PDA

View Full Version : Michael Young of the Rangers for JD?


hawkjt
01-09-2009, 06:45 PM
Heard on ESPN 1000 that the Sox might be talking to the Rangers on a trade with Dye and a good prospect to the Rangers for Young.

Pure rumor...no substance other than Levine is reporting it. Not likely to happen but for debate purposes..

Can Young play second and short?
Can Young lead off?
What kind of contract does he have? How much and how long?
How old is he?

I know that Ozzie has always loved him so that is the only reason I even mention it...but again, probably only a tiny possibility it would actually happen.

veeter
01-09-2009, 06:49 PM
Other than Ozzie loving Young and JD supposedly loving the Rangers' manager, it doesn't fit. We need some PITCHING!!!!!

JermaineDye05
01-09-2009, 06:51 PM
If we're not giving up pitching or Beckham, sure I'm all for it.

whitesoxfan1986
01-09-2009, 06:51 PM
When I was listening to the radio, they said Texas wants Poreda too, and the Sox said absolutely not.

hawkjt
01-09-2009, 06:51 PM
I agree a starter should be priority one...but do you think Kenny is totally done with the everyday lineup? Maybe he is but I would not be shocked if he still made a move with JD...now maybe that will be for a pitcher but ya never know.

chunk
01-09-2009, 06:51 PM
Young is in decline and makes way too much money. No thanks.

veeter
01-09-2009, 06:51 PM
When I was listening to the radio, they said Texas wants Poreda too, and the Sox said absolutely not.They're still pissed about Danks.

hawkjt
01-09-2009, 06:53 PM
When I was listening to the radio, they said Texas wants Poreda too, and KW said absolutely not.


OK, I did not catch that part of it. Obviously Poreda is almost an untouchable and I would not support a JD and Poreda for Young deal.
Glad the Sox said no.

Foulke You
01-09-2009, 06:53 PM
I really love J.D. but I would do this deal in a heartbeat. I absolutely love Michael Young. Anybody who hits over .300 with RISP just about every year has a spot on my team. The man is clutch.

DumpJerry
01-09-2009, 07:04 PM
Pure rumor...no substance other than Levine is reporting it.
If Bruce Levine reported today that the White Sox won the 2005 World Series, I'd rush down to Comiskey to confirm we have a trophy to confirm the assertion.

LoveYourSuit
01-09-2009, 07:34 PM
If Bruce Levine reported today that the White Sox won the 2005 World Series, I'd rush down to Comiskey to confirm we have a trophy to confirm the assertion.


Bruce Levine, if reporting "the sky is blue", I might have to get up and check.

Brian26
01-09-2009, 07:39 PM
Other than Ozzie loving Young and JD supposedly loving the Rangers' manager, it doesn't fit. We need some PITCHING!!!!!

Any time you can get a guy like Michael Young on your team, it's a fit.

Daver
01-09-2009, 07:42 PM
An outfield of Quentin in left, Owens in center, and Wise in right could very well be the worst defensive outfield ever fielded by a MLB team.

TheOldRoman
01-09-2009, 07:45 PM
This is asinine. Considering the years left on Young's deal and his insane contract, the deal wouldn't make sense unless it was Young plus prospects or Young plus cash for Dye straight up. No way in hell should we include anyone with Dye to get Michael Young.

everafan
01-09-2009, 07:47 PM
I don't think Hawk would be able to control his bromance with Young on the team. They would have to sign Abreu in this scenario and probably move TCM to center.

munchman33
01-09-2009, 07:48 PM
An outfield of Quentin in left, Owens in center, and Wise in right could very well be the worst defensive outfield ever fielded by a MLB team.

What if we signed Abreu?

Foulke You
01-09-2009, 07:53 PM
An outfield of Quentin in left, Owens in center, and Wise in right could very well be the worst defensive outfield ever fielded by a MLB team.
It could be Owens/Wise in LF, Anderson in CF, and Quentin in RF which wouldn't be quite as horrible as the picture you paint. As others have posted, it could be that they end up signing Bobby Abreu too.

Foulke You
01-09-2009, 07:58 PM
Young is in decline and makes way too much money. No thanks.
Please share your evidence that Michael Young is on the decline. He hit .284 with 12HRs and 82 RBI last year. I'll take that "declining" production in our lineup any day. He hit .412 with RISP in '06, .376 with RISP in '07, and .298 with RISP last year which was a bit down for him but still very good.

Huisj
01-09-2009, 08:02 PM
Bruce Levine, if reporting "the sky is blue", I might have to get up and check.

And most likely, with it being January, it would be gray.

KyWhiSoxFan
01-09-2009, 08:08 PM
An outfield of Quentin in left, Owens in center, and Wise in right could very well be the worst defensive outfield ever fielded by a MLB team.

Dye in right is no great shakes, either, these days. His ability to cover ground has degraded markedly the last two years.

chunk
01-09-2009, 08:10 PM
Please share your evidence that Michael Young is on the decline. He hit .284 with 12HRs and 82 RBI last year. I'll take that "declining" production in our lineup any day. He hit .412 with RISP in '06, .376 with RISP in '07, and .298 with RISP last year which was a bit down for him but still very good.

.898 2005 28
.815 2006 29
.784 2007 30
.741 2008 31

That's a textbook case of decline. He peaked at 28, which is the typical peak age, and is now declining.

thomas35forever
01-09-2009, 08:18 PM
If Young's at short, there's no place for Ramirez. He's shown he can't play center. Young would be good to have, but we don't have a need for him.

Lillian
01-09-2009, 08:25 PM
The Texas infield makes their hitters look better than they are.
Young hit .264 with a .317 OBP last year away from Arlington.
He is owed $80 million over the next 5 years.

I donīt understand where these absurd rumors come from.
The Sox donīt need a SS or a Second Baseman.
They need a leadoff hitter, a Starting Pitcher (or maybe 2)
and perhaps a left handed bat. Young fills none of those needs.

Iīd much rather have Dye and his contract than Young and his contract.
This team is going to try to go with young guys that arenīt too expensive, where they can. Young doesnīt fit that scenario.

Iīd be shocked if the Sox traded Dye straight up for Young, let alone threw in Poreda!!

Zisk77
01-09-2009, 08:26 PM
to answer the original posters' questions, yes he can play second...thats were he entered the league at. 2b makes more sense as he ages. He can also hot leadoff and do it well (although he is better suited for 2-hole if we could get a a guy like Figgins).

Maybe J.D., Richards, a third lesser prospect and money coming back to us gets it done?

munchman33
01-09-2009, 08:32 PM
Maybe we can spin Young for Brian Roberts.

dickallen15
01-09-2009, 08:53 PM
Maybe we can spin Young for Brian Roberts.
Stone was on the Score today and he was talking about Roberts. Apparently the Orioles want Floyd and Getz for him but KW doesn't want to give up-------------------------------Getz. Interesting he'd give up Floyd. He also mentioned how Garland would be perfect for the White Sox right now and his price is dropping daily. SI is reporting the White Sox are also interested in bringing Garcia back, so maybe 2009 will look a lot like 2005 when it comes to the guys taking the mound, and maybe that is why Floyd would be available. Garland gives you everything Vazquez gives you except he wins a few more and strikes out a lot less. Who knows what Garcia has left, maybe enough until Poreda is ready.

everafan
01-09-2009, 08:55 PM
If Young's at short, there's no place for Ramirez. He's shown he can't play center. Young would be good to have, but we don't have a need for him.

