NATS SIGN ADAM DUNN!

Here is the single paragraph just posted on the Washington Post's Nationals Journal page:

"The Washington Nationals have agreed to a preliminary deal with 29-year-old free agent Adam Dunn, a signing that would fulfill their off-season long search for a left-handed power hitter. Two independent sources have told the Post that Dunn will sign a two-year deal, possibly announced as early as tomorrow."

It makes perfect sense, and I don't doubt it. There have been very few free-agent signings over the years where the reporter got it wrong, especially with two sources.

The Nationals have been pummeled by beat writers and peripheral fans since they failed to sign uber-star Mark Teixiera, who ultimately signed with the New York Yankees.

The crowd noise got so loud for team GM Jim Bowden to sign somebody, anybody, that I worried the team would make a quick (read: poor) signing to placate the yellers and the screamers.

Looks like that didn't happen.

Dunn is 29 years old (still young), bats lefty (a real boon to the Nationals' mostly right-handed lineup) and is consistently consistent.

How consistent? Here are his home run totals over the last four years: 2005:40, 2006:40, 2007:40, 2008:40.

Oh, yeah; he's consistent.

His lifetime average over a full season:

Ave:.247 -- 2B:29 -- 3B:1 -- HR:40 -- RBI:96

Granted, that batting average doesn't look all that impressive (and really it isn't), but his career on-base percentage is .381, which means a great many singles are hiding in his stats as walks.

Walk? Single? They are about the same in the long run. The only difference is that he has fewer opportunties to drive in runs.

That's why a career average of 40 homers has driven in just (and I used that term loosely) 96 runs.

How do I describe his defense?

Hmm. Well, for those of you older than 45, think Frank Howard. He catches what he can get to in the outfield, but I think, at least defensively, we'd rather have Alfonso Soriano back in left.

At first, he's okay.

But his defense is one of the reason's he's not going to get Teixiera-type money.

And that's why the Nationals will be able to afford him.

Where will Adam Dunn play?

If he goes to the outfield-which is his wish-the Nationals will now have 5 starting outfielders. Who will be traded?

My guess is that he will play first and Nick Johnson, once he proves he's healthy in Spring Training, will be traded.

But don't think for a moment that the Nationals were Dunn's first-or even second-choice. He has been sitting on an offer from Washington for a long time now.

He made it clear that the Dodgers were his first choice.

But with the Los Angeles Angels, another option for Dunn, signing Bobby Abreu this morning, and will the Dodgers seemingly nearing a deal with Manny Ramirez (and Houston, who had some interest saying they were out over the weekend), Dunn didn't have any real viable option left other than the 102 loss Nationals.

In two years, when the contract runs out, the team can re-sign him (a good possibility considering they should be very competitive by then) or offer arbitration and let Adam Dunn leave, garnering the team another first round draft pick.

And don't forget, because the Diamondbacks didn't offer Dunn arbitration, his signing will not cost the team a draft pick of their own.

Nada.

Wow.

FOLLOWING THOM LOVERRO'S "DO SOMETHING, ANYTHING" SCREED, NATS SIGN DR. PHIL

Well, of course the Nationals didn't really sign Dr. Phil.

But he'd sure help Elijah Dukes, though, wouldn't he?

But this is just the type of signing that all of those nattering naybobs are calling for. Reporters covering the Nationals are demanding a high profile signing as a signal that the Nationals are on the path to a champion season.

It doesn't matter who, they say. Somebody.

Anybody.

They need a sign.

I guess Thom Loverro of the Washington Times thinks he is King Leonidas of Sparta and Jim Bowden is the Oracle of Delphi.

Zuckerman awaits, fingers on the keyboard, looking for a sign.

True, Leonidas got his sign from the Oracle. And instead of marching his entire army north to stop the Persians, he took only his crack body guards and eventually got killed.

Not just him. All 300.

Great call, oracle.

And so these reporters wait and they watch. They look for a sign, well a signing, as proof that the Nationals will begin the 2009 season as an improved team.

Note to furry-browed reporters: Jim Bowden is not an oracle, and no one thing he does-or doesn't do-has any long-term strategic significance for the Washington Nationals.

And where do these guys get off saying the team isn't improved from last season anyway?

Josh Willingham and Scott Olsen make the Nationals a better team.

Daniel Cabrera replacing Tim Redding can make the Nationals better (certainly not worse). Jordan Zimmermann being major league ready makes the Nationals better. Signing Steven Strasburg in the amateur draft this June, and putting him in the rotation by September, makes the Nationals better.

And having the Nationals not lead the major leagues in player-days lost to injury for the second year in a row will make the Nationals better.

Much better.

True, the Nationals haven't done very much since that Olsen-Willingham trade, but that certainly isn't their fault.

They tried to sign Mark Texeira. They tried to sign Milton Bradley. They continue to try and sign Orlando Hudson and Adam Dunn.

The Nationals are making legitimate, big-dollar offers. They just keep coming in second.

These big-name free agents simply don't want to play for a 102 loss team. And who blames them? If they did take the Nationals' offer, these reporters would say that they care only about the money, that winning means nothing.

It's a lose-lose situation to sign with a loser like the Nationals.

And yet writers like John Dugan of the Washington National Examiner write headlines like this:

"Nationals getting proficient at doing nothing"

He thinks that doing nothing is bad.

Well, my dog thinks that If I don't kick him every day, that's a good thing.

