Teixeira Shold Be Angels' Priority, Not Sabathia
It seems to this writer that picking up CC Sabathia is like making the rich, richer.
You see, the Angels are one of the few franchises to boast a projected rotation of John Lackey, Jered Weaver, Ervin Santana, and Joe Saunders. Nothing to scoff at there. That is truly a four man rotation worth salivating over, with all four picking up double digit wins this past season.
Not to mention the young guns sitting in the minors: Highly regarded pitching prospects such as Nick Adenhart and Dustin Mosely.
This all seems like a great idea, right?
The rich might be getting richer, but the Angels are forgetting to diversify their portfolio. In attempting to sign Sabathia to a preposterous sum only presumed to be larger than the Yankees’ offer, they are signaling that the offensive side of the ball is being put on the back burner.
So much for the Hot Stove.
When the Angels landed Mark Teixeira from the Braves before the trade deadline, it signaled a new beginning. One in which the Angels had an offense to match up with their impressive pitching.
It signaled the Angels might finally be able to trade punches with the dreaded Boston Red Sox. The same Sox, who, if the rumors swirling around are true, are a definite possibility to land Teixeira.
Poor Teixeira, soon to be multi-millionaire who only wants to find a home before the holidays end. Should he take the multi-million dollar offer from the Angels and fill the gaping wide hole his departure would inevitably create?
Or should he take the multi-million dollar offer from the Red Sox, and help fill the gaping wide hole Manny Ramirez left? Decisions. Decisions.
Teixeira landing back in an Angel uniform would be like learning not to invest in oil: A bright idea. But, it all depends on if the Angels are satisfied with their monotony of leaving the playoffs early, or want to diversify their already incredible portfolio of players and make another run at a championship.
Here’s one man who hopes the Angels realize that pitching stops the opponent from scoring, but being held run-less won’t earn a win, either.
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?