Rizzo's checklist for Nationals is halfway there

As for those "back from injury" types, such as Ben Sheets or Erik Bedard, Kasten says, "We've signed one." Their own Scott Olsen.

Could the Nats trade left fielder Josh Willingham, coming off a .927 OPS year, plus any '09 starter not named John Lannan, for a rotation-ready young starter of higher quality? Absolutely. Then they would use the millions they don't pay Willingham to sign a free agent hitter who is better defensively, such as Xavier Nady.

Could the Nats go after almost any free agent middle infielder on the market, such as Orlando Hudson or Kelly Johnson? Sure. They are all better than what the Nats had in '09. None are that pricey. You'd still have Cristian Guzmán and Ian Desmond in the mix.

Could the market for a particular player -- like '07-08 NL save champion José Valverde -- fall apart, like the price for Adam Dunn last year, to the point where the Nats can't say, "No." Yes.

Could the Nats do all of the above within budget or close?

Yes, they could. And their payroll ($63 million in '06 when the Lerners bought the team) wouldn't even be $70 million in '10. Such a payroll would only have ranked the Nats 24th of 30 in '09.

Who says a bad economy is nobody's friend? If your pitching and defense were so rotten in '09 that you allowed 874 runs -- 147 more than the NL average -- but the market for solid pitchers is reasonable-to-cheap, why not shop 'til you drop? You can't "mortgage your future" with two-year deals. They're off the books in '12. By then you know what you hold in Strasburg, Storen, Ross Detwiler, Zimmermann and that prize No. 1 overall pick in '10, who could turn out to be a Griffey, A-Rod, Mauer or Chipper.

That's why you hear precious little chatter from Rizzo these days. The Nats aren't a player for Matt Holliday. But they can be in the hunt for anybody else, if they want to be.

After the evidence of the last two weeks, mounted on top of the past 13 months, it now seems probable that the Nats (Lerners) finally "get it." Unless the Nats suddenly go into the fetal position, Rizzo and Kasten are now running a sensible mid-market revenue team. D.C., just mid-market? For now. Win, then recalibrate.

Don't get too excited too soon. The Nats need more just to be respectable in '10. Unlike many in the Nats family who've overrated what they held, Rizzo knows how bad a team he inherited. Even if he adds another 190-inning starter, a decent reliever and a middle infielder, the '10 Nats still won't get to .500.

Did Rizzo say that? No. But when asked, "Do you know how often a team improves by 20 wins in a season?" he shot back, "Yes, I once did [a paper] on it at a GM's meeting. Very rare."

The answer is: less than a five percent of the time. And the Nats would have to improve by 22 wins to reach .500.

However, if the Nats keep shaking that ketchup bottle until Opening Day, this should be the season when major league baseball, in reality, not just in theory, actually returns to D.C.

The mini-magic of '05 was a one-year mirage. What's happening now, with Rizzo and his revamped front office in charge, is solid, traditional long-term team building. No big predictions or $100 million, bet-the-farm signings. Just piece-by-piece opportunistic improvements, more depth everywhere and emphasis on patient farm system development, not forced feeding.

The evidence has reached the edge of critical mass. In a couple of days, or months, we may finally be able to say that the Nats, and their new GM, are doing things the right way.