Micheal Young is a man

[SFGRTB]

Baseball needs more of these guys.


With the Rangers now close to signing Adrian Beltre to a 6 year $96 million deal, Micheal Young is on the move again now from 3rd base to DH/super utlity.

This is the 3rd time he has willingly moved positions to accomidate to the team's needs. Remember when A-Rod was traded, he moved from 2B to SS to make room for Alfonso Soriano and eventually Ian Kinsler? Or in 2009 he moved to 3B to give way to Elivs Andrus? Now he's moving again and is apparently OK with it (again). Instead of bitching and making a big deal out of it, he just quietly went about his business and did what the team asked.

Now, I think (if he can deal with it), the DH spot will be best for him, as he has been one of the worst fileding 3B in the MLB the last 2 years and has never been an above-average defender anyway. So now, the Rangers have one of the best right side defensively in the game and Ian Kinsler is above average as well. The Rangers have their offensive and defensive game locked up for atleast 2 more years.

And just a side thought, what would it take and would it make sense for us to aquire him and put him back at SS?


Rangers To Sign Adrian Beltre: MLB Rumors - MLBTradeRumors.com

 

[nateistheshi]

If we hadn't already gotten Tejada, then I'd be all for it. The problem here is that while Young certainly is a better hitter at this stage in their respective careers, they're both about on the same level of crap for their SS skills. Michael Young has a career -55.6 UZR and -10.2 UZR/150 at SS with a .977 Field% whereas Tejada has a career -30.1 UZR and -3.4 UZR/150 at SS with a .972 Field%. The only thing I can think of that we'd have to offer the Rangers and be willing to give up would be a C prospect like Joseph or Sanchez and a bit of salary relief since I think their system is thinner in that area than others, and we don't really need C prospects for the near future. All in all, I don't think they'd be willing to part with him when they see that most teams aren't going to meet their demands for an above average bat terrible fielder with a pretty bad contract, but it certainly speaks volumes of his character that he's willing to do what's best for the team.

 

[iruletheskool]

that contract for Beltre is insane.

 

[calsnowskier]

that contract for Beltre is insane.

6 yr, 96 M...

Owners are INSANE!!!!! Did he not look at Beltres performance with Seattle?

OMFG!!!

 

[iruletheskool]

16 M a year is about 2x too much and I would never have given him more than 3 years..

 

[Heathbar012]

Agreed with discussion of Beltre's reported contract above. I think the Rangers just screwed themselves. That will be a fun offense to watch for the next couple of years, but I don't think they will get back to the Fall Classic anytime in the next decade.

 

[calsnowskier]

16 M a year is about 2x too much and I would never have given him more than 3 years..

I dont mind TOO much the annual money. When dude wants to play, he is elite level.

Problem is, he becomes complacent too easily and has no inner drive to perform. If he is not in a contract year, he will blow.

Although the 16M is high, if it were 2/32, I dont think this discussion would be taking place. I would think a 2/25 or 3/35 would have been more appropriate, though. 6/96 is absolutely asinine.

 

[calsnowskier]

Agreed with discussion of Beltre's reported contract above. I think the Rangers just screwed themselves. That will be a fun offense to watch for the next couple of years, but I don't think they will get back to the Fall Classic anytime in the next decade.

I dont have any faith in Beltre putting up even solid starter-type offensive numbers next year.

Look at his numbers in Seattle until his contract year.

Horrible deal.

 

[calsnowskier]

I stand corrected...

Even his contract year in Seattle sucked...

Horrible contract!!

 

[Heathbar012]

I dont have any faith in Beltre putting up even solid starter-type offensive numbers next year.

Look at his numbers in Seattle until his contract year.

Horrible deal.

I think he will accidentally put up good numbers in that line-up. Granted, Vlad Guerrero now is probably a lot like Richie Sexson then (though, he probably won't be back) and Andrus is no Ichiro, but the rest of the Rangers' line-up makes those Mariners' teams look as bad as... well... as bad as they were. Bad is too harsh. They weren't good enough to win a division like the Rangers are.

