Washington Post sports columnist Thomas Boswell was online Wednesday, April 13, at 2 p.m. ET to take your questions and comments about the Washington Nationals, Major League Baseball and his recent columns.

The transcript follows.

____________________

Bang zoom!: Boz! Great to have you back, man! Perfect timing, too, as the Nats FINALLY picked up their second win of the season last night.

Tom Boswell: Great to be back!

I think we'll remember, for a long time, the season when the Nats didn't have a lead DURING a game until the eighth inning of the 10th game of the year.

Hard as it seems to believe, last night's win may have been fairly important __at least if you think it's important whether the Nats are merely a poor/bad team with, say 93-to-100 loses or an historically awful team with 105-to-115 loses. (Or worse than that!?)

The Nats could easily be 0-10 right now. In the eight games when they got crushed (by a total of 42 runs or 5.4 per game), there was no way they could have won any of them. In their first victory they came from five runs down, including three in the bottom of the ninth. That certainly didn't have to happen. And last night must have been terrifying for Acta as he got his first glimpse of a vintage Corfero save! He makes Don Stanhouse look like the human tranquilizer of relievers. Cordero's last pitch of the game was "ball four" to Thorman, which would forced in a run to make the score 2-1 with a lefthander hitter, Langerhans, coming up. But Thorman chased a low slider __a "good pitch" in the sense that many hitters will go after it in pressure situations__ but it still would have been a walk. And it was Cordero's 33rd pitch of the innings, about 20 of them sliders. The more pitches in an inning, the more likely the pitcher is to get hit.

Because they are 2-8, not 0-10, they won't be in the national spotlight the way the '88 Orioles were when they started the year 0-21. I covered that. What a nightmare! Cal, Sr., fired. It was like covering a wake every night. Now, the Nats are barely worse than the 2-7 Phils and 2-7 Giants. So, they're off the hot seat (a little) for a while. HOWEVER, that still leads to many of our other questions today. Like...

_______________________

Ashburn, Va.: How bad is it going to be?

Tom Boswell: They're not going to be as bad as the '88 Orioles who went 54-107. In fact, I don't think they're going to be nearly as bad. YOU JUST SAW THE WORST. Why? Because no team can be worse than the Nats were for nine games. Entering last night's game, only three teams in baseball had been outscored for the season by even as much as 10 runs __KC (-11), Giants (-21) and the Nats (-40). Get out the exclamation marks for that.

A horrible teams gets outscored by 1.5 runs a game. (The '88 O's were outscored by 239 runs). Through nine games, the Nats were on a "pace" __I know it a joke because of too small sampling__ to be outsocred by 720 runs.

Even if the Nats lose >105 games, which they might if they have injuries to Patterson and Hill, they'll have a hartd time looking as bad as they did to start the seasons.

Nerves, self-imposed pressure, trying too hard for Acta

(whom they like) and the two Opening Day injuries which stunned them and, suddenly, weakened FOUR defensive positions, changing them from a much-improved pretty-good defense to a truly bad one. Young is NOT a first baseman. And Snelling is a worry in left. I thought he was supposed to be OK out there. Doesn't look that way yet.

So, how bad? Prediction after seeing 10 games: LESS than 100 loses. But, man, not MANY less.

Very few teams

_______________________

NattyDelite!: Hey Boz,

Thanks for doing this chat!

My question is about the decision NOT to pick up Mark Redman, who later the Braves signed to a deal. Redman seems like he was a bargain, he is a bona fide innings-eater, a former All-Star, and his stuff isn't half bad. Now I know we wanted to give the young ones a chance, but where was the hurt in letting him compete with Redding, Williams, Simontacchi and everyone else? Bottom line: Redman could probably give us another 10 wins for not much money. Your thoughts?