When did Ramirez show he can't play center?

Brian26
01-09-2009, 08:58 PM
When did Ramirez show he can't play center?

The first game of the season last year.

Brian26
01-09-2009, 08:59 PM
Richards

Gene? He must be at close to 60 years old now.

Daver
01-09-2009, 09:00 PM
When did Ramirez show he can't play center?

The first time he trotted out there.

everafan
01-09-2009, 09:01 PM
The first game of the season last year.

That's a pretty small sample size. He played CF in Cuba.

guillensdisciple
01-09-2009, 09:04 PM
Don't see it happening, but if it did, I would assume the minor league player would be of little value as Young and Dye are almost equal in trade value even though Dye is older.

Of course, I wouldn't understand the logic behind this trade as we have been trading this whole off season in order to improve the infield. I am just going to put this in the "no" category.

Daver
01-09-2009, 09:04 PM
That's a pretty small sample size. He played CF in Cuba.

I doubt he played it any better than the bad job he did for the White Sox there.

Brian26
01-09-2009, 09:23 PM
That's a pretty small sample size. He played CF in Cuba.

It doesn't take a large "sample size" to recognize if someone is playing out of position.

2906
01-09-2009, 09:27 PM
Just a comment on this Alexei Ramirez in CF thought.

The White Sox know Ramirez feels most comfortable at SS, everyone including Ramirez himself seem to think it's his best position. Quite possibly people dismiss this side of things but it's extremely important to feel comfortable and confident in pro sports. There is a reason why they have Alexei penciled in at SS instead of some other position. They seem to think the best is yet to come for him. They put a lot of effort in acclimating this guy to the major leagues and the first year was a rousing success. Now they seem to feel he will continue that success as a SS. Seems to me it makes sense. Just saying.

veeter
01-09-2009, 09:37 PM
Any time you can get a guy like Michael Young on your team, it's a fit.He's a hitting machine. I love the guy, but let's address the area in which we desperately help, first.

btrain929
01-09-2009, 09:42 PM
An outfield of Quentin in left, Owens in center, and Wise in right could very well be the worst defensive outfield ever fielded by a MLB team.

The fact that, if Dye was traded, you suggest/believe we would realistically go into an MLB season with that OF shows how much of an idiot you are. Why do they even still give you internet access at the Old People home?

gr8mexico
01-09-2009, 09:42 PM
PLEASE STAY AWAY FROM MICHAEL YOUNG

He would be 36 years old when his contract is up in 2013.
Also Michael Young has a full no trade clause this year +
he receives salaries of $16M each year in 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012 and 2013. That's crazy:o:

Marqhead
01-09-2009, 09:45 PM
The fact that, if Dye was traded, you suggest/believe we would realistically go into an MLB season with that OF shows how much of an idiot you are. Why do they even still give you internet access at the Old People home?

Hmm....

sunofgold
01-09-2009, 10:15 PM
But too expensive and doesn't really fill a hole that we have. We have a solid SS. Would have to move Young or Alexei to 2B.

And if we trade Dye for him, then we have to fill in a hole in the outfield. Guess there are options there like Abreu.

I wouldn't hate the deal if something like this went through. However, it would be expensive. Maybe sign Young in 2014 as a DH! haa! I know that Ozzie really likes Michael Young.

Tragg
01-09-2009, 10:42 PM
An outfield of Quentin in left, Owens in center, and Wise in right could very well be the worst defensive outfield ever fielded by a MLB team.
It's pretty sad to make a trade to fit both Owens and Dewayne Wise into your outfield.

Put Ramirez in right and Anderson in Center?

WhiteSox5187
01-09-2009, 10:50 PM
It's pretty sad to make a trade to fit both Owens and Dewayne Wise into your outfield.

Put Ramirez in right and Anderson in Center?
If you're trading JD, I think Quentin becomes your RF (where he played most of his games with Arizona), Owens is in left and Anderson plays CF.

Daver
01-09-2009, 10:53 PM
It's pretty sad to make a trade to fit both Owens and Dewayne Wise into your outfield.

Put Ramirez in right and Anderson in Center?

Ramirez is a poor outfielder wherever you put him, and I don't see Ozzie allowing Anderson to be an everyday starter unless he is forced to.

spawn
01-09-2009, 10:56 PM
But too expensive and doesn't really fill a hole that we have. We have a solid SS. Would have to move Young or Alexei to 2B.

We do? Who, Alexei? He hasn't played there for a season in the majors and you're already claiming he's a solid SS? I believe in his potential, but he has to prove it in order to be considered solid there.

KyWhiSoxFan
01-09-2009, 10:59 PM
I don't know how this thread turned into a lot of talk about whether Ramirez can or should play center .... but drop it. He will never play center again. If he is not at SS, he will be back at 2B. Period.

The only way he plays center is if in the same game, BA, Owens, and Wise all break their leg and they need someone in CF till they can call someone up from Charlotte. And even then, I doubt they would trot him out there.

DumpJerry
01-09-2009, 11:37 PM
An outfield of Quentin in left, Owens in center, and Wise in right could very well be the worst defensive outfield ever fielded by a MLB team.
The 1990 Yankees' outfield tried their darnest to give King George a massive coronary. After all, it was that illustrious OF that allowed the Sox to win despite being no hit by Andy Hawkins.

DirtySox
01-10-2009, 02:44 AM
Not sure if the print source was posted:

http://stations.espn.go.com/stations/espnradio1000/blog?id=3738908&post=3822498

hawkjt
01-10-2009, 02:56 AM
PLEASE STAY AWAY FROM MICHAEL YOUNG

He would be 36 years old when his contract is up in 2013.
Also Michael Young has a full no trade clause this year +
he receives salaries of $16M each year in 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012 and 2013. That's crazy:o:


Based on the Levine blog linked above , Young is in the final year of his contract in 09. Maybe Levine has bad info, but I would be surprised if he was that far off.

Trading two guys in the last year of their contracts makes a little more sense...sounds like Texas wants to replace Milton Bradley and altho the deal was killed due to the Poreda request by texas, it sounds like the rangers interest in JD remains alive and this deal could be re-worked down the road...anyone we want on texas?

DirtySox
01-10-2009, 03:04 AM
t sounds like the rangers interest in JD remains alive and this deal could be re-worked down the road...anyone we want on texas?


Take your pick:

http://www.minorleagueball.com/2008/12/19/697333/texas-rangers-top-20-prosp

TheOldRoman
01-10-2009, 03:13 AM
Based on the Levine blog linked above , Young is in the final year of his contract in 09. Maybe Levine has bad info, but I would be surprised if he was that far off.

Trading two guys in the last year of their contracts makes a little more sense...sounds like Texas wants to replace Milton Bradley and altho the deal was killed due to the Poreda request by texas, it sounds like the rangers interest in JD remains alive and this deal could be re-worked down the road...anyone we want on texas?http://mlbcontracts.blogspot.com/2005/01/texas-rangers.html
(http://mlbcontracts.blogspot.com/2005/01/texas-rangers.html) He is that far off. With him making that much, I don't think I would consider that trade even if the Rangers picked up half of his salary.

