While the Nats were in the midst of getting roughed up in Pittsburgh (5-4 on Friday, 11-6 tonight), interim GM Mike Rizzo was joining the swarm of the none-too-subtle. Though Rizzo’s Friday afternoon disquisition on his reason for trading first baseman Nick Johnson and lefty reliever Joe Beimel was more than defensible (“young, controllable, up-sided starting pitchers are like gold in the game right now,” he once said), his post-deadline statement contained a pointed defense of the Nationals, their front office and their ownership. This was the line: “We are not rebuilding. We are building. We are not far from being a good team.” I’ve been thinking about what Rizzo said for the last twenty-four hours (okay, I’ve done some other things) and it’s actually pretty interesting. I wonder if it’s true?

Rizzo’s intention was to reassure Nats’ fans that the team’s front office knows what it’s doing, while rejecting the notion that the Nats have to get worse before they can get better. The pieces are almost in place, Rizzo says. The team is close. Itchy, itchy close. How close? Rizzo’s statement implied that being a playoff contender (or at least .500 ballclub) is just around the corner. No one expects that to happen this year, of course (the Nats’ plunge in Pittsburgh is just another example of why), but it could easily happen next: particularly with a starting rotation of John Lannen, Jordan Zimmermann and (perhaps) Craig Stammen — with additions (Washington Post columnist Tracee Hamilton listed them for us this morning) of Ross Detwiler, Shairon Martis, Collin Balester, J.D. Martin and Garrett Mock. Just for giggles, let’s throw in the guy with “the best change-up in the Marlins’ system,” Aaron Thompson and wunderkind Stephen Strasburg. So it’s true: the Nats have a puppy brigade of potential pitchers that might someday comprise one of the most formidible starting rotations in baseball. Potentially. Someday.

In saying that the Nats are “building,” and “not rebuilding,” Rizzo was subtlely comparing himself to a sheaf of other baseball GMs who spent Friday auctioning off their best players to the highest bidder. Padres’ GM Kevin Towers traded ace Jake Peavy for an entirely new pitching staff, Cleveland dealt their recent Cy Young winner and the face of their franchise for four Phuzzie prospects, the Pirates traded their middle infield (and a lot more) for a potential star first basemen and a bucket of balls and the A’s (after parting with the one off-season acquisition that they hoped would solidify their line-up) shipped their other best hitter off to Minnesota for a Montessory graduate who might not get to the majors until 2014. There could be a mission to Mars before this kid plays. These moves weren’t made because the Padres, Indians, Pirates and A’s think they’re a player-or-two away from a championship — they were made because they’re convinced they’re not.

Friday’s trade deadline was Rizzo’s most important statement as the Nats’ interim GM: not because of who he traded, but because of who he didn’t. Unlike the Friars, Tomahawks, Ahoys and White Elephants the Nats are adding pieces, not giving them away. It’s a hell of a statement if you think about it. The Nats (though more specifically Mike Rizzo) are convinced that with a little more pitching (or, perhaps, a lot more pitching) a team with a foundation of Dunn, Flores, Willingham, Zimmerman, Morgan and maybe even Guzman is good enough to win. Okay, a few more pieces here and there would help (a couple free agents, but probably nothing too daring — and someone to fill the baseball equivalent of the Grand Canyon at second), but any team that boasts three hitters who can stroke at least 25 (or more) homers each year (and that boasts the league’s seventh best OBP) ought to be able to contend. Frankly, I like the gamble because I think that Rizzo’s right: the core is solid and eventually, and inevitably, the pitching should come. But let’s not kid ourselves; this is a gamble — and it’s a pretty big one at that.

The San Diego Padres have had a volatile, if often unsuccessful, history. Founded in 1969 as an expansion franchise, “the Friars” spent their first six years in last place, before future Hall of Famer Dave Winfield (22 seasons, 3110 hits, 465 home runs) was signed out of Minnesota as a first round draft choice in 1973. The Padres finished first in the NL West in 1978 and went to the World Series in 1984, where they lost to the Detroit Tigers in five games. Tony Gwynn was just 24 in 1984, but he became the face of the franchise after Winfield was signed by the Yankees. The Winfield-Gwynn “switch off” seems emblamatic of the franchise: the Friars seem always to have one future hall of famer and face-of-the-franchise in tow: in the 1970s it was Winfield, in the 1980s and 1990s it was Gwynn, now it’s San Diego native and first baseman Adrian Gonzalez.

Padres’ fans will undoubtedly take issue with that description, arguing that the Padres are a successful franchise that is deeply rooted in the San Diego community. That’s true now, but it wasn’t for many years. In 1974, the Padres were on the verge of coming to Washington — baseball card companies had even changed their card design to reflect the move. Instead, the team was sold to McDonald’s mogul Ray Kroc who, the next year, apologized to fans for his teams’ play over the team’s public address system: “I’ve never seen such stupid playing in my life,” he said. Padres’ fans will also point out that the team’s front office has a reputation for savvy trades: landing Gonzalez from Texas in 2006 for minor leaguer Billy Killian and pitchers Adam Eaton (now with Baltimore) and Akinori Otsuka. True enough. But for every Killian-for-Gonzalez trade there is an offsetting and haunting swap: like the 1981 trade that sent superstar Ozzie Smith to St. Louis in exchange for Sixto Lezcano and Gary Templeton. Padres’ fans are also quick to note that perhaps baseball’s best all-time reliever, Trevor Hoffman, was a Friars’ mainstay before moving onto Milwaukee at the beginning of the year. That’s true, but it’s also irrelevant. That was then, this is now.

The 2009 San Diego Padres bear no resemblance to the 1984 NL champs, nor the 1998 Gwynn-Hoffman nine (which lost the series in four to the Yankees) nor even to the 2006 Western Division winners. While the team has gained a cadre of dedicated fans (and committed themselves to San Diego with the building of Petco Park in 2004) last year’s cash-strapped Padres finished the season with 99 losses and have been in rebuilding mode since: attempting to off-load all star pitcher Jake Peavy for prospects and dangling Gonzalez to teams in lieu of paying him added millions when his contract is up in 2010. The club was also victimized by an off-season divorce of primary owner John Moores’ and his wife Rebecca, who fought for custody of their lavish houses — and the Padres. This is the team’s story: not of on-the-field heroes, but off-the-field eccentrics who have been undercapitalized (first owner C. Arnholdt Smith), weird (Ray Kroc), parsimonious (TV producer Tom Werner) and absent (Moores, who rarely attends Padres’ game).

Still, it is hardly the place of Nats’ fans to scoff at such a history. The Padres boast one of the games best pitchers (in Peavy, who is now on the DL) and one of its potential greats (in Gonzalez). An all star pitcher? One of baseball’s potential greats? The Nats have neither. The Nats take on the Padres in a three-game set beginning at Nationals’ Park tonight, with Garrett Mock (0-3) facing off against Matt Latos (0-1). The two teams will face-off again tomorrow (Tim Staufer is scheduled to go against J.D. Martin) and then on Sunday (with Chad Gaudin slated to face John Lannan).