RR Favorite Michael Young is the Ultimate Team Player

What is it with the Rangers and Hall of Fame Shortstops? Oh well, I'm sure they'll get a good return on a 32 year-old player with bad defense, only a couple of good seasons with the bat a few years back (in a bandbox), and at the beginning of an idiotic 5-year deal. He's like Derek Jeter, only without the speed or bat (or, in some years, the defense)!

So much better as a teammate than A-Rod, who would never move to third, either, I bet.

over 3 years ago Matt Klaassen 23 comments 0 recs |

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

sounds like he is ripe for a Royal picking

who do we give up for this All Star?

The concept of progress acts as a protective mechanism to shield us from the terrors of the future. - Collected sayings of Muad'Dib

by buddyball on Jan 12, 2009 10:48 PM EST reply actions

buh-bye, Zack!

Make it happen, Dayton!!!1111

Bringing you more-or-less replacement level analysis and commentary since sometime in 2008.

by Matt Klaassen on Jan 12, 2009 10:49 PM EST up reply actions

Funny

A message board I frequent is out of Texas and there a few Rangers fan just cussing the management for (get this) having the audacity to ask Young to change positions!

I posted a short reply about him and was asked to name 15 better shortstops than Young.

I obviously asked if they had to have a ridiculous contract.

by Warden11 on Jan 12, 2009 10:51 PM EST reply actions

only 15?

that’s priceless, too. Here is a list for you of SSs who were more valuable than Michael Young in 2008, according to fangraphs WAR:

1. Hanley Ramirez
2. Jose Reyes
3. J. J. Hardy
4. Jimmy Rollins
5. Mike Aviles
6. Yunel Escobar
7. Derek Jeter
8. Orlando Cabrera
9. Jhonny Peralta
10. Marco Scutaro (!)
11. Cristian Guzman
12. Ryan Theriot (!!)
13. Stephen Drew
14. Miguel Tejeda
15. Jerry Hairston (!!!)
16. Nick Punto (!!!!)
17. Rafael Furcal (!!!!!! in 6 weeks of play or so)
18. Erick Aybar
19. Cesar Izturis
20. Jed Lowrie
21. Jason Bartlett

The only remaining question is why the hell isn’t Willie Bloomquist on that list.

Bringing you more-or-less replacement level analysis and commentary since sometime in 2008.

by Matt Klaassen on Jan 12, 2009 10:57 PM EST up reply actions

don't worry, he will be on this list soon

The concept of progress acts as a protective mechanism to shield us from the terrors of the future. - Collected sayings of Muad'Dib

by buddyball on Jan 12, 2009 11:10 PM EST up reply actions

I've already posted

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/michael-youngs-value

Was told this didn’t contain any analysis and it contained no numbers that show Young is wildly overpaid.

But thanks, I’ll try the list and see how that goes over. I’m guessing it’s going to be something along the lines of “gold glove, grit, leadership, batting average, grit, gold glove”

by Warden11 on Jan 12, 2009 11:18 PM EST up reply actions

Something close:

“what kind of dork is this? send me the link where he defines his neat-o stats.”

by Warden11 on Jan 12, 2009 11:19 PM EST up reply actions

don't ever forget moxie

meat

by kabrink on Jan 13, 2009 12:35 AM EST up reply actions

Fortunately I doubt he would agree to a trade to the Royals.

I can’t imagine DMGM would let Greinke go in a one up trade. Hopefully the Rangers don’t have enough other prospects to tempt him.

by hunter s. royal on Jan 12, 2009 11:13 PM EST reply actions

heh

I hope everyone knows I was joking. DMGM gets Greinke.

However, the truth is that the Rangers have been mentioned as a team that has been lusting after Greinke for a while. they do have some very good prospects/young guys ready for the majors.

