Another Shortstop on the Block?
by petitceebee on Dec 8, 2008 11:02 PM PST
Email
PrintMichael Young is being shopped by the Rangers.
I don't know any of his metrics or his peripherals and I know his contract is gi-normous. But I remember every time the Rangers played the A's, the guy can flat out rake.
Is this a possibility after losing out on Furcal?
Does it even make sense considering the disdain everyone has for Crosby?
What would it take to get him? Texas wants young pitching and we have plenty of that. Simmons? Ross? I'm ok with losing those two for Young if that's what it would take.
24 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
+1
"With 16-year-old Dominican righty Michel Inoa in tow, Gio Gonzalez improving at Triple-A and lefty Brett Anderson carving up Double-Abatters along with Simmons and Trevor Cahill, Oakland’s pitching depthis officially the envy of baseball." - BaseballAmerica.com
i think what mike's trying to say
is that young is a horrible fielder, a declining hitter (masked somewhat by the ballpark in arlington), and has a huge contract
by Josh Deletchi on Dec 8, 2008 11:27 PM PST up reply actions
UZR had him surprisingly average last year.
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Dec 9, 2008 7:37 AM PST up reply actions
Ironic
He’d only just have become a free agent this offseason.
Can’t be very often that a team tries to trade away a signing before he even starts fulfilling his contract.
Anyway, I have to assume they’re eating half or more of it just to get anyone to the table.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
Although early in his career he was a truly attrocious defensive shortstop ...
he’s now only slightly below average (I’d project him at -5). I would project him at +15 with the bat. He would be nearly a 2 win upgrade over Crosby.
Of course, that is only worth about half of what he is getting paid — 5 years x $16m. If the Rangers wanted to chip in half of that, he would be a reasonable addition — but I doubt they would do that.
"It's for your own good. Big strong Devo knows whats best for Poppy" -- Mossback
Chip in half and trade him for Crosby
And I’m in.
"There's never enough time to do all the nothing you want" -Bill Watterson
Not me
5 years, 40 million for Young? No thanks. And that’s assuming the A’s are getting him for free (talent-wise), which they wouldn’t be, and Texas is willing to trade in-division, which they also probably wouldn’t be.
This has no chance of happening. Thank heavens.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
I disagree
I think this has a great chance of happening, and I of course base this on absolutely nothing.
Got a call just now. ESPN is offering me a broadcasting contract.
"To this day and dating back 25 years, before every game he plays, Henderson stands completely naked in front of a full length locker room mirror and says, "Ricky’s the best," for several minutes."
by VORP is too nerdy on Dec 9, 2008 12:07 AM PST up reply actions
Unlike the Mariners and Angels,
Texas has not shown great reluctance to trade within the division. We got Duchscherer from them. They got Gerald Laird from us. There’s actually quite a bit of trade history between Texas and Oakland. Not up to Blue Jays or Royals numbers, of course, but still more than with a lot of other teams.
"Dispatch knuckleheadedness with Bond-like aplomb." –74mk
this would be a much bigger deal, they’re not going to send their star player to the a’s, and pay half his salary.
A's v Giants "is kind of like the difference between going to see the Ramones and going to see the Bee Gees. A's fans will go see the Ramones." -BB 07/27/05
Why not see him suck for the A's up close?
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Dec 9, 2008 7:38 AM PST up reply actions
Not so bad
If Furcal is worthy of 4 years at $40 million then Young at 5 years and $40 Million is a great deal. Better hitter, better health. The compensation to Texas could be be huge difference.
Not a better hitter, worse defense.
He’s distinctly worse than Furcal on a value basis at this point. His Marcel is only a .333 wOBA.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
Though, factoring health
purely as a player, all else (i.e. contract etc) being equal, I’d take Young despite the defense. Obviously, the contract and cost of trading for him makes that judgment moot.
Didn't Young have some kind of power-sapping wrist injury this year?
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
Why is 5/40 for Young so much worse than 4/40-4/48 for Furcal?
And yes, I’m assuming we give up no talent (read: Crosby)
"There's never enough time to do all the nothing you want" -Bill Watterson
Put it that way and I'm even more for getting him.
I’d even throw in Cahill or Anderson if they could be convinced to eat Crosby and give us us back Hamilton too
but the difference is that you DO have to give up talent to get young, whereas furcal wouldn’t even cost a draft pick.
A's v Giants "is kind of like the difference between going to see the Ramones and going to see the Bee Gees. A's fans will go see the Ramones." -BB 07/27/05
Right, which is why we almost certainly don't get him.
I wonder what they think they’ll get…
"There's never enough time to do all the nothing you want" -Bill Watterson
Wrong amount
his old contract expired last year @ 8million. His new 1 is 5/65.
Try 5/80
It’s 16 million a year (although some of it is deferred money).
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
The $8m quoted is based on the assumption that the Rangers would pick up half the tab ...
"It's for your own good. Big strong Devo knows whats best for Poppy" -- Mossback
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
