The Future is... When Exactly?

Harper over at OMG, a dedicated blogger and a true glutton for punishment, has complained that for all the full-season audition that is 2007, the Nats are still a mostly unsettled club. I think he overstates the case a bit. There are questions, to be sure. But there ought to be questions about how a bad team plans to improve. Honestly, would you feel better if Manny Acta looked at what he had on September 1st and settled on his rotation and lineup for next season? Sure, there are decisions and changes to be made in the months between now and Opening Day 2008, but maybe not as many as you'd think. If you break down the results of the Nationals 2007 tryouts, you start to see some answers on both sides of the ball.

In retrospect, maybe holding open tryouts for 30-odd pitchers isn't the worst way to assemble a major league staff. Sure, you get your share of goats (Jason Simontacchi, Southeast Jerome Williams) and guys that just never pan out (Whither Brandon Claussen?) but you also get guys like Jason Bergmann and Matt Chico. Bergmann and Chico would probably have never gotten a real starting shot on any other team. At best they'd have been spot starters, sent back to the minors after their first bad outing.

How about Tim Redding and Joel Hanrahan? On a good team the Spring Training that those two had would have earned them a quick demotion to minor league camp, followed by their walking papers. With the Nats they had time to work out their issues at Triple A and have been solid (sometimes spectacular) second half starters. And that's to say nothing of Shawn Hill and John Patterson, whose abilities have never been questioned, even if their durability is a major concern. Still, you can mix and match these guys (along with rookie John Lannan and prospect Collin Balester) into a pretty solid 2008 rotation. Here's how:

#1 SP: Shawn Hill/John Patterson - whoever is healthy gets the nod. If they both are, great, your top 2 rotation spots are accounted for. If neither is, well we're screwed, but still no worse off than the Cardinals when they lost Chris Carpenter for the season.

#2 SP:Hill/Patterson or free agent PTBNL (pitcher to be named later) - if the Nats are going to increase offseason payroll here's one place to do it. Barry Zito money is (and ought to be) out of the question, but that Gil Meche contract isn't looking terrible these days, is it?

#3 SP: Tim Redding or veteran free agent retread - hey look, it's the veteran innings eater everyone said we needed. These guys are almost literally a dime a dozen. The key here is finding a guy who can go 6-7 innings and keep you in the game every time out. Otherwise you're just wasting money.

#4 SP: Matt Chico/John Lannan/Mike Bacsik - every rotation ought to have a lefty, just as a change of pace. Since all these guys are essentially soft-tossers the edge should go to youth, if at all possible.

#5 SP: Jason Bergmann/Joel Hanrahan/Collin Balester - If Bergmann can stay healthy, if Hanrahan can get a handle on his control, if Balester can make the leap to the bigs. The five spot is the place for this many ifs, but all these guys have the talent.

The point here is not that this is the Nats first pennant-winning rotation. But there are nine pitchers there (or eight plus Balester) with credentials as a serviceable or better major league starter. And that's before the Nats dip a toe in free agency. Sure there will be competition for rotation spots. But in 2008 you can expect the competition to be about options and opportunity rather than necessity.

In a separate posting I'll take a stab at the more complicated process of assembling the 2008 Nationals offense, along similar lines. I'd be interested to hear what people think of this exercise and the next one. Of the players on the roster today, who's a piece of the future, who's a bridge to the future, and who's just plain dead weight (I'm looking at you, Fick.)