsler.

The Rays' average-plus performances on the mound and in the field will keep them respectable in the AL East, but it'll be the left side of the infield that gets them to the playoffs if anything does.

Outfield:  Adam Jones, Torii Hunter, Jason Bay.

If you're looking for shining examples of shrewd general management, look no further than Andy MacPhail's acquisition of Jones et al. for a then-shaky Erik Bedard, Tony Reagins' pickup of Hunter in the free agent market, and Theo Epstein's jettisoning of The Manny in favor of Bay before the drama alarms started going off.

Catcher:  Victor Martinez.

This one's for you, Dad -- not that it was a hard decision to make.

      

Long-time baseball executive Wayne Krivsky has joined Andy MacPhail's front-office team in Baltimore. Among Krivsky's tasks, we are told, will be "scouting, contracts and other baseball administration duties."

For MacPhail's sake, we hope that Krivsky gets some help in the due diligence department this time around.

Have a happy and safe Thanksgiving, everyone.

      

The Nationals' front office, faced with sore arms here, injured fielders there, and angst everywhere, had to scramble mightily during the 2008 season just to put together a 59-win team.

At the end of the season, it was hard not to see that there wasn't much of a rotation beyond John Lannan, as well as that there was a void at first base that wasn't (and I don't think could fully have been) foreseen.

So going into the offseason, the FO immediately let it be known that, at the very least, a starting arm and a first-base bat would be needed to start to fill in the gaps in the roster.

Sure, they could've implemented a purely home-grown strategy by promoting, say, Ross Detwiler and Bill Rhinehart. But no matter how those players project, are they the guys you want to build a team around now?

The Nats seem to think not, and I agree.  As I've been saying for a while, now is the time at the major-league level to build a core of relatively young veterans that can be complemented by prospects as they are ready to be promoted.

And that's what the FO appears to be doing by picking up Scott Olsen and Josh Willingham. A healthy Olsen should fit right into the rotation, while Willingham adds outfield depth that allows the Nats to make future moves from a position of relative strength.

Not everyone in the bleachers is thrilled about this deal, on either side.  A particularly interesting, if somewhat Delphic, analysis is offered by the estimable Christina Kahrl ($) at Baseball Prospectus.

I'll grant that the trade's not a cure-all -- although, to be fair, it couldn't have been intended to be.  To start with, Willingham likely won't draw much 1B duty; for this reason and others, the Nats remain in the market for Mark Teixeira, as well as for Adam Dunn.

In any event, dealing for a couple of arbitration-eligible guys -- one of them pushing 30 -- jettisoned by a tight-fisted and (lately) perpetually rebuilding non-contender will not transform the Nats into the Rays or the Phillies.  But Olsen and Willingham will improve the Nats' major-league roster.

What about the prospects the Nats gave up?  Yes, they have value: you don't get something for nothing.  Nonetheless, in letting go of Emilio Bonifacio, P. J. Dean and Jake Smolinski, have the Nats stripped the cupboard bare?

Of course not. What they have done is to make a move toward building the veteran core from which a contender can grow as the minor-league up-and-comers -- of whom there are more, and more hopeful ones, than at this time three or four years ago -- mature.

That said, it is essential to continue the good work by dealing current veterans appropriately for more prospects. Start with Austin Kearns and Wily Mo Pena. If either Nick Johnson or Dmitri Young gets healthy, they should be in the trade picture too.

The success or failure of that part of the Plan (forgive me, Mr. Kasten) strikes me as a better long-term indicator of the future than the addition or subtraction of one major-leaguer or another. Fans of veteran acquisitions rather than of system-building as a strategic cornerstone should turn their rooting interests in the direction of the Dodgers, as they could have to the Orioles before Andy MacPhail came along.

As we ponder the near-term implications of this trade, many would damn Olsen for his past anger and irresponsibility. That kind of reaction is understandable, but still -- especially given Olsen's youth -- seems reflexive and thoughtless to me.

If you're looking for something to criticize, dig into his numbers, as Steven -- no Olsen fan -- has done. Then try to integrate the quantitative analysis into a dispassionate assessment of how you think Olsen will fit onto this evolving team. (Which the Olsen-damners, in my opinion, have not done convincingly, and which would be difficult anyhow without a crystal ball.)

Speculation is fun and sometimes cathartic.  (Who doesn't like Around the Horn?  Well, OK...) But between episodes of number-crunching, wishcasting, knee-jerking, and fulminating, it'd be a good idea to take a deep breath and remember that the 2009 season is a long way off, and that the offseason is far from over.

And that what we think we know about any particular player -- especially one like Olsen, who has, Lord willing, a lot of future in front of him -- will never quite be the whole story.

      

There is a drumbeat in the back of the Natosphere that decries the ownership for being cheap.

The evidence presented is as follows:

• The Nats' payroll is in the $50 million range.
• They're going to lose close to 100 games at the rate they're going.

So the idea is that the Nats should be in the market for a high-priced, high-impact free agent.

If that's your idea of a fun day of shopping, don't let me stand in your way. But don't be surprised when you scour these lists and find that, at some positions, there's not all that much to get excited about.