Tom Boswell: Starting last August I've made the case to Kasten and Bowden (and in the column) that there is too much risk in trying to calibrate the deliberate creation a team which is "bad," but not "too bad." They want a high draft pick. But they don't want to be a joke and alienate their fans. They want to test the character of their young players while also, in effect, giving RFK 'tryouts' to every player in the organization who looks like he might be a big leaguer. They don't want to 'block' anybody, like a Chico or Bergmann. They want to evalkuate them now and, if possible, evaluate them at length. They want Acta to remain successful in the eyes of his players, but yet they are willing to risk humiliating him if they lose 115 games and he reacts badly. Who can really know how anybody reacts, in his rookies season, to that?

In other words, The Plan is Grand. But it also has an element of high-risk Kasten hubris. Anybody can live with the results of a plan is it proves to be a success or even merely OK. But every plan has a Worst Case possibility. (I don't think I have to give geopolitical examples from the last 50 years.)

Did Kasten-Bowden-Lerners pay enough attention to the impact on Acta reputation and on the development of young players __even Zimmerman__ if the team was as bad as the recent Tigers. Just because Detroit survived the experience doesn't mean that EVERY franchise or every fan base will have a similar reaction.

Sooooo, I kept saying, 'What about Redman? What about Trachsel (who won 15 with the Mets and gets no respct because he is a junk baller and not a 'big game pitcher.' What about Rodrigo Lopez? Etc. Their answer was that these guys would cost several million a year, probably for a couple of years each and tat, in the long run, it was money down a rat hole because none of them had any realistic chance of being part of the '10 Nats.

"Why waste $10M in '07," said One of the Above.

"Because you SHOULD," I said. "EVERY insurance policy is a waste of money if there is no catastrophe. You're only glab you "wasted" the money on it if the 'worst' happens.

IMO, the Nats should have signed one, and probably two, starters from the group above __even if they are strictly mnediocre.

BUT if they somehow survive with, say, a 66-96 record and get to examine EVERYBODY in the organization and get answers on them all, while saving money to spend on free agents in the '07, '08 and '09 off seasons, then they'll look smart and I'll look....cautious.

_______________________

East Lansing, Mich.: Has Mr. Kasten offered any response to the many complaints about RFK's concessions? Just curious, since that is kinda his thing.

Tom Boswell: After all the talk about the fan experience in the new park in '08, I think they need to practice in '07 at RFK. They talk about everything they're doing for the new park. Yeah, yeah, yeah, pay a decent amount of attention to the old park. At this point, nothing (short of an earthquake) is going to prevent the new park from opening on time. It looks fabulous (to me). So, make the effort and open the wallet to do the best possible job at RFK.

Here's what I DON'T want to think. That they don't want RFK to be TOO pleasant this season because they want people to LUST after the new park because it'll be so much better than 'that awful RFK.' Now they would never do that, would they? I doubt it. But, once again, the best policy is just to do things as well as you can, then don't worry about the 'spin.' And RFK should be better __starting with all the chipping paint on the outside of the upper deck as you approach from the first base side.

_______________________

Highlands Ranch, Colo.: After watching last night's game, I'm convinced that the Lopez/Belliard DP combo is the one that best serves the Nats, particularly offensively, where they have struggled. What are the chances this becomes a permanent change?

Tom Boswell: No chance. That's the best play Belliard can make. (And he took four steps after he caugt the ball before he could get himself pivoted.) It was a beauty. And that back-hand flip on the DP was flashy. BUT both plays made me think, "Get this guy out of the regular lineup while you're still getting the be4st out of him. Don't wait around to see the worst." BUT Belliard was a steal __a quality utility man who played for the Cards throughout the last post-season.

More important, the Nats assume Lopez is a plus second baseman while he is an average (at best) shoprtstop. They want to give Lopez plenty of time to learn while giving the Nats plenty of chance to evaluate him.

Finally, if Guzman can hit .265 again __and he looked like he could in Florida__ then he might be part of a trade package whenever you think you've developed your "next" shortstop in the farm system. Guzman can hold down an important position through '08 while the Minors do their job.