Frater Perdurabo
01-10-2009, 07:38 AM
The Rangers are souring on Michael Young. They regret giving him that big contract. He's a great hitter but he has declined the past few years. He's also better suited for second base than shortstop

beck72
01-10-2009, 08:05 AM
Texas would probably like to unload Young. He made $6 mill in 2008 and is due to make $16 mill. for the next 5 years. They have a SS to take his place in Joaquin Arias. It shouldn't take a lot more than Dye-certainly not Poreda or a top 5 prospect. But having him waive his no-trade clause might be hard for Texas to do.

For the sox, he'd make sense as a DH. They could have him play SS in '09 and make the move to DH in 2010. He could also get a lot of AB's at DH vs LHP this year. Not sure if the Sox would have Alexei at 2b or CF. Probably 2b.

Young has hit mostly 2nd in the order but could be moved to leadoff, as Cabrera made the switch and filled in nicely there. He's a career .300 hitter with an OBP of near .350. What this Levine info [taken with a grain of salt] tells me is that the sox are looking at guys who've hit #2 in the order and could be moved to hit leadoff.

central44
01-10-2009, 08:28 AM
I just can't fathom there being any truth to this rumor. The Sox already have Alexei, who (if he builds on last season's success) might already be one of the top SS's in the American league (albeit, an AL that doesn't have much depth at the position).

So what it comes down to would be to either bring in Michael Young--a good player, but an expensive, declining player at a position we're stacked at, and have him play 2B over Getz (who might be able to post similiar numbers for a cheaper price), lose JD and create a gaping hole in the OF and in our batting order. Or we can keep JD who is probably good for at least 25 HRs if he has a down year, let Getz have his shot and give us about 70% of the production we'd get from Young, save money, and probably keep a SP we wouldn't have as well.

I just don't see there being any truth to this. Brian Roberts I could see--he fit two needs and KW would have flipped a pitcher who threatened to take a step back anyway. That's the type of trade KW is famous for, and the person who made it up definitley put a lot of thought into it. But this trade? Just don't see it.

russ99
01-10-2009, 09:29 AM
Exactly who do we have on the current roster that would keep Ramirez from sliding back over to 2B?? Both offensively and defensively? Seriously...

Getz is a nice player, but he's had 5 MLB at bats. Let's see how he can hit major league pitching before anointing him the new infield cornerstone. And he still has to win the job over 3 other players this spring.

I'm for this deal (without Poreda) if we then sign Abreu and also an experienced starter.

Also, Dye has 1 year left on his contract, so his value is a little lower than some of us think. That is 1 year of (likely) solid production, so I still think Kenny can get something of value.

But regardless of this rumor, I still think Kenny's going young and if Dye is dealt, he'll will flip Jermaine for a young starter.

Vernam
01-10-2009, 09:30 AM
Not sure if the print source was posted:

http://stations.espn.go.com/stations/espnradio1000/blog?id=3738908&post=3822498Not only does Levine have trouble with facts, he can't write for ****. I guess that's how an ace reporter gets into radio.

Per Dave Van Dyck today, Kenny shot down the JD-for-Young rumor: http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseball/whitesox/chi-10-basebitsjan10,0,685585.story. KW also said they won't re-sign Garland.

Vernam

A. Cavatica
01-10-2009, 09:58 AM
An outfield of Quentin in left, Owens in center, and Wise in right could very well be the worst defensive outfield ever fielded by a MLB team.

And a terrible offensive outfield, too.

DaveFeelsRight
01-10-2009, 10:11 AM
would rather get ian kinsler. but that dude isnt going anywhere.

NLaloosh
01-10-2009, 10:49 AM
I wouldn't want Young if the Rangers ate half his contract and gave him to the Sox for nothing.

Thome25
01-10-2009, 11:21 AM
Here we go again......another day, another idle speculation by an unreliable journalist thread.

laxtonto
01-10-2009, 11:48 AM
Texas would probably like to unload Young. He made $6 mill in 2008 and is due to make $16 mill. for the next 5 years. They have a SS to take his place in Joaquin Arias. It shouldn't take a lot more than Dye-certainly not Poreda or a top 5 prospect. But having him waive his no-trade clause might be hard for Texas to do.

For the sox, he'd make sense as a DH. They could have him play SS in '09 and make the move to DH in 2010. He could also get a lot of AB's at DH vs LHP this year. Not sure if the Sox would have Alexei at 2b or CF. Probably 2b.

Young has hit mostly 2nd in the order but could be moved to leadoff, as Cabrera made the switch and filled in nicely there. He's a career .300 hitter with an OBP of near .350. What this Levine info [taken with a grain of salt] tells me is that the sox are looking at guys who've hit #2 in the order and could be moved to hit leadoff.


Let me fix a few errors in all of this...

Micheal young recieved a substabtial signing bonus and then a upfront payment on his new deal. He is actually owed 62M over 5 years, ore a little over 12M per year.

YOung also played last year with a broken finger on each hand, which had a lotto do with his diminished average.

He can easily play 2B and truthfully would be a better SS away from Texas and their extremely short infield draft and hard infield dirt.

Would I do a Dye Poreda for young deal, No. But there is a ground work that can be used to atleast start discussions with.

cws05champ
01-10-2009, 11:54 AM
An outfield of Quentin in left, Owens in center, and Wise in right could very well be the worst defensive outfield ever fielded by a MLB team.
That's because you haven't seen the Cubs OF play yet this coming year.

FedEx227
01-10-2009, 12:09 PM
Here we go again......another day, another idle speculation by an unreliable journalist thread.

Welcome to News 2.0 post-print journalism.

Who needs quotes, information or research when you have BLOGZ!!11!!

hawkjt
01-10-2009, 12:36 PM
http://mlbcontracts.blogspot.com/2005/01/texas-rangers.html
(http://mlbcontracts.blogspot.com/2005/01/texas-rangers.html)He is that far off. With him making that much, I don't think I would consider that trade even if the Rangers picked up half of his salary.


I am properly admonished for believing that Levine might actually have factual info in that blog. I have heard of mis-information but to blow the facts by that margin...well, I want to slap the guy silly.

I know he is considered unreliable ,but this is ridiculous...what's next?..levine reporting manny signing for league minimum?

TheOldRoman
01-10-2009, 01:06 PM
I am properly admonished for believing that Levine might actually have factual info in that blog. I have heard of mis-information but to blow the facts by that margin...well, I want to slap the guy silly.

I know he is considered unreliable ,but this is ridiculous...what's next?..levine reporting manny signing for league minimum?
It has been said that Bruce Levine is as accurate as a carpet bombing.

Frater Perdurabo
01-10-2009, 02:10 PM
It has been said that Bruce Levine is as accurate as a carpet bombing.

With Levine, one needs not a grain of salt, but a whole salt mine.

jabrch
01-10-2009, 02:15 PM
The Rangers may be the dumbest franchise in baseball. They have the money - just never seem to use it right.

Craig Grebeck
01-10-2009, 02:22 PM
Michael Young sucks.

With that contract.

Konerko05
01-10-2009, 02:36 PM
Not only does Levine have trouble with facts, he can't write for ****. I guess that's how an ace reporter gets into radio.

Per Dave Van Dyck today, Kenny shot down the JD-for-Young rumor: http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseball/whitesox/chi-10-basebitsjan10,0,685585.story. KW also said they won't re-sign Garland.

