Boz, if you finally want to see significant September baseball in Washington in your lifetime, you will stop defending Stan Kasten. Is Acta a good man? Certainly. But is he improving the players he has on his roster (as awful as they might be)? I don't see it. Clear house and start from scratch in 2010 with a new GM and manager in hopes both will not only know what they're doing, but can infuse a different culture into this gulag of a franchise.

Boz can be a wonderful writer, but he's too tolerant of this status quo. Ideally, Boz should be in Philly, where he would properly extol the likes of Howard, Utley, Rollins et al, and Bill Conlin (from his "Gang of Six" period) should be in D.C. to give this dreadful organization the caustic tongue-lashing it deserves.

Rizzo spoke publicly about the reports for the first time before Tuesday's game with the Yankees, and while he offered nothing resembling a definitive statement on Acta's status, he said the front office hasn't discussed the issue with him.

"It's certainly uncomfortable with the speculation," Rizzo said. "Names are being bandied about of replacements, and we haven't even discussed it with the current manager. He's still our manager. We support him. And all the reports that happened over the weekend, I don't know where those reports come from. And there's not much to comment on reports that there's no basis to."
[...]
[Wil] Nieves said: "Manny's a great guy who's always positive. ... He hasn't shown any emotions or anything, being mad. He's always positive. He's always been that, and I guess it's not going to change."

(from the Times' article)

More questions:
1) Rizzo took three days to scotch the rumours published on Saturday. Why didn't he have it done on Sunday? Or at least Monday?
2) What would constitute a 'definitive statement'? Is there some sort of demand from somewhere to pick up Manny's 2010 option before a new GM is picked?
3) It's very clear Manny hasn't lost the team, from what's been appearing in the press. How will firing him affect matters? Have the players got the notorious 'country club' attitude that Dick Williams wrecked in Boston in 1967? Or will firing him make no real difference?

from Boswell:

One central reason they don't fire Manny is because, in an organization where turmoil is constant, he is one of the few cohesive elements, one of the few people left who keeps organizational disintegration at bay.
[...]
After last season, the Nats fired all of Acta's coaches except Randy St. Claire. Last month, they fired him, too. So far this year, the Nats have also fired executive José Rijo and "retired" GM Jim Bowden. They have an "interim" tag on Rizzo and apparently have not added anybody to their front office to compensate for the extra workload when Bowden departed. On a team with this much turnover, only two authority figures remain in their '08 roles -- Kasten off the field and Acta in the clubhouse.
[...]
"I had Joe Torre last year," [Joe] Beimel said. "He never gets too excited. But he'll let you know if he doesn't like something. Manny reminds me of Torre".
[...]
"Stan and Mike are supportive," Acta said. "Stan says, 'Just win a few games so I can stop answering these questions.' "
[...]
The bill of particulars against [Acta] always comes down to one issue: Acta never gets angry. Aren't umps, who know he won't cause a flap, influenced by the angry voices from the other dugout? Won't Nats players, seldom if ever read the riot act by Acta, likely to take advantage, too?

The Nats have talked to Acta about showing more emotion. He could do it so easily. Any fool can fake a fit. But he won't. Even for his job. "He's very stubborn in his beliefs," one executive said.

This is taking on the character of a Greek tragedy. Manny the Imperturbable is destroyed by his stoicism.
In this excerpt we get a possible answer to my question (1): because Kasten wants to put pressure on Acta.

Really, though, having fired all the coaches and negotiated the resignation of the GM, who is left to fire once Acta is gone? Suppose the team doesn't improve then? All that's left is Rizzo.
(The Boswell article is very good, and worth clicking on the link if you haven't done so already.)

I'm still somewhat amazed that the players aren't saying anything to defend him. The reporters tell us he hasn't lost the team and that they like him, but this is all we get (from Boz):

Ask the Nats' vets about Acta and they don't glorify him. But they not only support him, they seem to cling to him. "I had Joe Torre last year," Beimel said. "He never gets too excited. But he'll let you know if he doesn't like something. Manny reminds me of Torre. Some managers are with you when you're good and flip out when you're not."

Beimel's been here about 15 minutes. Where's the stuff from Zimmerman? From Johnson? I'd love to hear a comment from Dukes.

But is he improving the players he has on his roster (as awful as they might be)? I don't see it.

I have to offer a qualified disagreement. I think Anderson Hernandez has improved since misplaying a ball while in the shift against... Gosh I can't remember. But most of the other problems have come from previously reliable or known problematic vets - Nick the Sick dropping popups? Guzman's sharp deterioration in range? Do people seriously think Riggleman or whoever is going to fix that?

The most serious gripe I have against Acta, in the sense that he is doing something obviously wrong, is that he's not making best use of his outfielders. He keeps putting Dukes in centre when it is very clear that Dukes cannot play there, but is tolerable-to-good in right. Then there was the extended experiment of playing Dunn in right, which ended badly and looks like is finished.

