Nats Are in Danger of Losing More Than Just Games

However, there's another perspective. Few teams that lose more than 100, as the Nats may, draw flies, regardless of the park. Of all teams with 100-plus loses, the Nats would have the second-highest attendance, slightly behind the '04 D-backs (who'd won the 2001 World Series and had a fan base).

The most important aspect of attendance in a new ballpark is often the most overlooked. Kasten probably is right when he says, "If we win, they'll come." Milwaukee and Detroit built parks less attractive than D.C. and saw attendance plummet fast to 20,992 and 17,103, respectively. Conclusion: building new parks was a terrible idea.

In reality, it was bad teams, not the parks that drove away the fans. The clubs kept improving their venues and their teams. This year, Detroit averaged 39,553 and Milwaukee 37,580.

If the Nats want to fix their problems, they probably just need to fix their team. Luckily, the Nats aren't as far from respectability, and a place in the good graces of the town, as most bad teams are. With normal health, plus a left-handed power hitter and a solid starter, the Nats might be a 75-win-plus team.

Few men understand better than Kasten how a drastic improvement at just one or two spots, plus the emergence of young farm hands, can transform a team in a year.

On Wednesday evening, Kasten stood by the batting cage as Marlins coach Jim Presley said, "How's it going?"

A simple question, but weighty. "I'm all right. I've been here before," Kasten said wearily. "You were there."

That would be back in '90, when Presley hit .242 as the third baseman for the last-place Braves. The next year, in a middling trade, Atlanta got Terry Pendleton to replace Presley. Pendleton was NL MVP in '91 and the Braves went to the World Series. If anything, teams in recent years, like the '07 Rockies and '08 Rays, morph even faster.

"This year was really disappointing on the field. But we feel elation about the ballpark itself. Big picture, we're as confident and optimistic as ever," Kasten said. "On phase one -- building up an infrastructure in the minor leagues and in [Nationals Park] -- I'm ready to declare it a success.

"We've set the foundation. But what fans see is the tip of the iceberg. They don't see the 200 players below sea level [in the minors] where we're really strong," Kasten added. "Next year, we need to improve the product here."

That's for sure.

"I'd just like to have our whole roster on the field at one time," Kasten said, not hiding the bitterness. "Our fans want better. But we want to be better more than anybody."

But what if the Nats don't spend, don't sign their top draft pick as they didn't this summer and don't get better? If the team stays bad, if the pattern of low payrolls despite higher revenues persists, would Kasten eventually consider an offer to run some other team?

"What an unfair hypothetical question," he blurts out, face flushed. "God, what do you think I'm doing here? My goal in life is to make this team a champion."

Not much about the Nats is certain. But Kasten's competence is. Commissioner Bud Selig, with barely disguised matchmaking, set him up here to do a job for the Lerners and Washington, a task that may flounder if '09 mimics '08. Failure, especially 100 loses in a new park, breeds more failure.

When the history of baseball is written, only one person in the Nats organization will be mentioned -- the sarcastic, driven Kasten who once oversaw a true dynasty. Mr. Nice Guy, he's not. But of all the Nats' reevaluations this winter, the authority of the team president -- or lack of it -- may be the most vital element.

If Kasten's voice isn't heard, if his proposals are not supported financially, the credibility of baseball in Washington will fall so low that this dismal season will look like the good old days.