Beltre will see way too many great pitches batting amidst Kinsler, Young, Hamilton and Cruz. I agree that he will underachieve throughout the course of his contract (few wouldn't at his age, with those dollar figures and his general propensity to win the contract and take it easy). However, I know he improves an already amazing line-up. A line-up that should win the division, then get trounced by the Yankees or Red Sox. Have they even addressed their glaring bullpen issues? Is C.J. Wilson their ace now?

 

[SFGRTB]

I think that he will be an above average 3B for at least the next few years. He is still elite defensively and playing in Arlington will only help his stats, Safeco kills right handers while balls fly out of Texas. I think he will be a $16 million player for at least half of the contact and probably more. Now, I would consider it an over pay for teams like us or San Diego because I don't believe his bat would hold up here, but Arlington will add a few years to his bat if you get what I'm saying. Plus, deals like this are becoming more and more market value. I like this deal for Texas.

 

[Heathbar012]

Bump. Not that I blame Michael Young, but he has certainly changed his tune. The bad news: the Rockies are the front-runners to get him. What will it take?

 

[tzill]

Bump. Not that I blame Michael Young, but he has certainly changed his tune. The bad news: the Rockies are the front-runners to get him. What will it take?

Young going to the Rox is GOOD news:

The Rockies’ Alternatives to Michael Young | FanGraphs Baseball

 

[Heathbar012]

Young going to the Rox is GOOD news:

The Rockies’ Alternatives to Michael Young | FanGraphs Baseball

Good article, and I agree that this would be bad for the Rockies long term. It makes a convincing argument that it wouldn't necessarily be much better for them short term, too, but adding a happy Michael Young to that line-up without giving up too much pitching talent would make the road to an NL West title more difficult for the Giants.

I am curious as to what it would mean for the development of Eric Young, Jr., too. Conceivably, Michael Young will get some time at first and third base in addition to second, so it might not be a problem, but EYJ might be hoping he gets shipped out, as well. We shall see.

 

[tzill]

Good article, and I agree that this would be bad for the Rockies long term. It makes a convincing argument that it wouldn't necessarily be much better for them short term, too, but adding a happy Michael Young to that line-up without giving up too much pitching talent would make the road to an NL West title more difficult for the Giants.

I am curious as to what it would mean for the development of Eric Young, Jr., too. Conceivably, Michael Young will get some time at first and third base in addition to second, so it might not be a problem, but EYJ might be hoping he gets shipped out, as well. We shall see.

If they get Young, it won't be at a bargain. This is exactly the type of push-all-your-chips-to-the-middle move that tends to blow up on teams.

::cough, cough:: Zito ::cough, cough::

 

[CameronFrye]

If they get Young, it won't be at a bargain. This is exactly the type of push-all-your-chips-to-the-middle move that tends to blow up on teams.

::cough, cough:: Zito ::cough, cough::

But if a team like SF could convince a team like Texas to take Aaron Rowand off its hands and then give the Rangers a few prospects to make the pain go away, it might be a good thing. Rowand, Ehire Adrianza and some pitching prospect (Craig Clark?) for Michael Young and (low level prospect).

I don't think Young is all that and a bag of chips, but I would be willing to see the Giants pay the last year of his deal to get away from Rowand. Texas would get two decent prospects (or three if they demanded it) to agree to pay Rowand for two more years instead of Young for three.

Young is not great, but he can back up all four IF spots and he's a lot better than what the Giants currently have as a UTIL INF. Since they are going to be shelling out the $$$ for Rowand, why not shell it out for Young instead?

 

[tzill]

But if a team like SF could convince a team like Texas to take Aaron Rowand off its hands and then give the Rangers a few prospects to make the pain go away, it might be a good thing. Rowand, Ehire Adrianza and some pitching prospect (Craig Clark?) for Michael Young and (low level prospect).

I don't think Young is all that and a bag of chips, but I would be willing to see the Giants pay the last year of his deal to get away from Rowand. Texas would get two decent prospects (or three if they demanded it) to agree to pay Rowand for two more years instead of Young for three.

