For the want of a tack, a duchy was lost

The Nats aren't going to get Hudson. I want to say that I'm bothered by this, but the alternative view (it's not a big deal at all) is appealing. I'm going to argue this out with myself.

"I don't get it. The Nats throw around their money on crap players like a scratch ticket winner at the dollar store, then when they need a few bucks more for something actually decent they act like they can't afford it."

"It's not that they can't afford it, i's that it's not worth it. 5 million for Hudson? That's probably overpaying."

"But they overpaid for Pudge, for Capps, probably for others."

"So one bad contract deserves another?"

"No. Those were slightly overpaying for guys that probably won't help the team at all. This is slightly overpaying for a guy that'll make the team better."

"Not much better. What's the difference between 72 wins and 74?"

"It's two wins. If that's your attitude then go hang out with those idiots that said the Nats shouldn't have bothered to sign Marquis. Better is better. If this were a long term deal - forcing the Nats to pay for Hudson when he's 40, well then fine. You don't bite the bullet. This is one year."

Ok so I'm decided. I don't like the non-deal. Even though I truly believe the team is going to be better this year by 10+ wins, from one part pitching improvement and two parts luck changing, I hate the "that's enough" thought process. If you can get better without hurting the team in some way, you should do it. Why not? This is far from the end of the world, more like a strong thunderstorm. But still, don't you want a sunny day? Some other thoughts:

• Assuming the Nats make no other deals (a pitcher, please?) the Nats will essentially be the same team as last year adding Marquis and a lot of bullpen help. That's not a bad thing. It's not a great thing. It's an ok thing. We'll have to see what they do next off-season.
• I was worried that the Nats were actually going to drop in payroll this year (which would have made me scream CHEEEEEEP from the rafters) because so much money was coming off the payroll but that's not the case. Assuming no other signings the Nats should be going from around 60 mill to around 65 million. Of course that difference is pretty much Strasburg, so if he doesn't hit the majors this year, they'll have spent almost exactly the same amount for the team on the field this year as last year. A better spent 60+ million true, but still 60+ million, which is in the lower third of baseball's payroll.
• So what's next in the MI? As many others have said: Play Desmond. The other spot doesn't matter. Kennedy? For a cheap platoon with Guzman, I'm all in. For a full-time player, don't bother.
• I got to put up some Nats blog links, don't I?