Sure, if the Nats were suddenly dominant and drawing huge crowds and huge TV ratings and somehow their revenue was surging and they started throwing money around to sign up any free agents that might add a WARP or two, I'd be on board with that program. But alas, we're on the outside looking in at that orgy.
One of the reasons I'm nitpicky about what are accurate and inaccurate criticisms of the Red Sox management is because I think there are lessons to be learned for the Nats. I realize right now there is no way this team can match their revenue streams, so not everything can be done the same way, but when I hear folks saying draft choices don't matter, or that prospects are always worth trading, or spend money on this guy regardless of the market, I cringe.
Drafting and development has been an enormous part of their sustained run. Trading prospects you draft and develop is also part of it, but you have to have them to trade them and trade them at the right time.
They track who will be available when multiple years out and adjust their signings and trades for that. They have been working on A-Gon deals since 2009 (when they went after Victor instead), and, so Theo says, they had Crawford targeted for this year since he signed his last contract. They could accept losing a Manny when they could move for a Bay, and losing Bay when they could "bridge" a year to the guy they really wanted was Crawford. They mix short contracts and long contracts, and always seem to have a ton of money coming off the books.
Google the phrase "Bridge year Red Sox" and you will get over 1.5 MM hits. That refers to their strategy last year of no big extensions, short term signings, and holding onto to prospects to see what they could fill internally. They cashed in this year on the guys they kept.
For the Nats, I like the Werth deal because it seems to be part of a long term strategy for baseball improvement. I think Rizzo gets it. I would not mind a short term contract at first if they go the FA route because I don't see anyone out there you want to make a long term commitment to (especially after they botched the handling of Dunn; either Stan's route or Rizzo's route would have been good, but doing neither was the worst). I think that the Lerners, were they willing to use their own wealth for a few years, could support higher budget levels, but eventually I think this market will support revenue streams that put this team in the top 10 in MLB (even with the MASN split).
I think it is quite simplistic to just throw up your hands and say "the Red Sox don't care about how much they spend and can afford so much more than everyone else." I don't think they have any intrinsic advantage at all over 3 NL teams (Mets, Dodgers, Cubs) in terms of potential following, and are not clearly ahead of the LAA, CWS, Phi. and a few others.