Young is not great, but he can back up all four IF spots and he's a lot better than what the Giants currently have as a UTIL INF. Since they are going to be shelling out the $$$ for Rowand, why not shell it out for Young instead?

Young's deal is for $16MM a year for the next three years. Rowrow gets $12MM a year for the next two. There's no way I'd pay $16MM a year for a backup.

If the Giants were willing to eat half his contract, I'm sure there would be a number of teams that would take Rowrow and not dump $48MM on us. On top of that you want to give up prospects?

I'm not following your logic, Cam.

 

[CameronFrye]

Young's deal is for $16MM a year for the next three years. Rowrow gets $12MM a year for the next two. There's no way I'd pay $16MM a year for a backup.

If the Giants were willing to eat half his contract, I'm sure there would be a number of teams that would take Rowrow and not dump $48MM on us. On top of that you want to give up prospects?

I'm not following your logic, Cam.

Young's deal is for $16 mil per season, but a lot of that money is deferred, so SF would actually only be on the hook for $12 mil total - which is the difference between what Young will earn and what Rowand will earn.

As for giving up prospects, you have to understand that even though Young is not what he once was, he still went 20-90 with 100 runs scored and a .280 batting average.

Rowand meanwhile dropped a 11-34 line with 40 runs and a .230 BA.

As for the idea of paying $12 mil for a backup - we are doing it right now. Rowand has no position because Schierholtz is every bit as good a CF as Rowand. Young at least would be able to get starts at all the IF positions throughout a week. Plus, we all know Tejada won't play 162 games this season. With Mike Fontenot as the only backup who can play SS, the Giants will be in trouble if - excuse me, when - Tejada goes down. Young makes the Giants a lot more versatile and he has a better bat than any player on the IF not named Huff.

So while Young is overpriced, he would be a HUGE upgrade over Rowand. And the "prospects" I proposed are not exactly going to become All-Stars in the future. They are utility/role player guys. SF has plenty of those already.

 

[tzill]

So if I'm following correctly, Young is due $48MM over the next three years, but $15 is deferred. I don't believe that the Rangers are on the hook for that $15MM if Young is traded -- I think the acquiring team pays him.

Irrespective of that, Young gets $33MM over the next three years, Rowrow $24MM over the next two. A trade would create an additional $9MM in payroll PLUS a $15MM liability in the future.

Additionally, say the Giants were willing to eat half Row's contract and trade him for a backup SS/utility type player. One would think that Sabes could get someone of at least Renteria's caliber for that.

And we'd clear approximately $9MM of payroll ($12MM of Row's contract minus $3MM to pay the new SS), instead of adding $9MM plus a future $15MM debt.

Put another way, at approx $5MM per win, there isn't much chance that Young adds 5 WAR over Row in the next two years.

I see your argument, but I think there are more cost effective ways of upgrading the roster, especially if we're willing to eat half of Row's contract.

 

[CameronFrye]

So if I'm following correctly, Young is due $48MM over the next three years, but $15 is deferred. I don't believe that the Rangers are on the hook for that $15MM if Young is traded -- I think the acquiring team pays him.

Irrespective of that, Young gets $33MM over the next three years, Rowrow $24MM over the next two. A trade would create an additional $9MM in payroll PLUS a $15MM liability in the future.

Additionally, say the Giants were willing to eat half Row's contract and trade him for a backup SS/utility type player. One would think that Sabes could get someone of at least Renteria's caliber for that.

And we'd clear approximately $9MM of payroll ($12MM of Row's contract minus $3MM to pay the new SS), instead of adding $9MM plus a future $15MM debt.

Put another way, at approx $5MM per win, there isn't much chance that Young adds 5 WAR over Row in the next two years.

I see your argument, but I think there are more cost effective ways of upgrading the roster, especially if we're willing to eat half of Row's contract.

OK. I'll buy that argument. But I would think that the deferred money would come from the original team, much like the St-Rangers are still on the hook for AFraud's deferred dollars.