PDA

View Full Version : E-Lo or Michael Young?


Saracen
05-27-2004, 05:04 PM
In 2000, Texas traded Esteban Loaiza to Toronto for Michael Young.

A sports radio station here in Dallas posed the question today "Knowing what you know now, would you still make that trade?"

The majority said absolutely. Most callers agreed in theory that a 20-game winning ace is much more valuable than a SS/2B, but not this 20-game winner.

The responses were things like "nutbag", "nuttier than a fruitcake", "melonhead", "million dollar arm, 10 cent head", "will collapse like a house of cards come pressure time", and "I'd do this trade for any OTHER 20 game winner" when it came to talking about Loaiza. (And they're right, E-Lo was a complete & total headcase here, requiring a babysitter and having an utter disregard for a work ethic.)

I know I'll get pro-Loaiza responses here since he's on the Sox, but what do you all think of the trade? Young is 27, hit .306 last year & .350 so far this year and is improving.

PS - My favorite caller said "Hell yeah, I'd make the trade. We don't have a smart coaching staff like Chicago's to teach him a cut fastball. He'd still suck if he were here!" :smile:

SoxxoS
05-27-2004, 05:06 PM
Michael Young is quickly becoming one of my favorite players not on the Sox...they guy hits and fields everything. He was a relative unknown coming into the year, and had to fill one of the best players ever shoes.

That being said, would I make the trade? After seeing the Esteban of old pitch yesterday..NO. Tempting, but no.

SEALgep
05-27-2004, 05:11 PM
I would love to have Young, but for this year, Loaiza has much more value to us IMO.

mantis1212
05-27-2004, 05:18 PM
Originally posted by Saracen
In 2000, Texas traded Esteban Loaiza to Toronto for Michael Young.

A sports radio station here in Dallas posed the question today "Knowing what you know now, would you still make that trade?"

The majority said absolutely. Most callers agreed in theory that a 20-game winning ace is much more valuable than a SS/2B, but not this 20-game winner.

The responses were things like "nutbag", "nuttier than a fruitcake", "melonhead", "million dollar arm, 10 cent head", "will collapse like a house of cards come pressure time", and "I'd do this trade for any OTHER 20 game winner" when it came to talking about Loaiza. (And they're right, E-Lo was a complete & total headcase here, requiring a babysitter and having an utter disregard for a work ethic.)

I know I'll get pro-Loaiza responses here since he's on the Sox, but what do you all think of the trade? Young is 27, hit .306 last year & .350 so far this year and is improving.

PS - My favorite caller said "Hell yeah, I'd make the trade. We don't have a smart coaching staff like Chicago's to teach him a cut fastball. He'd still suck if he were here!" :smile:

That's some interesting info about our guy Loaiza. Also interesting how Loaiza and Young both became greater than expected, eventually anyway.

My vote goes to Loaiza

jabrch
05-27-2004, 05:24 PM
Give me either one! I'll take a SS/2B who hits and fields and be thrilled. Or I'll take a 20 game winner and be thrilled. For this Sox team, with Uribe, Harris and Valentin, I'd rather have Loaiza in that group than add Young - we'd have nowhere to put him.

but hey - for Texas, the deal worked out great - Young replaced A-Rod very nicely. I still have to think that Texas would love to have a SP around there right now - cuz I don't know if a division can be won with a rotation of Rogers, Dickey, Dreese, Park and Benoit.

MRKARNO
05-27-2004, 05:30 PM
Give me a franchise 27-year old shortstop over a 32-year old 1-time 20 game winner if you want to look at it nameless or statless. But then again, Jamie Moyer didnt get going till he was 33 and he's had like 8 great years since then. I think that Loaiza's stuff is just so good and he's finally put it together. The major points of his career may not yet have happened yet with last year just being the starting point. He's at 96 career victories and he might end up winning 200 career if he continues to pitch at this level.

MRKARNO
05-27-2004, 05:39 PM
Originally posted by jabrch

but hey - for Texas, the deal worked out great - Young replaced A-Rod very nicely. I still have to think that Texas would love to have a SP around there right now - cuz I don't know if a division can be won with a rotation of Rogers, Dickey, Dreese, Park and Benoit.

