Nationals Plan: A Study in Inaction

Posted by Jeff Bergin on Jan. 8, 2009 at 9:34 PM
There are 9 comments | Add yours

When some fans said that the failure for not signing Mark Teixeira gave Nats ownership an "out" this offseason, I thought they were crazy.  When I hear them saying that Dunn and Hudson's price tag is too high and if it does not come down they will explore less impactful trades, I think those fears are totally founded.

The estimated price for Dunn and Hudson has remained steadfast since the offseason began, the only thing that has changed is the Nationals commitment to adding these players as core pieces of their team for a fan base that feels like Zim's opening day walkoff was years ago.   If the Nationals fail to land an impact player this offseason, then they will have to provide a non bull-sh*t answer as to why they stood pat. 

In what was the equivalent of a jobs projection report, the Nationals projected 2012 lineup was weakest in two positions: RF, 2B--the two positions that Dunn and Hudson can play (while Dunn plays 1B now, if Marerro is as good as advertised, those two can be moved around).  Also, in 2010, the Nationals have ZERO first base options that any self-respecting team would bring into the fold for a season (Kory Casto, Belliard?!?!).  While rumors abound that Swisher could land in DC (and could be a first base option), that would require a trade with NYY, and they would want either a young arm, or one of the Nationals athletic young outfielders (Maxwell). 

Don't get me wrong, I feel the signing of Adam Dunn to a 4 year deal would mean he would be here for 1.5-2.5 years and would be spun at a deadline for prospect when Marerro and Burgess are ready to rock, but he and Hudson would (and/or) would at least give the fans a reason to root, show up, and add to the Lerner's coffers - if they dont sign an impact player, good luck trying to woo your fans back with more promise of prospects, plans, progress and pathetic play