_______________________

Naysayerville, Mich.: What's your take on Ryan Church? I've always been one of his critics, and I just hope he keeps playing well long enough for us to trade him. Think he could be part of The Plan? Thanks for chatting Boz, we all love it.

Tom Boswell: I've gotten on Church's case a couple of times, but I like him personally and think he's probably the most underrated talent on the team among the regular players. As a Nat, since '05, he's hit .286 in 499 at bats with 37 doubles, four triples, 21 homers and 81 RBI. And that's included being jerked in and out of the lineup, being sent to the minors, getting lectured. You've absolutely got to play him every day, bat him sixth (or second maybe after Nick Johnson comes back) and find out what you are holding. Maybe to trade him. Maybe not. He's 6-1, 220 with a natural HR hitter's uppercut swing. He strikes out a ton and doesn't cover enough ground to play CF, except in an emergency. But he's a smooth natural player.

It is not a certainty that Church couldn't hit .290 with 27 homers and 90 RBI in the new (smaller) park. Maybe not. But he's hitting well now, despite being sick, and this is the year to find out __once and for all. (He knows it.)

_______________________

Gilpin, Va.: About Bowden . . . short-termer? Kasten's tool to scrounge around for cheap talent? Solid? Guy to lead this team to pennants?

Tom Boswell: Certainly No. 1. On No. 2, I'll make one point. Bowden is MUCH smarter than his detractors think. In fact, he's so smart that he is almost as smart as he thinks he is.

That's a wise crack, but I'd say that most super-successful GM's are in that category __very bright, ultra-confident, assumed to be cocky by those who don't like them. I think it was very wise to see if a guy with Bowden's energy and motor can make the transition from small market hustler, who's certainly rubbed some people the wrong way, to big market power player. The jury is out. I honestly don't know. But I certainly enjoy talking to him. At this point, there are two kinds of people in baseball. Those that can teach me things and those that seldom do. I learn from Bowden all the time. Behind the quips there is a lot of craft. I'm always amazed that, in a town that didn't have baseball for 33 years, there would any resistance at all to a Baseball Maniac like Bowden who just drips The Game. One of the knocks, "He's a salesman and a self-promoter." Well, the Nats need some selling and some promoting.

Besides, do the Redskins HAVE a GM?

See, there is no such thing as a short answer to a Bowden question.

_______________________

National Geographic: I've been bleating for two years that the starting LF and CF should be Church and Escobar respectively.

When are we going to see that? .365 with power (Escobar) is something that none of the other OF candidates have, save Kearns.

Tom Boswell: If only Escobar could stay healthy. This last injury __can't even make it half-way through spring training__ has me thinking the poor guy is just cursed with a great body that wasn't intended to play baseball every day.

A few players __Hank Aaron, Eddie Murray__ looks like they are cruising. So, fans say, "Why can't Eric Davis or X or Y or Escobar play the game at 90% and stay healthy?" It's not that easy. Aaron and Murray played hard, they just played smooth, too. That's an extra gift. Unless you're a DH like David Ortiz, you can't player baseball every day at beer wagon speed. If you're injury prone, you're going to get injured.

Church doesn't doesn't seem to have nearly as big a problem. Knock on wood. But he bumped the CF wall pretty solidly last night making a good catch. What's his choice? He couldn't just let it drop.

_______________________

20009: Is Acta doing okay with this start? I'm probably reading far too much into it, but his decision to grow a goatee in an effort to "break" his first managerial losing streak reminded me of Pinella offering to bleach his hair blond when the losses in Tampa Bay were starting to pile up and get to him.

Tom Boswell: I'll be interested to see, first hand, how Acta's handling it when they get back home next week. (It's hard to take his pulse from Augusta or the Final Four; ohhhh, that semifinal game was there for the taking for GU, even though they probably couldn't have handled Florida.)