The losers in this were the Blue Jays. It seems that they always seem to have problems when they are somehow involved with us. We got 4 months of David Wells for 0 months of Mike Sirotka

bigdommer
05-27-2004, 05:58 PM
Some people just need a chance and some people just need a change of scenery (and a cut fastball). I agree with most of the posters, both guys have been on the rise since that deal, and it worked out for Texas and for Chicago (through Toronto). But more importantly, it worked out for Young and E-Lo. I like to see good guys succeed.

lowesox
05-27-2004, 06:00 PM
The scary thing is, there were a few whispers in the offseason about the sox making a move to acquire Young after the Arod deal - which, by the way, I think looks VERY good for Texas right now.

doublem23
05-27-2004, 07:03 PM
Originally posted by jabrch
Give me either one! I'll take a SS/2B who hits and fields and be thrilled. Or I'll take a 20 game winner and be thrilled. For this Sox team, with Uribe, Harris and Valentin, I'd rather have Loaiza in that group than add Young - we'd have nowhere to put him.

Agreed. That's really one of those win-win trades.

elrod
05-27-2004, 07:45 PM
Win for Texas. Win for the Sox. Loss for Toronto. Young and E-Lo are both fantastic.

That question reminds me of the Sosa-Bell trade. Had Sosa stayed on the Sox he'd be out of baseball. He could not work with Hriniak. Bell was big down the stretch in 1993. E-Lo, like Sosa, went through a major transformation when he got to the Sox. He was a loser in Texas, as was Sosa on the Sox.

Voice of Reason
05-27-2004, 08:00 PM
I'd take Loaiza. Michael Young is overrated, he's having a great year so far but he won't hit .350 all season. I wouldn't be at all surprised if the rest of the season Young hit like he did in 2002 when he was worthless.

elrod
05-27-2004, 08:07 PM
Michael Young is overrated, he's having a great year so far but he won't hit .350 all season. I wouldn't be at all surprised if the rest of the season Young hit like he did in 2002 when he was worthless.

Michael Young is not overrated. He won't hit at this clip but his defense is great and he's an above-average hitter. Oh, he just made three very nice plays in one inning.

Saracen
05-27-2004, 08:17 PM
Originally posted by elrod
Michael Young is not overrated. He won't hit at this clip but his defense is great and he's an above-average hitter. Oh, he just made three very nice plays in one inning.
I agree, he's the real deal. This kid can flat out play and still not in his prime.

Voice of Reason
05-27-2004, 08:18 PM
Originally posted by Saracen
I agree, he's the real deal. This kid can flat out play and still not in his prime.

Actually he's having his first good year and he is in his prime.

Dadawg_77
05-27-2004, 10:46 PM
Originally posted by doublem23
Agreed. That's really one of those win-win trades.

How did the Jays win?

MRKARNO
05-27-2004, 10:50 PM
Originally posted by Dadawg_77
How did the Jays win?

We totally won this, the Jays totally lost and the Rangers are in the middle. The Rangers gave up a good player for another. The Blue Jays gave up on a good player and the Sox got a good player for nothing.

Foulke You
05-27-2004, 11:27 PM
Originally posted by Dadawg_77
How did the Jays win?

I believe doublem23 is referring to the Rangers and Sox being the "win win" in the trade and not the Blue Jays and Sox.

pjthesox13
05-27-2004, 11:34 PM
The timing of this trade is totally the call here as stated before. But I agree where it looks like Texas won out and the Jays lost out and the Sox picked up the win on the other side. Young is quickly proving to be a player in Texas. His overall play is quite impressive to me, he could definitely be a rising power. E-lo is also proving his play this year by being the same if not better pitcher than he was last year. It would really be a toss up for this trade now but really it's what the teams need to get to, to make the trade. Do you need a 20 game winner or a .300 SS that's what is the bottom line here. I'm glad the Sox have E-lo and we get to benefit from this pitcher on our staff.

Vernam
05-27-2004, 11:55 PM
Originally posted by doublem23
Agreed. That's really one of those win-win trades.

Except for Toronto -- they don't have either of them! ;^)

VC

Dadawg_77
05-28-2004, 08:32 AM
Originally posted by Foulke You
I believe doublem23 is referring to the Rangers and Sox being the "win win" in the trade and not the Blue Jays and Sox.

But the Sox never traded for E Lo, so there is no way to win that trade. He was brought in a non roster invite last, I believe.

34 Inch Stick
05-28-2004, 09:14 AM
Why do we not hear about the Sox even discussing an extension with Loiza? If they sign him now, they save money. If he goes to free agency I assume he will not be on the Sox next year.

Dadawg_77
05-28-2004, 09:37 AM
Originally posted by 34 Inch Stick
Why do we not hear about the Sox even discussing an extension with Loiza? If they sign him now, they save money. If he goes to free agency I assume he will not be on the Sox next year.

You may start to hear, but it would have been premature to discuss it before the season started. No one knew if last year was a fluke, so it would have depress the price E Lo would have received and been too risky for the Sox.