Should the Nats, for example, pick up Adam Dunn? If so, where do you put him? (Unless you pay Wily Mo his $2 million for 2009 and tell him to take a walk.)

Mark Teixeira, anyone? Oh, he's all that, but again, where do you put him?

And more importantly: whom are you going to put around him to make your team a winner?

That question's only partially rhetorical. A Teixeira could have the impact of an Ivan Rodriguez -- the 2004 edition, if you please, not the 2009.

But once you sign a guy like that, the train has got to be ready to leave the station. You need to be able to assemble a supporting cast that will keep the show exciting into September.

Otherwise, you're Peter Angelos (sans Andy MacPhail).

So where are the rest of the impact guys coming from -- either in 2009 or in whatever year the Nats deem it right to make a move?

There will be promotions, to be sure. But expect most of the action, when it takes place, to be in the trade market, as the Nats keep adding chips to their minor-league rosters. (Caveat: one wonders how many GMs feel as Kevin Towers does.)

      

The Nationals pulled out a rain-sodden victory in Baltimore on Sunday, thanks to the tenacity of John Lannan and the quick at-bats of the Orioles.

Not much credit for the 2-1 victory could be given either to the Nats' own quick at-bats or to the Orioles' supposed lack of pitching. There's lots to say about both of those.

First, about the Nats' plate discipline. There is a reason why the Nats are floundering at the bottom of the NL East: their at-bats are, for the most part, dreadful. (Notwithstanding the fact that they did manage to draw six walks Sunday afternoon.) We might discuss that more here another day; Ben Goessling sums up the situation nicely in Monday morning's Times.

The real news, though, is that the Orioles in general -- and their pitching in particular -- didn't look too bad this weekend. Their bullpen did have its moments; in particular, veteran submariner Chad Bradford seems eminently soluble these days, giving up three runs in two appearances.

Nonetheless, it would appear that, under the reins of Andy McPhail and Dave Trembley, their mix of young and veteran talent may be figuring out how to play some decent baseball.

Their efforts aren't going unnoticed. In Monday morning's Fredericksburg Free Lance-Star, Steve Deshazo lavishes praise upon the rebuilding Baltimore team:

Though the Nationals salvaged some confidence with yesterday's rain-prolonged victory, it's hard not to judge the Orioles as closer to contention -- despite grudgingly committing to the reconstruction process a few seasons later than their Beltway brethren.

Is Deshazo trying to imply that Baltimore's road to contention will be one of steady progress from where they are now? If so, I have a slight problem with that. It seems to me that the Orioles are essentially recreating what the Nats were able to do in 2005, when veteran talent pushed them to .500 before the teardown began in earnest.

The question is how soon Baltimore's drafting and trading strategies will restore their foundation to the point of having at least a shot at contending, year in and year out. With exceptional luck, and multiple additional wizard trades like the one that brought Adam Jones, George Sherrill et al. to Baltimore for Erik Bedard (executive summary for those who missed it: Andy MacPhail robbed Bill Bavasi freakin' blind), it could be as soon as 2010.

Will the Nats' own rebuilding plan have them ready for a real rivalry two seasons from now? Stay tuned.

      

As I was driving back to the Hutch from the airport this morning, I decided to give a couple of the local sport-talk shows a quick listen.

Fortunately I was on I-95 between Baltimore and Washington where I could pick them both up. At Hutch HQ in Silver Spring, "Redskins Radio" has no signal on any of its three frequencies that I can get after dark or before dawn. Today, though, the "Mike and Mike Show" came through loud and clear on AM 730.

Meanwhile, "The First Team" also came through loud and clear on SportsTalk 980. Mostly loud, thanks to Steve Czaban, but that evaluation may be more reflective of my preference for Mike and Mike (who, at times, can also get a little loud) than of any inherent failing of the Czabe.

What really did rankle me just a little was the reportage given in their mid-hour score updates -- of which I grant I listened to only one on each station -- to last night's 8-3 Nationals victory in Houston.

On 730, we got to hear a feel-good item about Rob Mackowiak's two-run homer, complete with a sound bite from Big Mack. That was kind of fun.

Now, 980 is on the Baltimore Orioles network, so they're naturally going to give some love to the team up the road. And did, noting that Nick Markakis hit a three-run homer at Kauffmann Stadium in Kansas City to plate the decisive runs in Baltimore's 4-1 victory over the Royals. As for the D.C. team, 980 deigned to note that the victory in Houston improved the Nats' road record to 3-12 in their last 15. Gee, thanks.

So much for that. I might give Phil Wood's "Baseball Roundup" a listen on Saturday morning at 10:00 on 980, and see whether our hometown boys get a mention in edgewise, or whether Wood's show is going to be the "Orioles Hour" as it's been at times in the past (at least after Marc Sterne turned over the hosting reins a couple of seasons ago).

It's not all bad. Nats GM Jim Bowden does have a weekly slot on "The Sports Reporters" on 980, something I don't know if they (or anyone) afford to Baltimore GM Andy MacPhail.

On the other hand, if you go to the Nationals link on sportstalk980.com, you get the startling news that John Patterson and Nook Logan remain on the Nats' 40-man roster. It would appear they still have some work to do.