My first impressions of Acta could hardly be better. But impressions and actual managing are two different things. And, so far, the Nats fundamentals have not improved at all from '06 when they were absolutely unsatisfactory. Maybe, sometime in May, when Logan, Guzman and Ayala are (presumably) back, things will smooth out. With Church in LF and Lopez at 2nd, the only accident waiting to happen is Young, who's trying hard, at 1st. I hope Dmitri can survive over there. He's gotten less bad. Made a nice scoop to finish a DP last night. But Larry Broadway in AAA, while he has no HR power, isn't terrible.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: Ryan Church seems like a perfect test case for the ongoing debate of stats vs observation. Frank Robinson's eyes kept telling him that Ryan Church looks bad when he flails at a curveball, but the stats keep piling up anyway. I personally think the eyes have it wrong on Church. He's been getting nothing but junk balls so far this year, and even though he's had a few ugly swings, the stats say that through the first 10 games he's one of the best hitters in the National League with an OPS over 1.0

Tom Boswell: Nice.

When 500 ABs contradict the "eyes," I go with the stats.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: So who are you cheering for this year Mr. Boswell? Who do you have in the left-field derby, Church or Casto? I've got Church. Do you prefer Logan or Escobar in center? Do you, like me, have an odd fascination with the prospect of Emilio Fruto getting a chance as a starter?

Tom Boswell: Everybody wants to see a player like Casto make it. Too bad he didn't get off to a better start. Believe me, Fruto isn't the only guy you'll see get a chance in the rotation this year. Take a good look at the current Five. The only two who, if they stay healthy, are probably a lock to keep their jobs are Patterson and Hill. However, I've missed something in watching Bergmann. Or, as Schneider and Fick said in Florida he's throwing better and harder this year. He's wild at times. I suspect he's been complimented on his "good stuff" too often in his career. By the standards of the Nats staff, his 93-94 mph fastball (the same as Smoltz at 39 on the same gun), plus a sharp slider and 79 mph changeup, should be enough to keep everybody happy. But is that his normal stuff or his Best Night stuff? When he comes back in five days after a 105-pitch make-good-or-go-back-to-AAA game, will he be effective or have nothing?

until we can have Boof Bonzer, I'm definitely rooting for Emilio Fruto.

_______________________

Vienna, Va.: Tom: No you're not being cautious. I think Kasten and Co. have been taking for granted that when the new park opens, the fans will flock there and all will be well. Instead, the first year honeymoon period was wasted because there was no owner and last year was partially wasted without an owner. This team has yet to really establish itself in this market, so they have no real goodwill to call on when asking fans to be patient. The Tigers could do that (and they did, successfully) because they had 100 years of tradition to fall back on. The Nats don't have that. It would have been worth it to blow $10 million or so for each of the next two years to keep the competitive and keep that fragile compact with fans intact.

Tom Boswell: That puts the issue well. Thanks.

_______________________

Arlington, Va.: We've gone through the rotation twice and Patterson has the worst stats of the five starting pitchers. Is he feeling okay?

Tom Boswell: He was tense and griping the ball too tightly on Opening Day. He knew it. He needs that Palmer-like whip action. (His father was a contemporary of Palmer in the Orioles minor league system and, to some extent, modeled his delivery and fastball action on Palmer.)

I think he'll be fine. In fact, I'll be very interested to see Patterson, Hill and Chico against that tough Mets lineup in Shea. If they can do decently __just decently__ that may have a stabalizing effect by the time they come home. Can they? After Bergmann's 6-1-0-0-4-8 work, Patterson needs to step up and pitch like a mini-ace against a Mets youngster Pelfrey.

_______________________

Greenville, S.C.: Tom,

What is your sense of how the farm system is shaping up in terms of the Nats' long range plans? On schedule? Behind?

Tom Boswell: On or ahead of schedule, I'd say. At some point there'll certainly be a column on this.

_______________________

Natstown, Mich.: What's the deal with Guzman and Logan? I'm surprised there hasn't been any status updates yet.

