Teixeira To Nats: Should Be A Dunn Deal

Ted Lerner can't be confused with Scrooge McDuck anymore.

Well, except for the hair.

Since he purchased the Washington Nationals two-and-a-half years ago, Lerner has been castigated for his penny-pinching ways. Beat writers and bloggers alike have envisioned a bleak future for the franchise. The Nationals, they wrote, couldn't survive without an infusion of free agent talent.

So Mr. Lerner did what was asked of him last week when he made an eight year/$160 million offer to uber-free agent Mark (I can never spell his last name right) Teixeira.

So what are the pundits saying now?

The Nationals are fools for trying to sign him.

Excuse me? Don't sign any free agents and get excoriated in the press. Try to sign the premier free agent and the same thing happens. So what's a franchise to do?

Well, when you've been pummeled for four years for being cheap, you go after the most expensive player you can find. "That'll shut 'em up," they're probably saying to themselves. But it hasn't.

Writers and fans and ESPN talking-heads are still moaning and groaning about the Nationals. So if you can't silence your critics, do what you think is right and don't worry about it.

And signing Mark Teixeira isn't right for the Nationals right now.

First, the number of years in the contract doesn't matter. Scott Boras will throw in an "opt-out" clause after three years like the ones A.J. Burnett and J.D. Drew had. Teixeira would play in D.C. until 2011 and move on to greener pastures. And the $20 million per year doesn't matter, either. The Nationals could add twice that amount to the payroll and the team would still be woeful.

The problem is that one player does not a turnaround make. Certainly the Nationals would be better, but in the National League East, they wouldn't be better off. Finishing last is finishing last regardless of how many games behind you are. 

Over the past four years, Mark Teixeira has averaged 34 homers and 120 RBI with a .417 OBP.

That's great.

Adam Dunn, on the other hand, has averaged 40 homers and 100 RBI with a .386 OBP.

That's really, really good.

Teixeira is a better defender, so he'll probably save three to four games with his glove. Dunn hits more homers, so he'll probably win three to four games with his bat. That's pretty much a wash. The only major difference, then, is Teixeira's 20 more RBI, which could be a product of his playing with better teams as much as his being a better hitter.

Teixeira will earn about $200 million ($20 million/10 years) and Dunn will earn about $65 million ($13 million/five years).

Is 31 on-base percentages and 20 RBI per year worth $135 million dollars?

No.

I agree that Teixeira is a more complete ball player and is more apt to be the Nationals' "poster boy" for the next decade. I just don't think he is worth that much money.

I'd rather sign Dunn and use the rest of the money to sign another complementary player or better yet bank it for when the Nats are closer to achieving "contender" status.

Here is the presumed 2009 starting lineup with the players' career averages over 162 games:

1B: Nick Johnson—.270-21-81

2B: Ronnie Belliard—.275-13-68

SS: Cristian Guzman—.270-7-54

3B: Ryan Zimmerman—.282-21-94

LF: Josh Willingham—.266-25-85

CF: Lastings Milledge—.263-16-72

RF: Elijah Dukes—.235-28-79

C: Jesus Flores—.252-12-81

That's not a bad offense—assuming everyone stays healthy—and it doesn't need a $20 million infusion of talent.

The addition of Dunn, along with having a healthy club for the first time in four years, and some decent pitching would give the team a chance for a .500 finish, maybe even a little better.

I think the Nationals will be just fine if they can't sign Mark Teixeira.

Don't you?