Vernam

I found something interesting in the random notes at the bottom of the article...

"Baseball authorized nearly 8 percent of its players to use drugs for ADHD last season."

The standard treatment for ADHD is Adderall, which is amphetamine salts. It is basically prescription speed. I wonder if this will be a growing trend for some players to access banned substances.

chunk
01-10-2009, 02:59 PM
The Rangers may be the dumbest franchise in baseball. They have the money - just never seem to use it right.

They may be a dumb franchise but they have an amazing farm system. Lot of impact players.

It's Dankerific
01-10-2009, 03:05 PM
The Rangers may be the dumbest franchise in baseball. They have the money - just never seem to use it right.

All of the franchises have enough money to compete, if used right.

whitesox901
01-10-2009, 03:05 PM
Rather have Kinsler, plays 2B and leads-off, prob no chance of that happening

white sox bill
01-10-2009, 04:17 PM
Texas seems to like signing players to high salaries then dumping them after a few yrs.

Foulke You
01-10-2009, 05:53 PM
I wouldn't want Young if the Rangers ate half his contract and gave him to the Sox for nothing.
Right, because he sucks! Ah yes, WSI. Where all players are universally hated regardless of how skilled they might be.:rolleyes:

Craig Grebeck
01-10-2009, 05:53 PM
Right, because he sucks! Ah yes, WSI. Where all players are universally hated regardless of how skilled they might be.:rolleyes:
He's really not that good. If you could post some evidence of why we should acquire a decent player with the worst contract in baseball, I'm all for it.

guillensdisciple
01-10-2009, 07:34 PM
He's really not that good. If you could post some evidence of why we should acquire a decent player with the worst contract in baseball, I'm all for it.

Couldn't agree with you more, especially when we are adding one of our top prospects into that mix. I am sorry, J.D. might be old, but I would rather take his numbers and allow something good to come out of our farm system, instead of having a bloated contract combined with an inadequate farm system and inability to purchase top free agents.

Foulke You
01-10-2009, 11:38 PM
He's really not that good. If you could post some evidence of why we should acquire a decent player with the worst contract in baseball, I'm all for it.
First of all, to say that Young is the worst contract in baseball is laughable. Young is a productive hitter who got the going rate at the time for an all star SS. You want to talk worst contracts in MLB? Barry Zito makes more and is signed for more years and has done nothing but suck for the Giants. How about Carlos Silva's $48 million 4 year contract? Think the M's are happy with that one? Young might be a bit overpaid but at least he produces on the field. What veteran productive ballplayers come cheap these days? If you want a good veteran ballplayer, you have to pay for it sometimes.

I'd argue that Young is also better than "decent" as you put it. Orlando Cabrera is decent, Michael Young is very good. From 2003 to 2008, Young hit over .300 in each season save one. He had a slight "dropoff" last year to .284. (Horrible!) In the last 6 seasons total he has a combined 541 RBIs and 95 HRs. That's not all, he is a doubles and base hits machine to boot. For everyone who bitches about the Sox being a HR or nothing type of offense. Young fills up the gaps regularly averaging between 33 and 52 doubles per year in the last six seasons. He also has over 1025 hits in his last 6 seasons and has averaged about 200 hits in each of those seasons. It doesn't stop there. By far, Young's greatest asset is the ability to hit in the clutch. A great example of Hawk's timeless "Don't tell me what you hit, tell me when you hit em" :

CAREER RISP= .336 AVG .389 OBP .480 SLG .868 OPS

When there are men in scoring position with 2 outs, guess what? He gets even better:

RISP w/2 Outs= .340 AVG .415 OBP .441 SLG .866 OPS

Man on 3rd with less that 2 outs? (An area of much Sox fan angst during the 2008 season) Guess what? He gets even better:

Man on 3rd Less than 2 Outs= .362 AVG .372 OBP .583 SLG .955 OPS

Some are saying that we don't need him. I disagree. You want a leadoff man? He has over 1000 ABs experience batting leadoff and is a career .295 hitter in the leadoff spot. You want a Second baseman? He has played over 416 games at the position in his career so he knows what he is doing at that defensive position as well as SS. Michael Young is a winner. A pricey ballplayer? Sure. I really don't care though. As a Sox fan, I just want to win ballgames and get to the World Series, and Young is the type of player that helps get you there.

Craig Grebeck
01-10-2009, 11:54 PM
First of all, to say that Young is the worst contract in baseball is laughable. Young is a productive hitter who got the going rate at the time for an all star SS. You want to talk worst contracts in MLB? Barry Zito makes more and is signed for more years and has done nothing but suck for the Giants. How about Carlos Silva's $48 million 4 year contract? Think the M's are happy with that one? Young might be a bit overpaid but at least he produces on the field. What veteran productive ballplayers come cheap these days? If you want a good veteran ballplayer, you have to pay for it sometimes.

I'd argue that Young is also better than "decent" as you put it. Orlando Cabrera is decent, Michael Young is very good. From 2003 to 2008, Young hit over .300 in each season save one. He had a slight "dropoff" last year to .284. (Horrible!) In the last 6 seasons total he has a combined 541 RBIs and 95 HRs. That's not all, he is a doubles and base hits machine to boot. For everyone who bitches about the Sox being a HR or nothing type of offense. Young fills up the gaps regularly averaging between 33 and 52 doubles per year in the last six seasons. He also has over 1025 hits in his last 6 seasons and has averaged about 200 hits in each of those seasons. It doesn't stop there. By far, Young's greatest asset is the ability to hit in the clutch. A great example of Hawk's timeless "Don't tell me what you hit, tell me when you hit em" :

CAREER RISP= .336 AVG .389 OBP .480 SLG .868 OPS

When there are men in scoring position with 2 outs, guess what? He gets even better:

RISP w/2 Outs= .340 AVG .415 OBP .441 SLG .866 OPS

Man on 3rd with less that 2 outs? (An area of much Sox fan angst during the 2008 season) Guess what? He gets even better:

Man on 3rd Less than 2 Outs= .362 AVG .372 OBP .583 SLG .955 OPS

Some are saying that we don't need him. I disagree. You want a leadoff man? He has over 1000 ABs experience batting leadoff and is a career .295 hitter in the leadoff spot. You want a Second baseman? He has played over 416 games at the position in his career so he knows what he is doing at that defensive position as well as SS. Michael Young is a winner. A pricey ballplayer? Sure. I really don't care though. As a Sox fan, I just want to win ballgames and get to the World Series, and Young is the type of player that helps get you there.
He's in steady decline, is 32 years old, has an absolutely awful contract, sucks at defense, and has a career .728 OPS on the road. Excuse me if I'm not bowled over by the thought of acquiring him.

jabrch
01-11-2009, 12:16 AM
They may be a dumb franchise but they have an amazing farm system. Lot of impact players.

First off - I have heard this for a long time. Never seems to matter.

Second, here are their win totals since 2000. 79, 75, 80, 79, 89, 71, 72, 73, 71.

Give most GMs that many crappy teams and they will build you a damn solid farm system.

Despite this strong farm system, they won't contend again in 2009.

This team spends tons of money - and loses fairly consistently. That would suck.

Craig Grebeck
01-11-2009, 12:37 AM
First off - I have heard this for a long time. Never seems to matter.

Second, here are their win totals since 2000. 79, 75, 80, 79, 89, 71, 72, 73, 71.