I would take a guy like Maxwell,
even though he hit below the Mendoza line, and stick him in centre for the rest of the season, between Dunn and Dukes.

Clear house and start from scratch in 2010 with a new GM and manager in hopes both will not only know what they're doing, but can infuse a different culture into this gulag of a franchise.

But they've almost done that already. They've cleared out the coaches. The old GM is gone. There will be no improved culture until one of the Lerners or Kasten is gone, or accepts a reduced role. I'm inclined to view the Rosenthal story as a plant by Kasten to rile Mr Acta. Mr Acta didn't rile. It's going to be quite the battle of wills. If Acta has the support of the Lerners, I don't see how Kasten can move him unless he makes a really bad mistake. One way to force Acta into a situation where he is more vulnerable is to raise doubts about his future. Drip-drip-drip go the leaks until it starts infecting the clubhouse. Then Kasten can whip out his knife and cut Acta adrift. What an operator!

Where's the stuff from Zimmerman?

from the third article linked above:

"We've been through that stuff all year," Ryan Zimmerman said. "If we keep playing the game the right way like we have been doing, hopefully things will turn around for us. But do I rush here every day and read the paper to see what's going on [with Acta]? Absolutely not."

How is that supporting him? It's a generic cliched quote which doesn't even come within a mile of offering support for Acta.

How is that supporting him? It's a generic cliched quote which doesn't even come within a mile of offering support for Acta.

Since it's apparent that somebody in the organization has got it in for Acta, I doubt we could expect much more. Even, as you point out, the Beimel quote is tepid.

The players may be saying nothing, which Boswell interprets as a positive. It could be a negative. Or it could mean nothing at all. They just want to play ball and get their next contract.

Ideally, Boz should be in Philly, where he would properly extol the likes of Howard, Utley, Rollins et al, and Bill Conlin (from his "Gang of Six" period) should be in D.C. to give this dreadful organization the caustic tongue-lashing it deserves.

I think Philly should throw in a prospect to even out the trade.

We didn't really even hear those comments before the Rosenthal thing came out though.

We keep hearing about how the players like him, and how he hasn't lost the clubhouse as a reason why he should stay on. Yet I haven't heard anything like that from the players. Maybe the reporters who are talking about that, are summing up a sense. Maybe they're getting quotes that they're not running.

But it's also likely a matter of interpretation. I like Manny Acta, too. He's a likable guy. A nice guy. But I think it's time he's gone. Those two aren't mutually exclusive.

"He's very stubborn in his beliefs," one executive said.

After all the changes it's kind of hard to read this as anything other than Rizzo or Kasten. Funny that there's so little anonymity left in an organization with so many new faces.

To fra paolo: Ideally, my "clearing house" would involve Kasten, too. If this trainwreck doesn't prove once and for all that Schuerholz was the driving force in Atlanta, nothing will. Meanwhile, this franchise -- inhabiting a market that hasn't seen a contender for nearly two-thirds of a century and postseason play in more than three-quarters -- sinks to a nadir lower than the Expos at their worst ever experienced.

I like Manny Acta, too. He's a likable guy. A nice guy. But I think it's time he's gone. Those two aren't mutually exclusive.

The problem of making Acta the issue is that it is avoiding the real problem, which is the organization's inability to find a GM. Have they just been waiting all this time so they can interview Kim Ng and turn her down?

If you like 'Little Ball', fine, Fire Manny. That makes sense. If you're sabermetrically inclined, well, what's going to change?

Think about it, though. What does it say about an organization that has a leak like appeared on Saturday, and on Tuesday we are finally told nothing has changed? What's going on there? Once the leak came out, they should have taken action one way or the other.

The problem of making Acta the issue is that it is avoiding the real problem, which is the organization's inability to find a GM. Have they just been waiting all this time so they can interview Kim Ng and turn her down?

I think I posted on the other thread... they couldn't get the waiver from Selig from having to hire minority candidates, so they couldn't name Rizzo the permanent guy. And with as late as Bowden going bye-bye happened, they wouldn't have gotten permission from the Dodgers (or anyone) to raid their front offices for the guys. So, yes, they're stuck in limbo to the detriment of all involved.

Personally, I'm not completely sold on Rizzo. The "aura" comments bothered me, and his lies about this draft not having any signability picks just made me angry. Maybe he is a good scout, and maybe that's where his strengths ultimately should lay -- instead of running an entire operation.

Ultimately, you're right. They need a sense of permanance one way or another. But we know that Acta's likely gone at the end of the year anyway, whether Rizzo's around next year or not. So firing him isn't really going to change what happens next season.

Some support from Ron Villone (another guy who's been here 15 minutes) and another generic "we have to play hard" non-support quote from Johnson are here.