Nats Are Hoping New Home Comes With an Owner

Starting pitcher Ramon Ortiz is one of the few players acquired by the Nationals in the offseason. (By Jonathan Newton -- The Washington Post)

Within the next two weeks, the Nationals will probably have an owner. After being delayed recently by the latest twists in the Barry Bonds scandal, Commissioner Bud Selig has now turned his attention to the Nationals' exasperating plight. Finally.

"There's a strong likelihood that this will get done within the next two weeks," a highly placed baseball source said. "There can always be some unexpected glitch. But that is certainly the intention. This process is inexorably moving toward a conclusion."

In baseball, the word "inexorable" sends shivers down many spines, especially if Selig is doing the moving. The commissioner eschews multitasking. To him, having one ball in the air constitutes advanced juggling.

"The [independent] steroid investigation set [baseball] back some on Washington," said a baseball executive of Selig's one-track approach. "But the commissioner is focused on the Nationals ownership now. He met with four groups last week. Once he gets to the next problem, he's incessant until it's finished."

To the Nationals and their fans, the best possible news for Opening Day is this "strong likelihood" that the team's lack of an owner will be cured very quickly. Any failure at this point would be unconscionable. Blame for the past delays can be batted back and forth between District politicians and MLB officials. There's plenty to share.

But now there is no reason to delay. And there are more than a billion reasons to move rapidly. Washington has promised to build a new $611 million stadium complex. The team will fetch $450 million at sale. Not a cent of that $1.061 billion has been paid by baseball. It's all money that's been generated, in some way, by Washington. Isn't that an integrity of the game issue -- basic business integrity? At what point is baseball's behavior brazenly exploitative toward Washington? Or is that point long past?

The Nats have been severely hamstrung -- put at a raw competitive disadvantage -- since last season by the lack of an owner. Which players might have been signed, or re-signed, if an owner, especially one with local roots, had been making decisions about what offers to make to Esteban Loaiza and Hector Carrasco or free agents A.J. Burnett and Kevin Millwood?

That's why Washington ended up settling for offseason table scraps in its search for pitching, like Brian Lawrence (now injured and out for the season), Pedro Astacio (on the 15-day disabled list after hurting his forearm on Saturday), as well as Ramon Ortiz, who has been inconsistent this spring but now finds himself the team's No. 3 starter. "There's a reason they make $2 million a year, not $8 to $10 million," said General Manager Jim Bowden on Friday. "They've been injured or had off years."

Would a new Washington owner, after paying $450 million to get into the sport, have settled for $2 million starting pitchers for his emaciated rotation in his first season of trying to connect with his team's new fan base? The question answers itself.

This season, when Washington pitchers -- whose names are not Livan Hernandez or John Patterson -- turn in gruesome performances, you can, in part, thank Selig and the D.C. Council. Selig could have named an owner at any time he chose. He just didn't want to do it, preferring to have MLB negotiate the ballpark lease itself.

But now the war between MLB and the council is finally over. The last paperwork went from the city to MLB last week. So no excuses remain for delaying a Nationals owner. Two weeks is not an aggressive time frame for a process for which due diligence could have been, and probably was, concluded long ago.

Announcing a new boss by Washington's home opener on April 11 at RFK would at least be a sign of good faith toward Nats fans who have been so exasperated so long. What conceivable reason is there to wait? The World Baseball Classic, Bonds, what else, Bud? Aren't you finally down to just one last ball? Juggle that baby.

Every day that passes is a day when the Nationals' marketing budget is insufficient, when ticket offices are inefficient (witness Friday night's delays for an exhibition game crowd of less than 20,000) or when the team makes crucial personnel decisions, like current contract talks with Jose Guillen, with a budget set by MLB, rather than a true team owner. Every day is a day wasted when improvements should begin at RFK, which has barely been touched since last year. Who knows, a new owner might even take an interest in his own team's TV rights and its atrocious local exposure. Maybe hire some lawyers. You think?

Most important, naming a new owner would immediately change the tone of bitterness and alienation that surrounds so many discussions of the Nationals, even among the most ardent fans. In reality, the Nats became Washington's permanent team when the new ballpark lease was signed last month. But, for reasons that may be partly psychological, the Nationals will not feel like they have completely become part of the city until they have an owner. In fact, that sports-fan version of bonding with that franchise may not take place completely unless that owner has deep Washington roots. Memories of Bob Short linger.

The past 15 months have seemed at times to pass with excruciating slowness. The Expos became the Nationals, but when would they finally and truly arrive? When could Washington say, "Now the process is complete"?

Last season, the team did its part -- and more -- staying in the playoff hunt until mid-September. A town that didn't know Chad Cordero's name in April had mastered his nickname (Chief) and mimicked his chest-thump by September. Crowds exceeded expectations by such a wide margin that bids for the team rose quickly from $250 million to $450 million as average attendance of 33,728 (in a park opened in 1961) was factored into the spreadsheet. Then, last month, the monumentally troublesome and vital lease battle finally ended.

Now, perhaps in time for Washington's home opener next week -- and if not, almost certainly soon thereafter -- the final chapter in baseball's return to Washington will arrive. The Nationals will not only have an owner, but a powerfully self-interested advocate for all of the team's best interests. What a contrast: the team's current owner is really 29 owners -- of rival teams.

When an owner is named, then, and only then, can the hamstrung, one-arm-tied Nationals finally compete on a level field. If that isn't an integrity of the game issue that requires immediate attention, then what is?