Signing Hudson would have been the right thing to do as long as they did it early in order to show that they were serious and gone after pitching that we needed.
Not signing Hudson is simply part of the pattern - the same pattern that had them waiting until the last minute to sign Dunn, the same pattern that had them rely upon a crappy bullpen, the same pattern that had them not sign decent pitching, and the same pattern that led them to rely upon the likes of Daniel Cabrera and not have anything in place to cover for a rough start from pitchers like Olsen and others.
This team's record is directly related to the fact that we have 16 blown saves. Signing one guy would not have made a difference. The fact that we were in a position to blow that many games and not in a position to win enough of the other games is directly related to a pattern of assembling a roster with glaring pitching and defensive weaknesses. They once again chose to enter a season and roll the dice on a big gamble that a few guys could be depended on. A month later, the likes of a Hanrahan, Cabrera, and a poor performing Scott Olsen had tanked the season, and this FO had done nothing to shore up the roster ahead of time to guard against it.
Hudson, plus a couple of legitimate relievers, plus a veteran starter, minus Cabrera, would have had a different result.
Jim Bowden. That's the plug that needed to be pulled long before it was...
From Jon Heyman today (no idea of it's validity, but if it IS true...wow...):
Ed Wade Award (NL Worst Executive): Jim Bowden, formerly of the Nationals. His collection of outfielders who can't catch and pitchers not quite ready for prime time has left little doubt that he's the winner (or is it loser?). Word is the Nats higher-ups want to get so far away from Bowden that they don't want to consider GM candidates (or perhaps even managerial candidates) with any serious ties to him.