1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Mark Teixeira

Discussion in 'Sports and News' started by Evil Bastard (aka Chris_L), Dec 17, 2008.

?

What team do you think Mark Teixeira ends up signing with?

  1. Red Sox

    21 vote(s)
    32.8%
  2. Angels

    16 vote(s)
    25.0%
  3. Orioles

    8 vote(s)
    12.5%
  4. Nationals

    13 vote(s)
    20.3%
  5. Yankees

    6 vote(s)
    9.4%
  1. Moderator1

    Moderator1 Moderator Staff Member

    Interesting. I don't think he signs there. Lord, do I hope. I trust the Wall Street Journal on things like value and it says he is one of the three out there this year worth the big bucks. I'd pay to see his ass play. Of course, I just re-upped my season tickets. I'm paying to see them play even if he isn't there.
     
  2. Beaker

    Beaker Active Member

    You wouldn't rather have them try and use the money to try and sign a few more guys to make the team better sooner?

    Tex isn't going to do it by himself.
     
  3. Moderator1

    Moderator1 Moderator Staff Member

    He'll have a massive impact. Lots of young guys on that team. For his money, you can maybe get Dunn and Hudson. I'll take my chances. Sign the man, Shirley.
     
  4. hockeybeat

    hockeybeat Guest

    Olney wrote that a deal to the O's is all but dead, unless Tex takes a major hometown discount.

    http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=3775042
     
  5. RossLT

    RossLT Guest

    Anywhere but Boston is fine with me. Let's keep the Red Sox in check for once.
     
  6. forever_town

    forever_town Well-Known Member

    Sorry, but I don't think Teixeira is the kind of player who can elevate an entire team by himself. Would he make the Nats a bit more potent? Certainly. But I don't think he'd have that significant an effect on the young players. He might give Zim more pitches to hit. I think that'd be it, honestly.

    He doesn't improve what is a weak starting rotation and a nearly equally weak bullpen. I'd like to see those get improved first before the Nats go try to get a big, uber expensive bopper.
     
  7. wicked

    wicked Well-Known Member

    Manny would be a great signing for the Nats, business-wise, for the reasons mentioned above -- he'd put a$$e$ in the seats -- but it never will happen.
     
  8. fanboy

    fanboy Member

    For the "use the money to fill the other holes" crowd, what players and at what dollar values would you target?

    The most you'd be able to do for that amount of money is something like that Dunn/Hudson combo. They're ok, but neither are as young or as good as Tex is. The Nats already spend a good chunk of money on their minors; they've completely rebuilt their minor league operations, and other than using the savings to buy out Bowden's contract, there's not much more they could spend on down there, and certainly not $20 million worth of improvements.
     
  9. heyabbott

    heyabbott Well-Known Member

    For a year, two max. If the O's don;t develop into a competitive team in 2 years, they'll draw less in 2011 than they did in 2008
     
  10. txsportsscribe

    txsportsscribe Active Member

    fixed
     
  11. forever_town

    forever_town Well-Known Member

    I favor an approach of getting two or three solid players who can fill more than one hole to spending obscene money and getting one player who fills one hole.

    A Dunn/Hudson combination would address two dire needs for the Nationals: A big bat in the lineup and a top-of-the-line starting pitcher. If the Nats got Teixeira, they'd only get the big bat and their starting rotation would still suck.
     
  12. fanboy

    fanboy Member

    That's fine, but unless you're coming up with names of these mythical valuable players who'll sign for $5 million a piece....

    Dunn/Hudson would certainly be fine in the short term, but signing Tex for the Nats wouldn't be about winning in 2009, but in what he'd be able to provide 3-5 years down the road. He's young enough that he's still going to be valuable in 5 years, something you might not be able to say about Dunn.

    While I agree that the Nats have a lot of holes to fill, signing the Cesar Izturises of the world ain't gonna cut it.
     
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page