Give most GMs that many crappy teams and they will build you a damn solid farm system.

Despite this strong farm system, they won't contend again in 2009.

This team spends tons of money - and loses fairly consistently. That would suck.
The farm system is really good though. Lots more arms than they've had in years past. Will it pan out? Perhaps. I like their chances out in the AL West, as Reagins hasn't impressed me much and the Angels farm system is fairly meh.

I mean down the road, of course.

guillensdisciple
01-11-2009, 02:08 AM
First of all, to say that Young is the worst contract in baseball is laughable. Young is a productive hitter who got the going rate at the time for an all star SS. You want to talk worst contracts in MLB? Barry Zito makes more and is signed for more years and has done nothing but suck for the Giants. How about Carlos Silva's $48 million 4 year contract? Think the M's are happy with that one? Young might be a bit overpaid but at least he produces on the field. What veteran productive ballplayers come cheap these days? If you want a good veteran ballplayer, you have to pay for it sometimes.

I'd argue that Young is also better than "decent" as you put it. Orlando Cabrera is decent, Michael Young is very good. From 2003 to 2008, Young hit over .300 in each season save one. He had a slight "dropoff" last year to .284. (Horrible!) In the last 6 seasons total he has a combined 541 RBIs and 95 HRs. That's not all, he is a doubles and base hits machine to boot. For everyone who bitches about the Sox being a HR or nothing type of offense. Young fills up the gaps regularly averaging between 33 and 52 doubles per year in the last six seasons. He also has over 1025 hits in his last 6 seasons and has averaged about 200 hits in each of those seasons. It doesn't stop there. By far, Young's greatest asset is the ability to hit in the clutch. A great example of Hawk's timeless "Don't tell me what you hit, tell me when you hit em" :

CAREER RISP= .336 AVG .389 OBP .480 SLG .868 OPS

When there are men in scoring position with 2 outs, guess what? He gets even better:

RISP w/2 Outs= .340 AVG .415 OBP .441 SLG .866 OPS

Man on 3rd with less that 2 outs? (An area of much Sox fan angst during the 2008 season) Guess what? He gets even better:

Man on 3rd Less than 2 Outs= .362 AVG .372 OBP .583 SLG .955 OPS

Some are saying that we don't need him. I disagree. You want a leadoff man? He has over 1000 ABs experience batting leadoff and is a career .295 hitter in the leadoff spot. You want a Second baseman? He has played over 416 games at the position in his career so he knows what he is doing at that defensive position as well as SS. Michael Young is a winner. A pricey ballplayer? Sure. I really don't care though. As a Sox fan, I just want to win ballgames and get to the World Series, and Young is the type of player that helps get you there.

That solves any doubts I had about Young. Last years lack of clutch hitting is what doomed the Sox. Perhaps a player of Young's caliber will change this team from a playoff caliber to a world series contender.

Of course, we need to fix the pitching situation as well, that probably takes first priority.

Foulke You
01-11-2009, 12:49 PM
That solves any doubts I had about Young. Last years lack of clutch hitting is what doomed the Sox. Perhaps a player of Young's caliber will change this team from a playoff caliber to a world series contender.

Of course, we need to fix the pitching situation as well, that probably takes first priority.
I don't disagree with that statement. I like Michael Young but given the choice between him and another veteran starting pitcher, I'd take the pitcher. However, he is definitely the type of hitter who makes our club better.

Sockinchisox
01-11-2009, 10:17 PM
Well this might have been brought up because Young wants out of Texas (http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/story/9064498/Source:-SS-Young-asks-for-trade-from-Rangers)

Rangers apparently want a 3B in return.

Daver
01-11-2009, 10:28 PM
Rangers apparently want a 3B in return.

That leaves the White sox out, they don't have one.

getonbckthr
01-11-2009, 10:57 PM
That leaves the White sox out, they don't have one.
According the article it appears some people still consider Fields relevant trade value.

cards press box
01-11-2009, 11:00 PM
That leaves the White sox out, they don't have one.

What about Dayan Viciedo? He may not be ready in 2009 (and may ultimately end up at another position) but, for the moment, don't the Sox project him as a future 3rd baseman?

oeo
01-11-2009, 11:04 PM
Well this might have been brought up because Young wants out of Texas (http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/story/9064498/Source:-SS-Young-asks-for-trade-from-Rangers)

Rangers apparently want a 3B in return.

Because he doesn't want to change positions, which he's going to be asked to do anywhere pretty soon. He's never been a great defender at SS, and he's not getting any younger.

I guess that Gold Glove that he never should have got is enlarging his head.

Daver
01-11-2009, 11:09 PM
What about Dayan Viciedo? He may not be ready in 2009 (and may ultimately end up at another position) but, for the moment, don't the Sox project him as a future 3rd baseman?

At this point he is a 19 year old unproven prospect with a very limited scouting report, I would think is actual value would be rather low in a trade.

cards press box
01-11-2009, 11:15 PM
At this point he is a 19 year old unproven prospect with a very limited scouting report, I would think is actual value would be rather low in a trade.

I certainly agree with that. I wouldn't want the Sox to trade their high ceiling prospects like Viciedo, Tyler Flowers, Jordan Danks, Gordon Beckham or Aaron Poreda, anyway.

laxtonto
01-11-2009, 11:29 PM
First off - I have heard this for a long time. Never seems to matter.

Second, here are their win totals since 2000. 79, 75, 80, 79, 89, 71, 72, 73, 71.

Give most GMs that many crappy teams and they will build you a damn solid farm system.

Despite this strong farm system, they won't contend again in 2009.

This team spends tons of money - and loses fairly consistently. That would suck.


Rangers farm system went from 27th 2 years ago to 3rd last year and now easily first. Looks like the new GM is actually building through the draft and the farm. That and it helps that they robbed Atl in the Texiera deal, got Max Ramirez for 2 months of an aging Lofton and bent over Boston on the Gagne deal.

As far a Micheal Young goes, he would be nice to get but at what cost?

Madscout
01-12-2009, 12:01 AM
First off - I have heard this for a long time. Never seems to matter.

Second, here are their win totals since 2000. 79, 75, 80, 79, 89, 71, 72, 73, 71.

Give most GMs that many crappy teams and they will build you a damn solid farm system.

Despite this strong farm system, they won't contend again in 2009.

This team spends tons of money - and loses fairly consistently. That would suck.
Aren't they also the only franchise not to make it to the world series?

Edit: Woops, forgot about the Mariners.

Madscout
01-12-2009, 12:04 AM
That leaves the White sox out, they don't have one.
Josh Fields?

Tragg
01-12-2009, 12:18 AM
Three problems with Young
1) He's not a good defender
2) His offense has declined each of the last 3 years
3) His contract is terrible
You can't trade real talent for that. And from the Sox perspective, what we really need is a CF and starting pitching.

Texas is loaded with all of these prospects, but they don't seem to be able to use them to create a winning ML ballclub.
I'm sure Young is a problem for them - a big $16 million albatross - they'd be a lot better off spending that money on 2 FA pitchers, and getting a Uribe to play SS for $4 million (or Adam Everett for .5 million) - they have enough O. No reason for us to help the Rangers out of their mistakes.

1908<2005
01-12-2009, 01:46 AM
Josh Fields?

Terrible.

