In writing about the Max Scherzer signing on Tuesday, Joe Sheehan made a point in his newsletter that I completely agree with:

Setting aside the merits of the signing for the moment, I like seeing a team do what the Nationals are doing. So much of baseball management right now seems to be aimed at trying to build an 85-win team and hoping for some good variance. No team has won 100 games in the three seasons since the postseason expanded to ten teams. That may not sound like much, but it's the first time in the 162-game schedule era that we've gone that long without a 100-game winner (full seasons, of course). Maybe it's not an optimal use of money; the Nationals were probably going to win the NL East with the team they had Saturday, and Scherzer barely moves the needle in any given postseason series. It's nevertheless heartening to see a team trying to be great, rather than just good enough. I want the Nationals to keep Strasburg and Zimmerman and Desmond and give us a team worth talking about this summer.

To Joe's first point about 100-win teams, here's the complete list since 1990:

2011: Phillies (102)

2009: Yankees (103)

2008: Angels (100)

2005: Cardinals (100)

2004: Cardinals (105), Yankees (101)

2003: Yankees (101), Braves (101), Giants (100)

2002: Yankees (103), A's (103), Braves (101)

2001: Mariners (116), A's (102)

1999: Braves (103), Diamondbacks (100)

1998: Yankees (114), Braves (106), Astros (102)

1997: Braves (101)

1995: Indians (100 ... in a 144-game season)

1993: Braves (104), Giants (103)

1990: A's (103)

Going back further, the 1980s had seven 100-win teams, the 1970s had 13 and the 1960s had 10. The way the sport is trending, we'll be lucky if we get two or three this decade.

I believe baseball needs great teams. A great team gives us a narrative over the course of the long season and a narrative heading into the postseason. How good is this team? How does it compare to other great teams? Can it win the World Series?

A great team potentially gives us a team to dislike. When the Yankees won four titles in five years or won 100-plus games three years in a row, it meant fans of the other 29 teams had a natural enemy to root against. Every October had a natural storyline: How will the Yankees do and how do you beat them? You watched to see them win or you watched hoping they'd crumble.

A great team is fun. Even if you weren't a Phillies fan in 2011, a rotation featuring Roy Halladay, Cliff Lee and Cole Hamels was a marvel to watch. Those 2004 Cardinals with Albert Pujols, Scott Rolen and Jim Edmonds in their primes were a showcase of all-around excellence. The 2001 Mariners and 1998 Yankees were the most perfectly assembled teams I've seen in my baseball-watching lifetime.

A great team gives more fans reason to watch in October. No offense to the Giants and Royals, but those weren't great teams. The casual fan isn't going to be excited to see an 88-win team square off against an 89-win team in the World Series. (Compare that to this year's Super Bowl; both No. 1 seeds have advanced, one of them the defending champion.) A built-in narrative is good for the sport. Yes, last year's postseason at least ended up with a fantastic story -- Madison Bumgarner seemingly carrying an entire team on his left arm -- but it was also one wild-card team beating another wild-card team.

The Nationals have a chance to be great, with, as ESPN Insider Dan Szymborski wrote, a historically dominant rotation that could end up crushing a weak NL East. Maybe they're a 95-win team; maybe Scherzer and Stephen Strasburg and Jordan Zimmermann all battle for the Cy Young Award and they're a 100-win team; maybe Bryce Harper makes the leap and they win 105.

Parity is certainly important in some regards. It provides more teams a chance to make the playoffs and a higher turnover of playoff teams each season. But it also creates a certain randomness to a season, the chance that the best aren't rewarded, that it's about luck and health as much as skill, that we end up with an accidental World Series champ rather than a great World Series team. That can be exciting -- the Royals and Giants at least gave us an interesting World Series that went the distance -- but, as Joe wrote, I want a team we spend all summer talking about.

Plus, it would give all those people in D.C. something to discuss other than who's going to run for president.