Did anybody else finds the contention that the Nats are ready to start competing strange? They had >100 losses last year with the worst run differential in the majors by a pretty substantial amount. To me this seems like a roster that still needs to be turned over a lot before it starts to look respectable.

Boz doesn't even try to think about whether we're close to winning or not, whether signing Tex will bring us closer to a contention not.

He's the leader of an incredibly loud corps of Nationals fans who think raising payroll equals winning, that the only way to win is to sign type-A free agents and the only reason we're bad is because we didn't sign any free agents in 2006 and 2007, like, I dunno I guess these people think Barry Zito and Andruw Jones would have helped. I guess the Orioles and Redskins haven't been obvious enough examples of the faultiness of the "just spend on someone! anyone!" model of team-building.

It's such a boring, stupid and non-stop argument that comes from Boz and his ilk that the main reason I want them to break the bank on Teixeira is to just get these people to shut up and maybe start thinking about evaluating players based on their on-field performance not just their price tag. Hell, let's give him 12, 13 maybe 15 years. Then we'll win for sure!

He's the leader of an incredibly loud corps of Nationals fans who think raising payroll equals winning

There's a pretty loud corps of Nats fans who just want the damn cheapass owners to spend commensurate with their revenues, too.

Then there's a quiet contingent who spew back whatever they read in Baseball Prospectus 2001 without thinking critically about it.

As I said a few days ago, I actually do think Dunn will sign with the Nationals. Teixeira obviously will sign with NYY, LAA or BOS, though.

As to whether signing Dunn is a good idea for the Nats, overall I would say "yes", I think.

I thought firing Lenny Harris was supposed to solve all our problems.

I want to see the Nats sign Dunn to a reasonable contract. I would even be happy with a slight overpay, for exactly the reason Chris points out: for chrissakes I'd like to see the owners spend SOME money.

It's not as if they are picking up good players on the cheap or letting their own players develop. If the alternatives are the Bonifacios and Langerhanses of the world, then yeah, I'd rather see a short, overpriced contract so there's at least something competent in the ballpark.

Nats Need to Buy Some Pop

The Lerners read this as a need for more soda at the concession stands.

Only if it means they can round up the bottles and send them to Michigan for the refund.

The Lerners read this as a need for more soda at the concession stands.

Actually, they'd read the lack of pop as proof that unlimited pop was supposed to be included in Boondoggle Park and withhold rent payments.

It's not as if they are picking up good players on the cheap or letting their own players develop.

Isn't the problem that they're just not acquiring enough good players, period?

When they've signed mid-level FAs, they've gotten lousy return (Lo Duca, Castilla, Guzman). When they've re-signed their own guys, they've picked the wrong ones (Dmitri Young, Kearns). When we've traded away prospects, they've done pretty well (A. Galarraga, B. Harris, Juan Rivera, Daryl Thompson, Bill Bray, Jhonny Nunez). The veterans we've gotten back in those deals have either been short-term rentals or haven't done very well (if you thought FLop was bad, wait till you see Scott Olsen). We've waited too long to trade veterans who could have brought back really valuable re-building chips had we dealt them at their peak values (Chad Cordero, Nick Johnson). At some point don't you have to wonder if part of the problem is that we don't have a plan, and that our player evaluation is lousy, not just payroll?

There's definitely some dumb-cheap things this team has done. I'd like to see them re-sign Zimmerman, and they certainly should be doing more to sign international FAs, and there's no excuse for not signing top draft picks like Aaron Crow and Sean Black. That's three examples of smart spending I could get behind. I'd like to see them spend on one of the second-tier FA SPs out there, who could be had for a shorter term deal, like maybe a Lowe or a Garland (although I was more excited about ground-ballers back when we still were caring about infield defense). I'd like to see them sign Adam Dunn for 2, maybe 3 years if they can, especially now that he doesn't cost a draft pick.

But most of those things wouldn't much increase major-league payroll. And in fact most of the things we need to be doing to build a contender would actually involve reducing payroll. The smart things we've done that will help us win in the future (Dukes, Milledge) didn't raise payroll.

They need more young talent, not because it's cheap but because it's young and improving. It just also happens to be cheap. And if we had been more aggressive starting in November 2004 about rebuilding and restocking with young talent, we'd be even cheaper now, but guess what--we'd be better and closer to a championship.

But if all you care about is raising payroll, then you're implicitly saying you want the team to get older, to bring in more players on the back sides of their careers. Tex may be a great player for shitty teams for the next 3 years, but what's he going to be like in years 6, 7, 8 of that contract, when the rest of the team god willing is getting good? And don't forget it'll cost us a draft pick.

That's what Boz and others refuse to recognize, that free agents are by definition older, declining players, and spending on them involved trade-offs long-term. Boz is not making a case for how to make the Nationals a winner. He's making a case for making them more expensive losers. If you want that, root for Brian Sabean's Giants. He's doing that plan to a T.

Nats Need to Buy Some Pop

Boswell is from Western New York?

these people to shut up and maybe start thinking about evaluating players based on their on-field performance not just their price tag.

As a sportswriter, I'll say that what concerns Boz is having something interesting to write about. A big-name signing generates a lot of easy stories for him, stories that will interest the fans too -- the signing, the glowing "what it all means", the first interview with the new star, the spring training piece, the "Tex is such a great influence" piece, the "Tex and his lovely wife love it here and have become a real part of the community" piece ... all followed by the "Tex is a god" or "Tex is a lazy malcontent" or "Tex has straightened things out and is a god again" pieces depending on how he hit last month.

