Forum > Extend Michael Young?
No. Because he won't be the least bit useful at 37-39.
January 28, 2011 at 8:11 AM |
Scooby Dude
Scooby Dude
No player should be untradable, but the minority owner has stated publicly that MY will not be traded. This team is not inspiring confidence from the owners box. Nolan Ryan is an owner and not the GM. He should stick to ownership issues and let the GM ,who is more than capable, run the club. We already have one owner in Dallas who has ruined a franchise by micromanaging.
January 30, 2011 at 1:02 AM |
Fromthecheapseats
Fromthecheapseats
Young gets his 10 & 5 rights in MAY. Thus being untradeable, because he will own his no-trade clause.
January 30, 2011 at 2:24 PM |
Greenman
Greenman
Hilarious.
January 30, 2011 at 3:55 PM |
t ball
t ball
Deferring money is to a small extent what got Hicks in trouble.
January 31, 2011 at 2:44 PM |
JFitz
JFitz
Oh noes....
January 31, 2011 at 2:57 PM |
Jesse
Jesse
Michael Young for Milton Bradley? (if it werent for the fan backlash!)
January 31, 2011 at 3:34 PM |
Goodasgoldyesmaam
Goodasgoldyesmaam
I wonder...
Maybe the solution would be to extend Michael Young's contract. EXTEND?? you say?
Michael Young wants to stay in this league long enough to get 3,000 hits (whether he will or not). He has been durable. He has played several positions. He is a useful hitter and a useful enough fiielder to have played all those seasons. He probalbly wants to stay with the Rangers. The Rangers fans might be shaken if he is traded, especially if he doesnt bring what seems to be equivalent value.
But, you say, his contract is too large! And you are right. Many would seem to agree, especially if he is now relegated to DH or Utility Infielder or bench bat or injury replacement, actually all of the above.
Young is on a contract that apparently pays $16 million per year for 2011, 2012 and 2013. He will be 37 as a free agent to start the 2015 season.
Why not try to extend, that is renegotiate, Young's contract to give him, say, $56 million over 6 years? In effect this defers part of what would have been Young's salary in 2011, 2012 and 2013 and in return, gives Young $3 million each for his years 37 and 38 and $2 million for his year 39. This could bring Young to under $10 million, which would make him more tradeable, if he wants to be traded or if the Rangers want to trade him, while also making him more useful, financial wise, to the Rangers.
Does MY or the Rangers FO say no and why?