Tom Boswell: Nobody gets rushed back this year. It's "Try Out Season." This accidentally let them look more at Snelling, Casto and Belliard at 2nd.

_______________________

Burke, Va.: Lerner/Kasten seem to claim that developing the farm system and paying for major league caliber starting pitching are two mutually exclusive concepts.

Do you agree with this?

It appears to bode very ill for the future of this franchise that the owner and GM have so little respect for the fans that they would put this historically awful team on the field rather than pay a few million dollars more for a merely mediocre team. And let's face it, a few million dollars is peanuts in the context of the finances of a major league franchise.

Tom Boswell: If Washington had never lost its MLB teams, if the tradition had been continuous and the Lerners/Kasten had simply bought a beaten-down underfunded team and were rebuilding it, I'd say their plan was probably just right.

I think they underestimate The Baseball Vacuum that they enter. They think that the '05 attendance was the true reading on support. Maybe. Probably. I hope so. BUT I don't KNOW so. And, to say the least, I certainly think I have far more "feel" for it than they do.

I think the Nationals, with this group leading it, will be a very successful franchise in a relatively short time in a ballpark that will probably surpass most expectations.

But I don't KNOW it. And I don't think you should make aggressive assumptions. As fans, you have to see everything against this background: Kasten wants to surpass his record in Atlanta. It sticks in his craw that his Braves only won one World Series. It may be hard for Nats fans to underesdtand but this guy is playing 100% shoot-for-the-moon offense and almost NO defense. If you made him this offer: "You'll lose 105-110 games this year, attendence will be poor, fans will grouse some, but you'll get the No. 1 draft pick, you'll use it well, the minor leagues will show good progress and the new park will open on time with (barely) sufficient parking." I think he would take it.

He's THAT confident. He believes he has more financial resources, a stronger market, a much better ballpark and a better starting point (in terms of talent) than he did in '88 in Atlanta. And he thinks he's one of the great franchise builders on all time __just because, well, because he already built one of the great MLB franchises of all times (14 straight first-place finishes).

This guy is swinging for the fences. And risking a VERY bad team this year __while NOT his preference__ is one of the risks he's perfectly willing to take.

So, I guess Stan and I have a slightly different perspective. I've waited my whole life to see a good solid MLB team return to my home town so that generations of people can enjoy it in a beautiful ballpark and I don't want to see that opportunity screwed up. Stan wants to top himself. And he may do it. With us along for the ride.

He's willing to roll the dice. As the city builds the team a $611-million ballpark, I'd just like to remind him gently that they are not really his dice. THEY ARE OUR DICE.

_______________________

Anonymous: I keep reading these letters and posts from so-called Nationals fans who seem to think that ownership owes them something, this so-called compact. This is a team that had no farm system. They're basically starting from scratch. There is no guarantee that the plan will play out, but I'm willing to give them the chance. I've been a long-suffering Padre fan and have watched them throw money down the drain for quick-fix free agents and boring teams without moving beyond the first round of the playoffs since 1998. It takes courage to do what Kasten and the Lerners are doing. This team could have located to any city in the US, Canada or Mexico. If you don't like the direction of the team or the hot dogs, don't go to the games. Stay out of my way when you get back on the bandwagon.

Tom Boswell: In the first chat, I think it's nice to let a different point of view have the last word. Good points here, too.

See you all in two weeks.

P.S.: Almost all Nats questions arrived today. Which is fine. Especially since their first 10 games have been so morbidly fascinating. But, next time, more O's and the rest of MLB, too. Felix Hernandez! Can you imagine the expressions on the faces of fans in Japan __at 4 a.m.__ when they see that this 21-year-old has even more overpowering stuff than Dice-K! Cheers.

_______________________

Editor's Note: washingtonpost.com moderators retain editorial control over Live Online discussions and choose the most relevant questions for guests and hosts; guests and hosts can decline to answer questions. washingtonpost.com is not responsible for any content posted by third parties.