It's hard to find enough material about Ronnie Belliard and Aubrey Huff for a season's worth of article, much less to get people to read them so you don't end up becoming known as the founder of TomBoswell.com.

Boswell wants some real news to write about and he's not gonna stop criticizing ownership until they give him some!

The obvious sign for the Nats is Manny. They can afford him, it's only for 3-4 years, he's a much better ballplayer than Teixeira or Dunn and he's infinitely more newsworthy. Even casual fans have heard of him, so he'll fill the park, and help give the impression the Nats are going somewhere. Plus the DC area is full of ex-Bostonians.

I have to say, I think the Nats are an EXTREMELY badly run franchise, with dishonest ownership and an inept GM. But I suppose that's what Washington is used to in other sports.

Walt -- you're making the mistake of assuming that Boswell either 1) wants to write about the Nats or 2) has editors that'll give him the space to do so!

If Boz's goal is to be interesting, he has a long way to go. The guy has basically written this same column about how the Nationals have to go buy a free agent 900 times. If there's a cardinal sin here, it's that this constant one-note "just spend more" stuff is just plain boring. There is more to discuss in baseball than payroll. But that's the problem. You have so many people who are just fixated on free agents and have made what I think is a cynical, not very thoughtful and certainly quite pointless and boring decision that "the owners are bad, wake me up when the team gets sold...." Why watch games if that's what you think? That was Needham's conclusion when the owners didn't raise payroll over 100 million within the first five minutes after buying the team. Even when they went and signed every pick in 2007 or signed Smiley or were proven RIGHT to pass on the brutally awful free agent classes of '07-'08, it didn't matter because his mind was made up before Kasten and the Lerners ever had a chance. There are definitely some things to complain about on the spending side as I said above, but the repetitive, one-note, cynical, singular focus on free agency and payroll to the exclusion of all the other facets of the game is just plain BORING.

Wait... you're accusing other people of playing only one note?

How's the T-shirt business going?

I spend a hell of a lot less time talking about why Bowden should be fired than you do harping on payroll and why the Lerners are cheap f@ckers. And frankly my criticism of Bowden is a lot more balanced than your name-calling insults directed at the ownership. I can at least give Jim credit for the good things that he's done. I'm one of the biggest fans of Elijah Dukes that there is. I like the Milledge deal. Bowden should get some credit (Dana Brown gets most) for finding John Lannan in the 10th round or whatever it was. Redding and Perez were finds.

I'd never say, "Jim Bowden will/has never ever make a good acquisition ever," the way you have insisted since October 2006 that the Lerners and Kasten will never open their wallets for anything no matter what.

Eh. Whatever.

It's easy to strawman my arguments. I've devolved them on my own into short soundbites sometimes.

But if you think that the sum total of my criticism is "They're Cheap!!!" then you haven't been paying too much attention to either side of the debate.

You have any funny way of arguing that's so shrill sometimes that even at the times when I'm on your side (such as with the fire bowden shtick), you make me want to take the opposite side.

But it's the internet. Being an Ahole is what it's about!

But t-shirts are selling pretty good actually. My buddy who runs the Pug over on H st. keeps coming back for more. It's pretty fun.

Well, again if the accusation is that I'm too shrill, then I guess there's some pot-kettle going on. But the lion's share of the feedback I get is the opposite. Not everyone has to like my blog or agree with everything I say, but based on what you say about me it's pretty obvious that you haven't read it much if at all.

I do think that, whatever Boswell's motivations might be, in this specific case perception means something. The 2008 Nationals have demonstrated the limits of the Shiny New Ballpark Theory. There was a pretty widespread opinion that the Nats were not only terrible, but that ownership didn't particularly care how terrible they were, and the rent witholdings only fanned the flames.
Even worse, the novelty of having a new ballpark fades and the novelty of having a team in town is pretty much gone.

The ownership group looks like one of those who are perfectly content to plod along and pocket revenue sharing money. It might be useful to them, more than for most franchises, to try to prove otherwise. It'd be even better if the player they signed was someone young enough to be a part of their next pennant contender and didn't block any of their high-level prospects. If the market for Adam Dunn has fallen as much as the article suggests, this might be something of an opportunity. Free agents of course aren't the end all be all, and they're not going to turn themselves into pennant contenders with them, but this franchise needs more fans.

@AG--I agree. I'd like to see the team first start to counter that perception by re-signing Zimmerman. That would be the best single thing they could do right now. Tex would be ok, but I just don't know that he's the best use of money considering that we still have a potential impact player there and have so many needs elsewhere, like the rotation. Adding Tex to this team, and we're still gonna lose 95.

considering that we still have a potential impact player there

You don't mean Nick Johnson do you? Time to give up that illusion. He's turning 30, he's played 38 games the last two seasons, his career OPS+ is just 125 -- nice but nothing special at 1B -- and I don't think his defensive rep is very good. He's probably got a late John Jaha season or two in him but there's no reason to forestall any positive investment in the team because Nick Johnson is there.

Also Johnson's an FA after this year.

Nick's last full season he posted an OPS+ of 149. Tex's career best is 151.

I'm not saying he's a lead-pipe cinch as the solution, but we have more urgent holes than 1b, like SP. Plus one of our few top prospects is Marrero, who could be a year or two away from taking the job, though the broken leg slows that down.

I just think we could wait a year, see how those two pan out. And if we want to get a big fish, go get Derek Lowe and Adam Dunn.