The Washington Nationals have signed Adam LaRoche to a two year contract, solidifying the Nats’ infield for 2011 — and upgrading the team’s defense. The official announcement of the signing is expected to come on Wednesday at Nationals Park. The signing was first reported by Peter Gammons on Twitter, who stated that the “aggressive” Nats had agreed to terms and that LaRoche’s physical would take place on Thursday. According to Mark Zuckerman, LaRoche will be paid $7 million in 2011, $8 million in ’12, with a mutual option worth $10 million (with a $1 million buyout for the Nats) in 2013. LaRoche was widely believed to be asking for a three year deal, but when Derrek Lee signed a one year contract with the Showalters, LaRoche’s options began to disappear, though he had been on the Nats’ radar from the moment that Adam Dunn signed with the Pale Hose.

How good is LaRoche? The lefty first sacker had a good year in Arizona, hitting 25 dingers and driving in 100 runs — and his glove at and around first is a step (or two, or three) above Dunn’s. LaRoche’s UZR at first base is third in the majors and he’s reportedly good in the clubhouse — which could help salve Ryan Zimmerman’s irritation that the front office did not make a more credible play for Dunn. Adam Kilgore, in The Washington Post, quotes Matt Capps as saying that LaRoche is “a great fit” in the clubhouse: “If you can’t get along with Adam LaRoche, you probably don’t have a heartbeat,” Capps is quoted as saying. “He plays hard and gives everything he has every night. What you see is what you get.” LaRoche is a great addition; the only question is whether his .260-.270 BA will be enough for the Nats in the middle of their line-up — a concern for the team, even after the signing of Jayson Werth. The signing of LaRoche does not mark the end of Mike Rizzo’s shopping spree; the Nats still need a front line starter and could use a bat coming off the bench.

Those Are The Details, Now For The Headlines: Ben Goessling says that the Nats are still in the hunt in the Carl Pavano sweepstakes, but the trail strikes us here at CFG (here’s our mascot, for you newcomers, in her winter duds) as getting distinctly cold. Which is only to say, Pavano looked a hell of a lot better in (say) October than he does now. On any given day, Pavano can be an ace, but in any given year he can have his arm surgically removed for . . . whatever. With apologies to our female readers, this is a lot like going out with the prettiest girl in the school — you’re bound to be disappointed. (Really, ask anyone.)The upside of Pavano is that he’ll only cost money (that the Nats say they’re willing to spend), while someone like Matt Garza, or even Joe Blanton, will cost the team a gaggle of younger players or prospects — or both.

Anyone can second guess, but you have to admire a guy like Cards GM John Mozeliak, who had the foresight to trade for Ryan Theriot (for ho-hum reliever Blake Hawksworth), which leaves his options open for acquiring pitching. A guy like Theriot at second or short for the Nats would allow Rizzo a little more flexibility (if you know what we mean) in landing someone like Garza — whose value as a front line starter would outshine anything that either Pavano or Blanton could bring to the mound . . . None of this should detract from Rizzo’s signing of LaRoche: for a minute there (when everyone was abuzz over Carlos Pena), we thought the guy’d lost his touch — Pena cost the North Side Drama Queens $10 million for one year. So here’s our question: What The Hell Were They Thinking?

The Washington Nationals’ search for a top-of-the-rotation pitcher continues, with Kansas City ace Zack Greinke headed to Milwaukee, where he will lead a revamped Brewers’ rotation. The Brewers landed Greinke on Sunday (along with Yuniesky Betancourt and $2 million) in exchange for Lorenzo Cain, Alcides Escobar, Jeremy Jeffress and Jake Odorizzi — a packet of four young, up-and-coming wannabes. Greinke is the second top pitcher acquired by Milwaukee this offseason: the Brewers landed Shaun Marcum in November. While the Royals gave up a top-of-the-line hurler, this was a haul for the Monarchs, who received an exciting shortstop, a near can’t-miss outfielder (in Cain), and two former first round pitching prospects. Milwaukee, however, received a best-of-the-best, top-of-the-rotation former Cy Young winner who — with Marcum, Yovani Gallardo and Randy Wolf — provides them with what should be a playoff bound rotation.

And the Nationals? Sometimes it’s what you don’t do that works out for the best. The Nationals were in the running for Greinke, but would have had to part with three of four top youngsters, including Danny Espinosa, Ian Desmond, Drew Storen and, perhaps, Jordan Zimmermann. The trade would have left huge gaps in the team’s middle infield and sacrificed a middle innings reliever who has proven to be a solid addition. Kicking in Zimmermann (if that’s what it had taken) would have meant that the Nats had given up on a “can’t miss” front-of-the-rotation guy, albeit one who has yet to really prove himself. In our estimation, the swap wouldn’t have been worth it. We’ll never know if Mike Rizzo would have pulled the trigger on such a deal, as Greinke vetoed a trade to Half Street because the Nats aren’t slated to go to the post-season.

