The Nationals May Need A Plan B

For two years, people like me have nagged the Nats to waste perhaps $10 million a season in extra just-to-please-the-fans payroll. Nobody here waited 33 years for Senators III. Now maybe the Nats can grasp why it might have been smart to build a bonfire of cash on a winter day, call a news conference and set it ablaze. Sign somebody, anybody. Call it an investment in goodwill, PR to placate the impatient, or plausible deniability if a disaster season hits as you open a new park. Or just call it common sense.

Now, when attendance should be growing by thousands a night as summer arrives, the Nats are going backward, drawing fewer people during their recent seven-game homestand (28,510 per night) than in the 28 mostly frigid home games that preceded it (29,142).

The Nats can claim their attendance still is up 31 percent from RFK in '07 after 35 dates. That jump isn't much worse than the average 38 percent gain in attendance that's been the norm for new parks that have opened since 1992. The Nats can cite lousy weather that has cost them walk-up sales. And with normal injuries, they'd probably now be a bland but respectable team.

But that's the point. Why cut it so close? Just as revenue is exploding, almost doubling from RFK levels, how can a franchise run the risk of alienating its fans or defusing its new-park buzz? When cash finally is gushing in, why run any risk of looking penny-wise?

"After they bought the team, there were promises that they'd sign free agents by the time the new park opened. I guess they changed their minds," one veteran baseball executive said this week. "It's a shame to see these empty seats -- especially right behind home plate. In pricing [tickets], it looks like they may have misjudged their market.

"Will the Lerners let Kasten spend what it takes to win? It's still an open question."

"I have every reason to believe we will [spend], when the time comes. We have certainly spent plenty on the stadium upgrades and on rebuilding our minor league infrastructure," Kasten said. "And who exactly is it we should have signed or re-signed?"

That's the rub. The insurance-policy theory sounds airtight. Until you get down to cases.

"On [re-signing] Alfonso Soriano, at $90 million, we had to think," Kasten said. "But at $126 million, there's nothing to decide.

"In theory, if we had kept our entire '06 team that lost 91 games, we'd still have Soriano, Liván Hernández, José Guillén, José Vidro, Ryan Church and Brian Schneider. Perhaps with that group we'd win some more games this season. But their total salaries are $50 million. Except Soriano, which of them would fit into our future?

"Do you want us to pay Guillén $36 million for three years, like Kansas City?"

A good illustration of the Nats' dilemma is Aaron Rowand, the gritty center fielder, batting .325 entering last night's games, who just helped the Giants sweep four games here. Last winter, could the Nats have outbid sub-.500 San Francisco for Rowand, who got $60 million for five years? Probably. But at 30, he's only had one season with more than 69 RBI. Is that a good-faith housewarming gift to fans or a waste of resources?