I'm so not used to this team making the right decision. I really have no framework or ability to process this information. It's like how math was before 0 was invented.

It's like how math was before 0 was invented

Take it to the Murray Chass thread...

Guzman's only 32? It seems like he's been around since the dawn of time.

Guzman's only 32? It seems like he's been around since the dawn of time.

Take. It. To. The. Murray. Chass. Thread.

Guzman came up at 21 in 1999 -- for some of you, that is the dawn of time.

Desmond made his case with a .278 average, a homer and a team-leading 12 RBI this spring.

Probably the right decision but that has to be one of the weakest spring-training cases since Murray Chass was in diapers -- which was yesterday! (thanks, I'll be here all week)

It's especially weak since Guzman's career BA is 271 and he's hit better than that the last 3 years (after getting lasik). But that's OK as I don't expect them to say it's because he's old and in decline.

Guzman came up at 21 in 1999 -- for some of you, that is the dawn of time.

You got me. I'm actually 11 years old.

Walt -- up until the last, say, 10 days, Desmond was smoking the ball. So that part's probably weighing a bit more in their mind.

Rizzo's also been very defensive-conscious. And Guzman can't fire the ball from the hole anymore. I haven't seen much of him this spring, but last year, because of the surgery, he just couldn't throw. Supposedly he hasn't improved. That, and his indifferent range, make it an easier decision I suppose.

Still, I'm surprised. The projection systems love him (comparatively), and he certainly showed he's capable of driving the ball in his time in Washington last year.

Good move by the Nats. Those of us who recall Desmond making some fine plays in the field during their first exhibition game at RFK against the Mets on April 3, 2005 have been waiting for this.

What's Desmond's glove like? That was a pretty big year last year, but it was the first one he's really had like that and it was heavy on the batting average.

It doesn't strike me as he projects to be much of a better offensive player than Guzman this year. If my math is correct Desmond has an option year left so he should be able to be sent down.

It also strikes me that the approach indicated by this quote:

"But for the year '10, he's playing really good in spring training. He may not be playing good in May, so Guzman may be our shortstop. To open the season, we're going to give Dessie a shot there to hold that position down. We hope that works."

Is a very wrong approach. If you're going to give the kid the job, give him the job and let him grow into it. Maybe he's just saying that to help maintain Guzman's trade value, but Desmond needs to know that if that's the case.

Can the Mets acquire Guzman? He's going to be better than Castillo.

My major concern about Rizzo is that his moves don't always seem to be coherent, and the explanations always seem very convenient. Last winter, we heard it mooted that Guzman would move to 2B, and Desmond, in spite of defensive concerns, would start at SS. Then, on that basis, they made the head-scratching move to sign Kennedy. So it became a competition between Desmond and Guzman for SS, with Kennedy playing 2B, while having Dunn 1B. It isn't too much of a stretch to imagine that part-way through the winter, they suddenly decided that having both a 2B and a 1B unfamiliar with their positions might be a bad idea. Obviously, you wouldn't say it outright, but I would expect it to seep out between the lines.

I've no idea whether Guzman can make the throw from the hole or not. It's been a constant theme through spring training recently. Unfortunately for Guzman, he was away from spring training for a while because his wife gave birth, and I believe it was reported to be difficult for her. But at the same time, Guzman is recovering from shoulder surgery, so being away might have delayed the rehabilitation process. Maybe he was encouraged to take time out from rehabilitation, by a front-office that doesn't really want him.

There is no reason to disbelieve the official line, but for some reason I can't bring myself to accept it. Do the Nationals behave in a shifty way because they are inside the Beltway? Or does their being inside the Beltway somehow prevent me from not looking for an ulterior motive? It's really irritating, and often makes me want to reconsider being a Nats' fan. I don't find this a problem with other teams that I follow almost as closely, and I don't think it's going to go away soon, either.