Ben Goessling speculates that a Brewers-like trade with the Nats would have yielded a package that might not have been as steep (Zimmermann, Desmond and minor leaguer Michael Burgess), but then issues this judgment: “That would have put a bigger hole in the team’s major and minor league systems than getting Greinke would have filled.” We agree: sometimes the bad news is good. The addition of Greinke would have solidified the Nats rotation, but at a cost that would have been too steep. Zimmermann and Desmond aren’t untouchable, but the fact that they’re not on the first plane to K.C. isn’t exactly a tragedy. The Greinke swap to Milwaukee leaves the Nats pursuing Twins semi-ace Carl Pavano (who seems likely to re-sign with the Twinkies), Matt Garza (who’s being dangled by the Rays), or Arizona free agent Brandon Webb — who has a tin cup for a shoulder.

CFG writer and droog DWilly (here he is, in case you’ve forgotten), is pessimistic about the possibility the Nats will sign Belinski free agent pitcher John Lackey: “The Red Sox will be in the mix and they’ll bid him up, but only to make sure the Yankees don’t get him,” he opined during a break in the action this last week. “And for good reason: can you imagine the Phillies facing C.C., Pettitte and Lackey in the World Series? Forget Burnett – in that mix he’d be number four. For the Red Sox, the Yankees getting Lackey would be their worst nightmare.” Add the Angels to that list: Anaheim owner Arte Moreno says that he can afford either Lackey or third sacker Chone Figgins, but not both — making his choice a no-brainer. With the crosstown Dodgers taking a pass on Lackey that leaves the Red Sox, Yankees, and Nats bidding for his services. Oh, and the Mets, who are desperate for pitching. Bart Hubbach of the New York Post says that Lackey tops the Chokes’ wish list, ranking well ahead of both Jason Marquis (who “badly wants to be a Met”) and Joel Piniero — the 31-year-old Cardinal slinger.

The Lackey-to-the Nats rumor surfaced last week, when Nats beat writer Bill Ladson reported that the Nats “are looking for an ace who can tutor pitchers such as John Lannan, Ross Detwiler and Stephen Strasburg. Washington has been looking for this type of pitcher since after the Trade Deadine.” True enough, but Lackey won’t be cheap — and at least some baseball executives are questioning his health: Lackey got off to a slow start last year due to a sore elbow and he’s spent a part of each of the last two years on the DL. And the price tag? The figures are all over the place, but current betting is that Lackey would ask for (and get) an A.J. Burnett contract – somewhere in the range of five years and $82 million. At the top end, the contract would max out at five years and $100 million, at the low end a Lackey contract would be for three years and $30 million. Lackey’s a tough, nose-in-the-dirt pitcher who could feast on N.L. hitters, but that’s a lot of change for a potential sore elbow and a tutor. And it’s a lot of change if, after spending (say) $80 million, you have nothing left to shore up your infield or add to your bullpen.

Signing a top flight innings-eating pitcher had to be a priority of Nats GM Mike Rizzo — but it will do little good for the Nats to spend oodles on Lackey and have little left over. So a rejiggering the priority list makes a lot of sense: back in ’08, the Nats spent a good part of their season scrambling to put together a roster that had Ryan Zimmerman struggling to overcome a left shoulder tear. Zim ended up losing 56 games, a nightmare for a team that has few marque players. While this unthinkable knock-on-wood scenario seems unlikely for 2010 (knock on wood, and hard), the Nats’ unsettled up-the-middle problems — including the distinct possibility that wunderkind Ian Desmond might not be the solution to the Nats’ shortstop woes that they think he is — would stretch the Nats to the breaking point were something to happen to Zim (or Adam Dunn, or Josh Willingham, or Cristian Guzman).

Which means that John Lackey isn’t the only priority for the Nats, and maybe not even the top priority. The Nats need pitching and desperately, but if they want a tutor and innings eater they can find one among a free agent class that includes Jon Garland, Joel Piniero, Jason Marquis or even (gasp) Carl Pavano. Garland (just as an example) won’t be cheap ($25 million over three years), but he won’t be as expensive as Lackey — and the Nats can use the savings they might have spent on JL for Mark DeRosa. The more you think about DeRosa the more you have to like him, especially as a fit for the wobbly Nats’ infield. Forget for just a moment that he’s a helluva player. Remember, instead, that his glove work eclipses that of Desmond or Guzman or Gonzalez. He can play short and second and he can spell Willingham in left and if worse comes to worse (knock on wood) he can play third. And he can hit. Then too, taking a pass on Lackey means there’s more money to not only plug the holes in the infield, but in the bullpen.

Here’s what all of this might come down to: signing John Lackey (and no one else) doesn’t make the Nats at .500 ballclub, but signing Garland (or Piniero, or Marquis) with DeRosa behind them and Mike Gonzalez in the bullpen does.