Nats pursuit of Texeira

Post #1 » by **Jollay** » Thu Dec 11, 2008 1:20 pm

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=3761291

Rumored 8 years, 160 million. Can't really fault the Nats if thats their offer. If the Red Sox or Angels go much above that also, you can't really fault the Nats for not matching.

I think this investment is worth it for ticket sales and to help make the Nats competitive. A gold glove calibur 1st baseman plus much needed power.

Hope they get him. Would be nice to have a marquee player to go see down in SE.

Post #2 » by **Jollay** » Thu Dec 11, 2008 1:23 pm

Article says Tex is leaning east coast for family reasons.

Two articles yesterday--The Red Sox were getting closer to signing him, whatever that means, and the Orioles reportedly looking at 7 years, 150 million for him.

Should be interesting. Nice that the Nats are the only serious NL suitor, apparently, although I don't know if that would mean anything for him.

Post #3 » by **Jollay** » Fri Dec 19, 2008 1:05 pm

http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd ... &fext=.jsp

If the Red Sox dropped out, and that leaves the Angels, Nationals, and Orioles--you have to figure the Nats have a solid chance....

Minuses--Angels as an immediate contender, chance to "follow" after boyhood hero Cal Ripken...

Post #4 » by **Jollay** » Sun Dec 21, 2008 5:16 pm

So the Red Sox have not dropped out, and the Yankees may now be players.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/baseba ... s-col-blog

According to Boswell, the Nats should give their best offer now, press for a decision soon, and go after Dunn immediately if not. Seems like common sense to me--cant drag this on much longer.

God I hate the Yankees...

Post #5 » by **Jollay** » Tue Dec 23, 2008 1:01 pm

Wow. The Nats may have upped their offer and may now be the favorites for Texeira.

I guess we'll know shortly.

Post #6 » by **Jollay** » Tue Dec 23, 2008 10:37 pm

Guess Tex and his wifey wanted to live in a posh Manhattan apartment instead of in DC.

Oh well, the Nats tried.

God I hate the Yankees, as does now everyone who previously didnt before does now, I imagine.

On to Adam Dunn?

Post #7 » by **Morris_Shatford** » Fri Jul 24, 2009 4:29 pm

While I am certainly late to the dance,
The Nats are soooooooo full of giant holes that money could have been better spent.

Too bad it wasn't.

Would Tex have made that much of a difference?

Post #8 » by **Jollay** » Sat Jul 25, 2009 9:09 pm

cosmostein wrote:While I am certainly late to the dance,
The Nats are soooooooo full of giant holes that money could have been better spent.

Too bad it wasn't.

Would Tex have made that much of a difference?

Don't think so, especially with the nice season Johnson is having.

However, would have provided Dunn's power plus ALOT better defense. Johnson would have been traded then and Josh Willingham could have started right off the bat, which is what should have been done instead of starting Kearns anyway.

Post #9 » by **Morris_Shatford** » Tue Jul 28, 2009 5:10 pm

Jollay wrote:
cosmostein wrote:While I am certainly late to the dance,
The Nats are soooooooo full of giant holes that money could have been better spent.

Too bad it wasn't.

Would Tex have made that much of a difference?

Don't think so, especially with the nice season Johnson is having.

However, would have provided Dunn's power plus ALOT better defense. Johnson would have been traded then and Josh Willingham could have started right off the bat, which is what should have been done instead of starting Kearns anyway.

While the Nats have a wealth of issues,
The problem with the Tex money is not so much as to the mess he would have caused in the field but rather maybe added a pair of respectable arms for the rotations.

Or an arm and a real honest to goodness closer.

I will admit that adding Olsen sort of perked my ears up, but the rest of that rotation (or all of it with Olsens injury) while they have been respectable if we were willing to drop 20 mill on Tex we never should have been in a position to rely so heavily on our youth in the rotation.

What sort of return do you think Slamin' Nick Johnson would have netted?

Post #10 » by **Jollay** » Fri Jul 31, 2009 3:29 am

cosmostein wrote:
Jollay wrote:
cosmostein wrote:While I am certainly late to the dance,
The Nats are soooooooo full of giant holes that money could have been better spent.

Too bad it wasn't.

Would Tex have made that much of a difference?

Don't think so, especially with the nice season Johnson is having.

However, would have provided Dunn's power plus ALOT better defense. Johnson would have been traded then and Josh Willingham could have started right off the bat, which is what should have been done instead of starting Kearns anyway.

While the Nats have a wealth of issues,
The problem with the Tex money is not so much as to the mess he would have caused in the field but rather maybe added a pair of respectable arms for the rotations.

Or an arm and a real honest to goodness closer.

I will admit that adding Olsen sort of perked my ears up, but the rest of that rotation (or all of it with Olsens injury) while they have been respectable if we were willing to drop 20 mill on Tex we never should have been in a position to rely so heavily on our youth in the rotation.

What sort of return do you think Slamin' Nick Johnson would have netted?

Hard to say--a upper-mid level prospect and a a low level one, maybe? Still might go I imagine...

I'm kind of glad the Nats are standing pat unless they get a solid offer for anyone though.

I think we need to see Dunn and Willingham in DC next year at least...