Now, Michael Young would be a total poison pill that I wouldn’t take under any circumstances, but we’ve had many a discussion about what Texas prospects would make a good return for Zack…

Bringing you more-or-less replacement level analysis and commentary since sometime in 2008.

by Matt Klaassen on Jan 12, 2009 11:17 PM EST up reply actions

Arod is just so selfish

by Freneau on Jan 13, 2009 12:01 AM EST reply actions

from a poster on mlb.com royals site for your perusal

This is the perfect solution for the Royals….. The Royals need to trade Alex Gordon for Michael Young of the Texas Rangers. The Rangers want Young to move over to third base and he does not want to. The Royals could trade for Young and make him their every day shortstop. Which then would move Mike Aviles back to his natural position second base. It would fill the Rangers need by giving them a young third baseman. The question is still out there “When will Alex have a breakout year”?

meat

by kabrink on Jan 13, 2009 1:12 AM EST reply actions

tremendous

2008 WAR from fangraphs:

Michael Young: 1.7

Alex Gordon: 2.7

Bringing you more-or-less replacement level analysis and commentary since sometime in 2008.

by Matt Klaassen on Jan 13, 2009 1:15 AM EST up reply actions

Guillen for young

Straight up. I’d do it. I doubt young is as bad in 09 as he was in 08.

At least Wally Joyner's not on the team....

by tcon125 on Jan 13, 2009 1:16 AM EST reply actions

I don't want to trade a moderately sized albatross for a MASSIVE albatross

Remaining contracts:

Guillen 2/36 ($12M per year)
Young 5/80 ($16M per year)

That would be trading one mistake for a much bigger mistake which would hurt the Royals through 2013. While Young’s performance has some value, he’s arguably more overpaid than Guillen. And adding three more years of a bigger, bad contract would be an awful idea. And it’s not like Young would be getting better over the course of that contract. As it covers ages 32-36, he’ll be getting worse.

The immoderate moderator

by Scott McKinney on Jan 13, 2009 1:53 AM EST up reply actions

Jon Daniels

Does he deserve as much or more criticism than Dayton Moore for one albatross move?

The Nation at large.

by Royals Nation on Jan 13, 2009 1:54 AM EST up reply actions

Daniels deserves a lot of blame

That contract was horrendous from the second it was signed. Much worse than the Guillen contract. And the McCarthy-for-Danks trade was awful.

The immoderate moderator

by Scott McKinney on Jan 13, 2009 2:12 AM EST up reply actions

According to this article...

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/baseball/mlb/wires/01/12/2010.ap.bba.rangers.young.3rd.ld.writethru.0714/index.html

the Royals would only have to pay $62M out over 5, because the Rangers paid a big chunk as a signing bonus (?…weird, leave it to Daniels for something like that), but some has been deferred, as well. Regardless of whether it’s $62M or $80M, that would still be a completely ridiculous move. I might go straight to the K and slash Dayton’s tires if that ever happened.

"I am sick and tired of [unintelligible] up with every [BLEEP]ing thing. No [BLEEP] from you guys, no [BLEEP] from you [BLEEP]ing players. And they can do any [BLEEP]ing thing they want to do. I’m sick and tired of all this bull[BLEEP]. Now…put that in your [BLEEP]ing pipe and smoke it."

by Sweep_the_Leg on Jan 13, 2009 11:11 AM EST up reply actions

But youre forgetting

Usually its called opportunity cost but for GMDM and the royals its non-opportunity cost. With 4 million tied up in a decent Young, we don’t get Willie B, and quite possibly Fansworth. We get a SS, 2b combo better than our current combo, and maybe maybe he bounces back to the normal standard declining years off his 2005-2006-2007 seasons.

So my math is 4 – 1.5 – 4.5 minus JoGui + gritt = win.

At least Wally Joyner's not on the team....

by tcon125 on Jan 14, 2009 12:01 AM EST up reply actions

just reread

the comment above seems we would only be paying near 12 per. So the math should read.

12-12-1.5 – Jogui = win.

You wouldn’t rather have young than Jogui is surprising to me. Based on positon he has to be a more productive player.

At least Wally Joyner's not on the team....

by tcon125 on Jan 14, 2009 12:03 AM EST up reply actions

Two years vs. Five years

You wouldn’t rather have young than Jogui is surprising to me.

I would rather have Young than Guillen in 2009 and 2010. But the problem is that if you trade Guillen for Young, you trade a bad 2-year contract for a bad 5-year contract. Guillen’s bad contract is done in two years. Young’s bad contract would hang around the Royals necks, limiting payroll flexibility to add players for five long years. And they will be five years of decline. And he’s already been declining each of the last two years.

The immoderate moderator

by Scott McKinney on Jan 14, 2009 3:23 AM EST up reply actions