Sometimes, doing nothing is better than doing something.

Like signing Manny Ramirez.

Seriously.

Dugan wrote that the Nationals should take some of that money "saved" by not signing Texeira and signing Manny Ramirez to a 3-year deal. Well, he didn't say it, but he agreed with ESPN's Bill Simmons, who did say it.

Same thing.

Both men think that a Ramirez signing would be a great story and give the team some badly needed national publicity.

Who here thinks that adding Manny Ramirez to the Nationals' roster would somehow help the team's national reputation?

Let's see a show of hands.

Thought so.

There would be cackles and guffaws from Orno to San Diego.

I mean, do you really want all those fuzzy-cheeked kids to look up to and learn from .... Manny Ramirez?

Thom Loverro of the Washington Times thinks that the Nationals' faithful agree with his "sign everyone and anyone" demands. "Fans are clearly calling for some kind of sign from the Lerners that they recognize people need a reason to come to Nationals Park other than the racing presidents."

Not true. Not even close.

Peripheral fans, those who climb on the bandwagon when a team is doing well but jump off before things even get the slightest bit hinky, need signs. They need reasons.

But knowledgable baseball fans don't. Those of us who understand the game, especially those of us who were around in the era of the Washington Senators, have a pretty good idea how to put together a competitive baseball team.

And signing a player for the sake of the signing just doesn't work.

I mean, how'd that $252 million dollar Alex Rodriguez contract work out for the Texas Rangers?

They traded him to the Yankees for Alfonso Soriano, who was traded to the Nationals for Brad Wilkerson and a couple of minor leaguers.

In essesence, they have nothing to show for the Rodriguez signing except a hole in their pocket book.

If the Nationals make no more deals (something I highly doubt), they can put together a lineup that features a competent major leaguer at every position. Take a look at this lineup (and my projections for them) and tell me this is a bad offense:

1B: Nick Johnson

and/or Dmitri Young .270-18-80

2B: Ron Belliard .275-15-65

SS: Cristian Guzman .280- 5-55

3B: Ryan Zimmerman .285-27-110

LF: Josh Willingham .270-24-78

CF: Lastings Milledge .275-23-80

RF: Elijah Dukes .285-30-100

C: Jesus Flores .255-12-50

This is not a championship offense, but neither is it a last-placed lineup. If the starters remain healthy, if the youngsters continue to progress, they could be even better in 2009 than I'm projecting.

And just how would replacing any of those outfielders with Manny Ramirez help the team in the long term?

And the pitching, while not great, ain't bad (again, with my predictions):

John Lannan: 13-11, 3.59

Scott Olsen: 14-12, 3.87

Daniel Cabrera: 11-11, 4.50

Odalis Perez: 10-12, 4.30

Jordan Zimmermann: 8-10, 4.20

That's 56 wins from the starting rotation. A typical major league bullpen wins 20-25 over the course of a season.

Using those numbers, then, the Nationals are on course to finish somewhere near .500.

At least, they could finish somewhere near .500.

Does that type of record demand that Jim Bowden start signing as many of the 100 remaining free agents on the market today as he can?

No.

It seems that all of these nay-saying writers have a common belief, that the Nationals need to do something to show the fans they are trying to get better.

Notice that actually getting better seems secondary to the act of trying?

I think that it just might make sense for the Nationals to sit back, cross their fingers, and watch what happens.

The Nationals lost 102 games in 2008 and couldn't sign anyone of consequence. They even tried to overpay.

No luck.

The Nationals, as currently constituted, have probably added 3-5 wins through the Willingham-Olsen trade, and will probably add 10-15 wins by just staying healthy and allowing their 25 best players to stay on the field.

Again, they would be nearing that magical .500 plateau.

So let's fast forward to December 2009.

The Nationals finished the season 79-83, and suddenly, all of the sportswriters are predicting big things for the team after their 20-win improvement.

Lastings Milledge and Josh Willingham stayed healthy. John Lannan continued to get better. Ryan Zimmerman blossomed into a star. Jordan Zimmermann showed great promise.

Elijah Dukes stayed out of jail.

And Steven Strasburg showed enough of that 99 mph fastball and knee-buckling curve that being the team's opening day starter next season doesn't seem all that far fetched.

I wonder how some of those high-priced free agents might feel about joining a young, talented team with a new ballpark and a rosy future?

Now, allow a veteran baseball fan to digress for a moment.

From 1964-1967, the Kansas City Royals averaged just 62 wins. Then, in 1968, young prospects began to populate the roster. Guys like Dave Duncan, Sal Bando, Joe Rudi, Rick Monday, Reggie Jackson, Catfish Hunter, Blue Moon Odom and Jumbo Jim Nash guided the team to an 82-80 record.

For the next eight seasons, the Athletics were the class of the American League West.

Well, in 2009, young prospects like Jesus Flores, Anderson Hernandez, Ryan Zimmerman, Lastings Milledge, Elijah Dukes, John Lannan, Jordan Zimmerman, Colin Balester and Steven Strasburg just might do the same thing.

Now, these kids are too young to tell what the future will hold for them, and the team, this year.

But by this time next year, we should be able to discern the prospects from the pretenders.

Then Jim Bowden will add a bat or an arm, point the team in the general direction of opening day 2010 and see what happens.

And with all due respect to these beat reporters who sees the team's future as "half-empty," I think that come next season, they will be talking, well writing, as if they saw the turnaround coming for years.

Yeah, right.