Frater Perdurabo
01-12-2009, 07:33 AM
I'd take Michael Young on this team. He hits a lot of doubles in Texas. A lot of those doubles would become homers at the Cell.

Of course I don't like Young's contract. The Sox impose payroll limitations on themselves (whether it's legit or not is for another million threads to debate). Therefore, to accommodate Young, I'd send more to the Rangers to get them to send cash.

guillensdisciple
01-12-2009, 09:42 AM
http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/news;_ylt=Avz3vDexUYpd_M7gUC.VxfcRvLYF?slug=ap-rangers-young&prov=ap&type=lgns

He can play third base, this would actually solve one of our bigger problems since we don't have as big of a glut in that position, and no one really trusts Fields. Viciedo will definitely need some polishing in the minors, and Betemit is just a utility player and only a utility player.
Second base is where our glut is, and we have to allow the Rookies to fight it out for that spot, so no need or getting a second baseman. Alexei will move to his natural position at short stop, which takes care of that, and we already have a solid first baseman.
If you get rid of Dye and Fields, you give the Rangers their third basemen as well as a right fielder to fill the void of Bradley missing. The White Sox get an excellent two hitter as well as a sure glove. Our outfield will be depleted, but this is a balanced trade off, and perhaps a solution to all the "clutch" problems the Sox had last year.
We also forget that the Sox tapered off without Quentin last year, and he was a monster in pivotal situations. Two players of that caliber (three if you count Alexei, but he won't be hitting back to back to back with them) hitting right next to each other, will be a pest to apposing teams back sides.

Plus his contract is 62 million over the next five years, which in essence adds 2 million to our budget, since we are getting rid of the J.D. and Fields contracts. We will still have some money to spend in free agency for veteran pitching and shouldn't be constrained by this move.

Craig Grebeck
01-12-2009, 09:55 AM
http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/news;_ylt=Avz3vDexUYpd_M7gUC.VxfcRvLYF?slug=ap-rangers-young&prov=ap&type=lgns

He can play third base, this would actually solve one of our bigger problems since we don't have as big of a glut in that position, and no one really trusts Fields. Viciedo will definitely need some polishing in the minors, and Betemit is just a utility player and only a utility player.
Second base is where our glut is, and we have to allow the Rookies to fight it out for that spot, so no need or getting a second baseman. Alexei will move to his natural position at short stop, which takes care of that, and we already have a solid first baseman.
If you get rid of Dye and Fields, you give the Rangers their third basemen as well as a right fielder to fill the void of Bradley missing. The White Sox get an excellent two hitter as well as a sure glove. Our outfield will be depleted, but this is a balanced trade off, and perhaps a solution to all the "clutch" problems the Sox had last year.
We also forget that the Sox tapered off without Quentin last year, and he was a monster in pivotal situations. Two players of that caliber (three if you count Alexei, but he won't be hitting back to back to back with them) hitting right next to each other, will be a pest to apposing teams back sides.

Plus his contract is 62 million over the next five years, which in essence adds 2 million to our budget, since we are getting rid of the J.D. and Fields contracts. We will still have some money to spend in free agency for veteran pitching and shouldn't be constrained by this move.
If Michael Young is worth 62 million over the next five years I will eat a pair of shoes. He's in rapid decline! How are people ignoring this simple fact?

Edit: And did you not notice that he's asking to be traded because he doesn't want to play third base?

oeo
01-12-2009, 10:03 AM
I'd take Michael Young on this team. He hits a lot of doubles in Texas. A lot of those doubles would become homers at the Cell.

Or outs...

veeter
01-12-2009, 10:26 AM
If Michael Young is worth 62 million over the next five years I will eat a pair of shoes. He's in rapid decline! How are people ignoring this simple fact?

Edit: And did you not notice that he's asking to be traded because he doesn't want to play third base?I think Young would be just fine for the Sox. He'd hit, play good enough defense and be a great guy. BUT HE DOES NOT WANT TO PLAY THIRD!!!

Sargeant79
01-12-2009, 10:28 AM
If Michael Young is worth 62 million over the next five years I will eat a pair of shoes. He's in rapid decline! How are people ignoring this simple fact?

Edit: And did you not notice that he's asking to be traded because he doesn't want to play third base?

While I agree that Young is not worth 62 million in this market, I think the "rapid decline" statement is a little off base. I cant really speak to his defense all that much since I've rarely watched him in person save for the few times a year the Sox play the Rangers... but his offensive stats, in particular his BA, OBP, hit and double totals, and RBI numbers, have been very consistent and good for most of the last 6 years. The only exception was last year, when he spent the final two months of the year playing through an injury. And despite that, he still managed to hit .284 with 80+ RBI. While the contract may very well be a problem, I would not characterize that as "rapid decline".

Craig Grebeck
01-12-2009, 10:36 AM
I think Young would be just fine for the Sox. He'd hit, play good enough defense and be a great guy. BUT HE DOES NOT WANT TO PLAY THIRD!!!
He's 32. He's past his prime, and it is showing.
While I agree that Young is not worth 62 million in this market, I think the "rapid decline" statement is a little off base. I cant really speak to his defense all that much since I've rarely watched him in person save for the few times a year the Sox play the Rangers... but his offensive stats, in particular his BA, OBP, hit and double totals, and RBI numbers, have been very consistent and good for most of the last 6 years. The only exception was last year, when he spent the final two months of the year playing through an injury. And despite that, he still managed to hit .284 with 80+ RBI. While the contract may very well be a problem, I would not characterize that as "rapid decline".
.898
.815
.784
.741

Seems like a rapid decline to me.

He also put up a stellar .680 OPS on the road last year. Fantastic.

Sargeant79
01-12-2009, 10:50 AM
He's 32. He's past his prime, and it is showing.

.898
.815
.784
.741

Seems like a rapid decline to me.

He also put up a stellar .680 OPS on the road last year. Fantastic.

While a .741 OPS isn't worth 16 mil a year (or whatever his contract comes to), it isn't horrible enough in a year where injuries were a factor to be indicative of rapid decline. 2005 (the .898 year) was the outlier. All other seasons on either side of that year were all in the ballpark of around an .800 OPS.

Besides that, you are only talking about a single offensive statistic. I'd take the 200 hits and 90 RBI a year that has been his track record every year except last year. And given the injury and the fact he is 32 (not 38 or 40), I'm inclined to say 2008 is an outlier on the negative side as much as 2005 is an outlier on the positive side.

The money part of this and how it might prevent other moves from being made is the real question. I cant really see how there can be much debate over whether Young would be a positive addition to the team. As with any trade, the real question is what the costs would be.

Craig Grebeck
01-12-2009, 10:54 AM
While a .741 OPS isn't worth 16 mil a year (or whatever his contract comes to), it isn't horrible enough in a year where injuries were a factor to be indicative of rapid decline. 2005 (the .898 year) was the outlier. All other seasons on either side of that year were all in the ballpark of around an .800 OPS.

Besides that, you are only talking about a single offensive statistic. I'd take the 200 hits and 90 RBI a year that has been his track record every year except last year. And given the injury and the fact he is 32 (not 38 or 40), I'm inclined to say 2008 is an outlier on the negative side as much as 2005 is an outlier on the positive side.

