I think one possibility is that there is a thought among those in baseball that in the post-steroid era, there is a new calculus regarding how you build a team, and the Dunn/Ryan Howard model at first base is obsolete (Pujols would fit that mold, too, except that he’s a very good defender). If that is the case, then Rizzo has to keep that a secret because it would increase the market price for those players that fit the new mold.

I don’t think this is an issue of money, I think it is an issue that Adam Dunn is not the kind of first baseman the Nationals are looking for. But at some point, Rizzo is going to have to disclose the kind of team he is trying to build. If it turns out that the team took a step backwards in terms of hitting because the organization was afraid of the implications of the kind of player that Adam Dunn would be in four years, I think fans are going to be sorely disappointed.

Regarding your comment about the Lerners being naive about the cost of free agents, I don’t believe that is the case. I think they know exactly what they cost, and they (often correctly) assume they are not worth it. The “Lerners are Cheap” crowd are operating under two mistaken premises: that the Lerners are unwilling to spend on players, and that spending on free agents is a productive way to build a team.

Regarding your comment about Montreal, I don’t think that MLB ever intended to contract the Expos; it was a ploy for leverage with the union and also to increase the bidding pool for cities wanting a team. I would agree at some level that we didn’t steal the Expos from Montreal, but the circumstances regarding the Expos and the Senators is eerily similar – terrible management, a dwindling fan base, and an opportunity for the owner to make a killing by moving the team. The losers, in both cases, were the fans… first in Washington, and then in Montreal.

One correction on your Senators/Nats history – I don’t think it is fair to say that our getting the Expos was at the expense of the fans in Montreal. MLB was planning to fold the club, so Washington rescued it from oblivion (and other cities would have been willing to do so as well), we did not take it from Montreal. I also think we have been doing a good job of respecting the Expos history, which is likely not being done in Montreal.

‘Winning’ is the motherlode of revenue streams as well. If you win, we’ll show up and buy more stuff than you can possibly imagine.

Not the loss–I support my team when it loses–but rather the experience. Phillies fans are what they are, but the Nationals organization has encouraged it. I’ve heard Stan say things to the effect that everyone is welcome in Nationals Park, but part of the converse of that is that sometimes I do not feel welcome. My ticket cost for Monday was a sunk cost. Why also go to ballpark and have a miserable experience?

Does the organization care about the food I didn’t buy at the park on Monday? Does it care that I didn’t buy a single item in the team store this year because Stan Kasten didn’t get it when I complained last year about ample Red Sox merchandise and scarce Nats merchandise for women and with Nationals player names and numbers?

For me it can be a tough decision some nights, because I love the baseball and my ballpark friends. But I hate feeling like the organization that gets my thousands and thousands of dollars for tickets doesn’t understand there is a limit somewhere.

Jim Riggleman has been out there saying he is grateful for fan support. Has Mike been out there? (Mike has always been great in 1:1 interactions.) Stan probably would get heckled at this point because he’s shown consistently with his behavior that Nationals fans aren’t his first priority. What about the Lerners? My take on them is that it isn’t the family personality to be public like, for example, the Capitals’ Ted. But I think it’s past time for owners and management to go out of their way to publicly show a little love for customers who are also Washington Nationals fans.

1. The Nats have not yet earned the presumption of shrewdness. The Red Sox (e.g.) have; thus the article I saw just yesterday praising them for standing pat.

2. Reporters and commentators prefer events (trades) to non-events.

3. Contenders are more interesting than losing teams, so coverage is slanted toward them. Heck, even I started believing Dunn might be traded, because it kept coming up. But every story was about someone who wanted to *get* Dunn — not that the Nats wanted to *trade* him.

4. There’s a knee-jerk assumption that losing teams are poor, so they can’t afford big-name players, so they’re constantly trading for prospects. I think the Expos were experts at this, so it could even be partly a Montreal hangover.

5. You sound less glum than the other day.

Who would we trade? Who would we trade for?

To be sure, having Livo pitch a shutout doesn’t hurt a bit either.

But this is very bad. I’ve known Wigi long enough to know that he, too, is a disciple of objectivity — and when it gets bad enough for him to write a column like this, it’s very, very bad indeed.