If you look at total starting talent, we’re probably about the same as we were at the end of 2008 (although that’s much better than, say, before the AS break in 2008…). However, I think the roster is younger and a little more resilient.

Looking at offense and defense, I think Willingham and Harris are roughly equivalent in terms of wins added (Hammer’s bigger bat vs TAWH’s projected 22-run advantage in fielding). However, Hammer gives us five solid OFers (as I cross my fingers for AK to bounce back from his stress fracture), of which three are plausible CFers, three are quite young, and none are WMP (who I can’t believe was not the worst LF in MLB over Willingham… did he not have enough playing time to qualify?).

I agree that the pitching situation is less clear. Olsen clearly has a roster spot to lose going into Spring. I think he and Balester are essentially the replacements for Perez and Redding in the lineup, with Lannan moving up to #1 and Cabrera joining the scrum for spots 4 & 5. Again, Olsen and Cabrera are younger than Perez and Redding, so if either of them work out, we can hold ‘em a while. Overall, I think we’re looking at a rotation with a comparable ERA to last season—a younger rotation with more potential upside but more risk. Given that we’re not in contention this season, I can see rolling the dice on Cabrera and the youngsters.

More wins this season than with the end-2008 roster? Maybe not. But more potential for more wins next season? Maybe so.

For the record – I voted the Nats are better.

For the sports writers out there who like to label a team or teams losers based on what acquisitions were made or not made during the off-season, well, that’s up to them. IMO the writers are using the New York Yankees and/or teams similar to them in payroll flexibility as the standard in which to measure acquisitions. This…is a shame.

According to some writers, if a particular team can’t acquire a big name player i.e., C.C. Sabathia, Mark T..x.ir., Manny Ramirez et. al, then the team is designated a loser.

Or…

If the team didn’t acquire a handful of average to above average players, then the team, once again is handed the moniker: Loser. Hell, some teams are designated biggest loser.

Some sports writers will be kind enough to mention that: “Due to economic circumstances yada, yada, yada – some teams can’t be blamed for the action / inaction they took in the off season.”

Perhaps in the case of the Washington Nationals, the sports writers chose to put the team under a microscope due to the team having the worst record in 2008. Perhaps sports writers are under the impression that the team with the worst record during the previous season should be the team that makes the boldest acquisition(s) for the upcoming season.

Have the Nationals made enough moves to make them a .500 team? A potential playoff team? A division winner? Most likely not. But then again. Remember Tampa Bay? I’d like to get in my Way Back machine and see what sports writers had to say about the Rays at this time last year. Were any sports writers outside of St. Petersburg even talking about Tampa Bay? No one saw that freight train coming, did they?

i think folks were talking about TB being better, but certainly not WS better. and they will be hard pressed to get back, that’s for sure.

Stan is LOVING using the TB analogy this off-season, but it really doesn’t fly. TB still has half a dozen pitchers better than Zimmermann, and with Longoria and Upton they form the nucleus of a young strong team. Bally, Mock, Bergmann, Martis etc wouldn’t even get the time of day in Tampa. it would be tough for Lannan to crack their rotation. who would be knock out? Sonnanstine, perhaps? but that’s it. and Shields is 27, but all the rest are 25 and younger.

i completely agree with you about the “loser” label though. there are a lot of professional sports writers that don’t understand that free agency is just one way a team can make themselves better. it’s also an effective way to hinder growth and handcuff yourself fiscally as well.

that said, the Nats have deficiencies all over the diamond, and there are still better players available at every position (except maybe 3B) on the free agent market than what’s on the Nats roster now. the owners are just not making an investment in the major league product until THEY see fit.

the cost-benefit analysis doesn’t jive yet. and since they made their money in real estate and construction, it’s all about the bottom line to them. they have no concept of operating as a “public trust”. it’s not in their nature.