The money part of this and how it might prevent other moves from being made is the real question. I cant really see how there can be much debate over whether Young would be a positive addition to the team. As with any trade, the real question is what the costs would be.
If we're looking for an aging shortstop, we could at least go after one who doesn't wear his glove on his head. Young sucks defensively, and has shown throughout his career that he's a below average hitter on the road. I have no doubt that his hitting prowess is a product of Arlington.

Sargeant79
01-12-2009, 10:59 AM
If we're looking for an aging shortstop, we could at least go after one who doesn't wear his glove on his head. Young sucks defensively, and has shown throughout his career that he's a below average hitter on the road. I have no doubt that his hitting prowess is a product of Arlington.

The cell is a hitter's park too. I wouldn't expect much of a difference with any of those offensive numbers.

As far as the aging shortstop comment, Young would be brought over to play second base. And at 32 years old next season, I really think you're making more of the age issue than there is. He's got 5 years left on his deal, not 10.

Craig Grebeck
01-12-2009, 11:02 AM
The cell is a hitter's park too. I wouldn't expect much of a difference with any of those offensive numbers.

As far as the aging shortstop comment, Young would be brought over to play second base. And at 32 years old next season, I really think you're making more of the age issue than there is. He's got 5 years left on his deal, not 10.
Players fall off after 32. It happens.

Secondly, with Gordon Beckham and Chris Getz, why on earth would we want to make a five year commitment to a player with as many red flags as Young? There's no good reason for it.

Also, hitter park A does not always equal hitter park B. The Cell has smaller dimensions, but it suppresses doubles and triples with its tiny gaps. Arlington is spacious and amplifies offensive performance. If Young truly was a good hitter, I'd expect to see much, much better offensive production on the road. He hasn't.

Sargeant79
01-12-2009, 11:10 AM
Players fall off after 32. It happens.

Lots of players also play extremely productively well into their mid and late 30s. Unless you've got some magical future predicting thingy, you can't say which one will happen to Young any more than I can.

Secondly, with Gordon Beckham and Chris Getz, why on earth would we want to make a five year commitment to a player with as many red flags as Young? There's no good reason for it.



You may have a point there. Although playing devil's advocate, both those guys are prospects and may never do anything at the major league level. Again, the same magical crystal ball would be required to say for certainty whether it's a good idea to pass up the opportunity to acquire an all-star because of 2 guys who may be on the major league team in a year or two.

Jurr
01-12-2009, 11:11 AM
If we're looking for an aging shortstop, we could at least go after one who doesn't wear his glove on his head. Young sucks defensively, and has shown throughout his career that he's a below average hitter on the road. I have no doubt that his hitting prowess is a product of Arlington.
1.)Cell's a hitter's park
2.)2008 Gold Glove winner, and not TOTALLY about just being a good hitter.
3.)He was injured last year. That counts for something.

He is very expensive, though.

Craig Grebeck
01-12-2009, 11:16 AM
Lots of players also play extremely productively well into their mid and late 30s. Unless you've got some magical future predicting thingy, you can't say which one will happen to Young any more than I can.



You may have a point there. Although playing devil's advocate, both those guys are prospects and may never do anything at the major league level. Again, the same magical crystal ball would be required to say for certainty whether it's a good idea to pass up the opportunity to acquire an all-star because of 2 guys who may be on the major league team in a year or two.
More often than not, guys who have declined at the rate Young has will continue to do so into their thirties. Unless he's got a lifetime supply of greenies, Young will more than likely get worse. The evidence supports this notion.
1.)Cell's a hitter's park
2.)2008 Gold Glove winner, and not TOTALLY about just being a good hitter.
3.)He was injured last year. That counts for something.

He is very expensive, though.
1. Hitter's parks are not all the same. Some inflate extra base hits, some deflate them in favor of home runs.
2. A DH won the gold glove one year.
3. Of course it does. He's also an average at best hitter away from Arlington. That counts for something.

Sargeant79
01-12-2009, 11:19 AM
More often than not, guys who have declined at the rate Young has will continue to do so into their thirties. Unless he's got a lifetime supply of greenies, Young will more than likely get worse. The evidence supports this notion.



You're tracking decline from a career best year in 2005 to an injury affected career worst year in 2008 when he almost certainly has many years of his career left. That is flawed. By that logic, Paul Konerko was in rapid decline after 2003.

Craig Grebeck
01-12-2009, 11:22 AM
You're tracking decline from a career best year in 2005 to an injury affected career worst year in 2008 when he almost certainly has many years of his career left. That is flawed. By that logic, Paul Konerko was in rapid decline after 2003.
Paul Konerko was 27 in 2003.

JorgeFabregas
01-12-2009, 11:22 AM
Not really a large sample size, but he has not been good at the Cell over his career. A robust .627 OPS.

Sargeant79
01-12-2009, 11:26 AM
Paul Konerko was 27 in 2003.

True, but sorry, but I just don't think a guy who is 32 for the upcoming season is washed up or even in rapid decline. We're going to have to agree to disagree on that part.

Craig Grebeck
01-12-2009, 11:27 AM
True, but sorry, but I just don't think a guy who is 32 for the upcoming season is washed up or even in rapid decline. We're going to have to agree to disagree on that part.
Okay. How about a guy who, in his career, hasn't hit very well away from the best hitter's park in MLB?

oeo
01-12-2009, 11:33 AM
1.)Cell's a hitter's park

It's a homerun hitter's park. The Cell's outfield is very small all the way around, which doesn't make it helpful to a hitter. XBH are difficult to come by in the Cell. It's not like Texas or Colorado where not only does the ball fly well out of the park, they have massive gaps. Texas also has that very short grass where the ball just flies through the infield.

1. Hitter's parks are not all the same. Some inflate extra base hits, some deflate them in favor of home runs.

i.e., the Cell.

Craig Grebeck
01-12-2009, 11:35 AM
It's a homerun hitter's park. The Cell's outfield is very small all the way around, which doesn't make it helpful to a hitter. XBH are difficult to come by in the Cell.



i.e., the Cell.
Thank you. It is a common misconception.

Foulke You
01-12-2009, 11:50 AM
He's 32. He's past his prime, and it is showing.

.898
.815
.784
.741

Seems like a rapid decline to me.

He also put up a stellar .680 OPS on the road last year. Fantastic.
OPS isn't the end all be all indicator of a player's performance. I already gave you Young's ridiculously good RISP numbers throughout his career (including '08) Young is also not just an Arlington hitter. Has it helped him? I'm sure it has a bit just like any other hitter from Texas. However, he has 1488 hits in his career and 705 of those hits have come on the road. Almost half his career hits are on the road if you don't want to do the math. 51 of his career 115 HRs have also come on the road. Almost 300 of his career 652 RBI have come on the road as well. Also, it's not like The Cell is a pitcher's paradise like Safeco. The Cell is a great place to hit the ball in the summer time just like Arlington so I doubt it would effect him as much as you think.

I doubt I'll be able to change your mind though. I have enjoyed the debate though.:cool: You think he sucks and is on decline and have made that clear. I'm not blind to the fact that a Young trade would have some disadvantages namely the hefty contract but I think his offensive skills merit a long look by KW if he is available for the right player(s). Here is a question for you Grebeck, would you be just as upset at the prospect of a Micheal Young trade if the Rangers ate some of that big contract?

