Here's where SOSH breaks down a lot more often than it should. I think we can all agree that Teixeira would be a good addition. Just as everyone likely would have agreed that Santana would have been a good addition in an absolute sense. The question for me is the price in terms of $ and roster flexibility. Let's not discount the latter factor, as the Yankees found out to their dismay with Giambi. Not saying that Teixeira becomes Giambi, but massive contracts come with inherent issues if they go wrong.
The Yankees' roster inflexibility cannot be tied to any one singular person. You say Giambi, I say Damon, Matsui, and going forward Posada. They showed a remarkable lack of concern for the aging of their players and such, are left with multiple players that should be DH/1B types.
Financially, if you want to argue any hinderance (which I would disagree with, but that a seperate point), again, you need to look at the overall picture, not just any singular player. The Yankees had 7 players making over $13M (and three over $20). The Red Sox had three (and 1 if you count Manny).
I completely agree with your overriding point, that the Yankees destroyed themselves through signing every big name free agent and hamstringing themselves. But you have to take into account the whole picture with them - they did it with multiple people, all at significant age and that's where they got into trouble.
It is a sad commentary that some here interpret what is a nuanced stance into some sort of hocus argument that I'm not a fan of signing the guy. I, and I think many others, just don't view what he brings to the table as enough of a priority given the cost...
The Red Sox dropped $8M on Schilling and $7M on Manny for nothing this year. They spent another $3M on Timlin and another $2M on Cora, for performance they could have gotten for the minimum. That's $20M with nothing to show for it. They can afford it.
You said upthread that you would prefer John Henry pockets $20M rather than spend it on Teixeira. I've asked you this before and you didn't answer: is it just a matter of principle or do you honestly think Teixeira would somehow hamstring them? Because if it's the former, then there's no sense discussing it anymore. If it's the latter then think there's a discussion there.
...the upgrade he represents in the near-term....
Do you disagree that he would likely add at least 40 OPS+ points over Lowell next year? And in 2010? Or, again, is that just not worth it to you?
...and other needs on the roster.
Bowlerman did a great job showing what the other needs will cost. Your reply was that you disagreed and would prefer Henry pocket the money. If you continue to bring up the point that Teixeira wouldn't allow us to address other issues, then you ned to show something to tha tpoint.
We all draw the line somewhere, but I hope we can at least be adult enough to realize that someone who's line doesn't match yours isn't an idiot. We had the same discussion with the Santana trade, and the emergence of Lester and Masterson, along with the good but not great numbers Santana put up in a pitchers park in the NL make some people look a little silly right now in how strident they were to obtain him at all costs.
No one's saying you're an idiot. But those of us in the "for" column are repeatedly being asked to prove he is worth the investment or how he wouldn't handicap the bigger picture. We repeatedly do it. No one in "against" column has yet to prove anything other than they "don't think he's worth it". And citing Santana proves nothing since that was about prospects and this is about nothing but money.