Nats' Starting Pitching Could Be a Real Problem

There's a big difference between being a losing low-budget team and being the '62 Mets. Bad but still respectable teams can make long-term progress below the surface. But, except for the '03 Tigers, it's tough to find a laughingstock franchise that was just a few years away from being a contender. Are the Nats, with their rotation roulette, running a risk they don't acknowledge?

While the Nats are improving their farm system, they also want to establish a professional clubhouse tone at the big league level so that, by the time kids such as Chris Marrero and Colton Williams arrive in D.C., they'll get proper mentoring.

"We've got rock-solid people at the center of our clubhouse," Kasten said recently, referring specifically to the four young veterans whom Acta singled out as his team leaders. "We're setting these people up as role models who lead by example."

The Nats subtracted a large personality (Hernandez), a big temper (Jose Guillen), a complacent attitude (Armas), a fading star (Jose Vidro) and a couple of eccentric squeaky wheels on the bench. In effect, Acta was left with a team almost devoid of charisma, but also cleansed of any controversy.

In theory, this should work. Acta and his quartet of leaders can create both the work ethic and the "office climate" that they want. True, Zimmerman is only 22. But he says he "welcomes" the responsibility and thinks it's an honor. Lopez and Kearns are quiet "by-example" types and, when pressed, haven't even mastered their leadership speeches yet. Schneider is a natural. But it's hard for good-but-not-great players to galvanize a team. Reliever Chad Cordero volunteers: "I can be a leader in the bullpen. [Patterson] can be a leader in the rotation. We all have to try to do our part."

And, under normal circumstances, they probably can. Especially because they all can slipstream behind the extroverted, confident Acta, who easily is the most dynamic personality in the Nats' room.

Only one dark cloud sits on the horizon. But it's a big one. Enough defeats, especially slapstick, lopsided defeats caused by bad starting pitching, can create a special kind of baseball ugliness. A team that could band together and keep its morale through a season full of games like the ones the Nats have played so far would be strong indeed.

But can enough embarrassment, spread over six months, kill leadership in the crib?

The last few weeks of spring training and the first few weeks of a season usually aren't terribly important, especially for a rebuilding team. But the Nationals are only in their third year in town. Their manager is a rookie. While clearing the decks of possible problems, they also created a leadership vacuum.

Seldom has a franchise needed a few decent pitchers -- just two or three, really -- to identify themselves. Not much is required. Just provide enough competence to give a young, undefined team a chance to grow up straight and strong, not twisted by too many defeats and, worse, far too many jokes.