Craig Grebeck
01-12-2009, 11:54 AM
OPS isn't the end all be all indicator of a player's performance. I already gave you Young's ridiculously good RISP numbers throughout his career (including '08) Young is also not just an Arlington hitter. Has it helped him? I'm sure it has a bit just like any other hitter from Texas. However, he has 1488 hits in his career and 705 of those hits have come on the road. Almost half his career hits are on the road if you don't want to do the math. 51 of his career 115 HRs have also come on the road. Almost 300 of his career 652 RBI have come on the road as well. Also, it's not like The Cell is a pitcher's paradise like Safeco. The Cell is a great place to hit the ball in the summer time just like Arlington so I doubt it would effect him as much as you think.

I doubt I'll be able to change your mind though. I have enjoyed the debate though.:cool: You think he sucks and is on decline and have made that clear. I'm not blind to the fact that a Young trade would have some disadvantages namely the hefty contract but I think his offensive skills merit a long look by KW if he is available for the right player(s). Here is a question for you Grebeck, would you be just as upset at the prospect of a Micheal Young trade if the Rangers ate some of that big contract?
A couple things: I prefer rate stats and you prefer counting stats. I understand, I just feel rate stats show that Young's production on the road doesn't come close to his production at home. Fair enough.

I've enjoyed the debate as well. Would I oppose a deal in which the Rangers supplied cash? Yes. The amount of money I'd want thrown in with Young isn't realistic, so it doesn't stand to reason that I'd support a deal like this one. Young is on the downside of his career, and I'd just rather stick with Getz/Ramirez/Beckham as an infield core.

DaveFeelsRight
01-12-2009, 11:56 AM
and the expos/nationals

NLaloosh
01-12-2009, 12:24 PM
Texas pays half his salary for the next 5 years. The Sox send Texas Jose Contreras and Mike MacDougal.

dickallen15
01-12-2009, 12:35 PM
A couple things: I prefer rate stats and you prefer counting stats. I understand, I just feel rate stats show that Young's production on the road doesn't come close to his production at home. Fair enough.

I've enjoyed the debate as well. Would I oppose a deal in which the Rangers supplied cash? Yes. The amount of money I'd want thrown in with Young isn't realistic, so it doesn't stand to reason that I'd support a deal like this one. Young is on the downside of his career, and I'd just rather stick with Getz/Ramirez/Beckham as an infield core.

Last year he played the last couple of months with a broken finger. The year before he hit .315 with a .366 OBP. Not bad for a guy who could lead off and supposedly is slipping quickly. I think his contract is a bit much, but if Texas wanted to throw a little bit the Sox way, its something to consider.

Madscout
01-12-2009, 12:41 PM
Terrible.
I agree, but he does play 3b and is listed as one.

Rocky Soprano
01-12-2009, 12:50 PM
Texas pays half his salary for the next 5 years. The Sox send Texas Jose Contreras and Mike MacDougal.

Do you ever actually think before you post?

Marqhead
01-12-2009, 01:05 PM
Do you ever actually think before you post?

Does everything around here have to be in teal?

Yikes.

Tragg
01-12-2009, 01:39 PM
Do you ever actually think before you post?
I thought his point was well-taken.
If Texas wants to give him to us and pay 1/2 of his salary, we'll take him.

Rocky Soprano
01-12-2009, 01:58 PM
Does everything around here have to be in teal?

Yikes.

Considering the majority of his posts, yes.

Foulke You
01-12-2009, 02:37 PM
It's a homerun hitter's park. The Cell's outfield is very small all the way around, which doesn't make it helpful to a hitter. XBH are difficult to come by in the Cell. It's not like Texas or Colorado where not only does the ball fly well out of the park, they have massive gaps. Texas also has that very short grass where the ball just flies through the infield.



i.e., the Cell.
To play devil's advocate here, wouldn't some of those doubles turn into HRs in our park? Would it not be conceivable to see his power numbers rise to 15-20HRs per year?

oeo
01-12-2009, 02:39 PM
To play devil's advocate here, wouldn't some of those doubles turn into HRs in our park? Would it not be conceivable to see his power numbers rise to 15-20HRs per year?

It's possible, but it's also possible that more of them are caught.

Also, Texas is a good place to hit homeruns, as well...so there may not even be any increase.

Foulke You
01-12-2009, 03:06 PM
A couple things: I prefer rate stats and you prefer counting stats. I understand, I just feel rate stats show that Young's production on the road doesn't come close to his production at home. Fair enough.

I've enjoyed the debate as well. Would I oppose a deal in which the Rangers supplied cash? Yes. The amount of money I'd want thrown in with Young isn't realistic, so it doesn't stand to reason that I'd support a deal like this one. Young is on the downside of his career, and I'd just rather stick with Getz/Ramirez/Beckham as an infield core.
I'm cautiously optimistic about our young middle infielders due to our recent track record with drafting position players. It's one of the reasons a Michael Young trade is attractive to me. It would end another question mark (for me anyway) on the diamond going into 2009 and beyond. I'm worried that Getz and Lillibridge might be nothing more than backups and that Beckham might still be 1 or 2 years away. I have nightmares of having a Royce Clayton like offensive black hole in the regular batting order in 2009.

Daver
01-12-2009, 03:19 PM
I have nightmares of having a Royce Clayton like offensive black hole in the regular batting order in 2009.

Like Dewayne Wise or Jerry Owens in CF?

Foulke You
01-12-2009, 06:52 PM
Like Dewayne Wise or Jerry Owens in CF?
Ok, TWO Clayton-like black holes. Getz could play the role of Royce and Owens can play the role of Julio Ramirez. :cool:

Frater Perdurabo
01-12-2009, 06:54 PM
It's a homerun hitter's park. The Cell's outfield is very small all the way around, which doesn't make it helpful to a hitter. XBH are difficult to come by in the Cell. It's not like Texas or Colorado where not only does the ball fly well out of the park, they have massive gaps. Texas also has that very short grass where the ball just flies through the infield.

Good points overall, but let me just clarify a few things about Rangers Ballpark.

1. RF is very short, especially in the corner (benefits power lefty pull hitters);

2. The RCF and LCF gaps are massive because the walls are deep in CF (benefits line drive hitters who hit up the middle because the OFs are spread out);

3. The glassed-in boxes behind home plate cause the prevailing south winds (DFW actually is "windier" than Chicago) to hit the glass, do a 180, and blow out toward RCF. The resutant "jet stream" helps propel fly balls hit to CF and RCF (benefits LH hitters and RH hitters who can hit the other way);

4. The infield dirt is baked daily under the oppressive Texas sun. Not only are the sun's rays more direct here, but we have far fewer cloudy and rainy days than many other MLB cities. So it's not that the grass is shorter, but it's that the infield dirt is extremely hard (the effect is the same, ground ball hitters benefit).

Tragg
01-12-2009, 09:13 PM
Ok, TWO Clayton-like black holes. Getz could play the role of Royce and Owens can play the role of Julio Ramirez. :cool:
Getz doesn't deserve to be mentioned in the same realm as no hit/no field Wise and Owens

esbrechtel
01-14-2009, 07:58 PM
http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/story/9064498/Sources:-SS-Young-asks-for-trade-from-Rangers#tb


let the pleas for Kenny to do something begin....

Personally, I don't blame the guy he wants to play in his natural position after he wins the GG last season...

turners56
01-14-2009, 08:00 PM
Old news.