Attempting To Make (Some) Sense Of The Michael Young Debacle
Joey Matschulat
The standoff between Michael Young (pictured) and the Texas Rangers is coming to a head. - Samara Pearlstein/MVN.comApproximately two months ago, in the wake of the bestowal of an American League Gold Glove Award upon Texas Rangers shortstop Michael Young for the very first time, I wrote this speculative (and ultimately prescient) paragraph:
Does any of this amplify the difficulty of convincing the American League's reigning Gold Glove shortstop to move to third base after the 2009 season to clear room for the installation of heir apparent Elvis Andrus -- who could begin next season at Triple-A Oklahoma City -- at third base? Perhaps. Then again, perhaps not. Time will tell. But it's probably not going to help.
I derive absolutely no pleasure from that last sentence being correct. As a long-time fan of both Michael Young the baseball player and Michael Young the person, this whirlwind deterioration of the relationship between the apparent face of the organization and the organization itself -- a relationship which was founded on a mutual desire to reach baseball's competitive upper echelon and was consummated when Young signed his five-year, $80 million contract extension in March 2007 -- evokes the emotional gamut, from incredulity to bewilderment to disappointment. To be quite honest, this has been one of the more shell-shocking eight-hour periods of Rangers fandom I have ever experienced.
Many thousands of words are going to be printed about this stunning turn of events over the coming days, weeks, and perhaps months, although hopefully not years. It's evident that the Rangers still possess an enormous deal of respect for Young; general manager Jon Daniels was careful to repeatedly emphasize that aspect of the player-team relationship during the club's hastily organized Sunday evening press conference, even as a blossoming public relations disaster stared the organization square in the eyes.
It's entirely possible that this situation will blow over in relatively short order and hurt feelings will be set aside as spring training, the second iteration of the World Baseball Classic, and eventually Opening Day draw ever closer. It's also possible that too many bridges have already been burned by Young's fractious response to the news that the Rangers want him to immediately begin the transition to third base, and that the inevitable outcome of this very ugly (and now very public) brouhaha is a trade. The jury's still out on that possibility.
With all of that said, here are a few really, really early-morning thoughts that need to be expelled:
● Upon relaying word of Rosenthal's initial report to esteemed BBTiA co-writer Jason Parks (who, of course, knew about it already), his first words were to the general effect of, "Something's fishy." The idea that Young's agent, Dan Lozano -- whose list of clients has, at one time or another, included the likes of Rod Barajas, Tony Graffanino, Mike Piazza, Desi Relaford, and Shea Hillenbrand -- leaked the nature of Young's dissatisfaction to the press isn't at all far-fetched or unprecedented, because on the flip side, what motivation could the Rangers possibly have to leak that information themselves?
It goes without saying that Young's unhappiness with the Rangers' gentle, albeit firm request for him to begin preparing for the move to the hot corner reflects rather badly on the organization from a public relations standpoint, given the enormity of the financial commitment in play, and does nothing at all to improve the club's already tenuous relationship with its largely disgruntled fan base. There are no benefits in that regard.
Furthermore, any trade value Young might actually wield -- and I'm still not certain there's really all that much to wield in the first place -- is certain to be hampered by his adamant stance; the 32-year-old shortstop has reportedly given the Rangers a "small" list of teams he would waive his no-trade clause to join, but who knows how many of those teams actually have even the slightest modicum of interest in acquiring Young, especially as a shortstop? Remember that even though Texas has already paid roughly $18 million of that $80 million upfront over the last two seasons in the form of a bonus, $62 million is still a hefty financial commitment at a time when many major league front offices are resisting the temptation to slash payroll in light of a worsening economic situation.
The mere fact that we went nearly a month -- from shortly after the winter meetings in mid-December, when Daniels and manager Ron Washington first sat down to discuss the situation with Young, until Rosenthal's report on Sunday evening -- without finding out about any of this suggests the Rangers prioritized the concealment of this in-house conflict, and simultaneously suggests that one of Young's people was behind the media leak.
Curiously, Rosenthal's report no longer includes the reference that Young was "absolutely livid" with the Rangers' request. Debunked agent talk?
● I'm obviously not the only Rangers-centric writer questioning the logic behind the request itself; that Texas is so eager to begin Young's transition suggests two important things, the first being that the Rangers are obviously huge believers in presumptive franchise shortstop (and defensive wizard) Elvis Andrus, and the second being that the Rangers are clearly not at all confident in their internal options at third base, particularly Travis Metcalf. The organization is not alone in that determination -- I wouldn't have typed nearly 4,000 words between the first two installments of the critically acclaimed "Fixing Third Base" series if I had believed that Metcalf was an adequate solution.
Here's the thing, however: Andrus is, by most accounts, at least a half-season away from being ready for The Show, and more likely a full season away. Translating minor league statistics into major league projections remains an incredibly sketchy proposition, but Andrus's 2009 CHONE projection -- which is, to my knowledge, predicated heavily on his major league equivalency (MLE), so take it with a grain of salt -- comes out to a putrid .238/.286/.312; his 2009 Bill James projection is considerably more optimistic (.272/.316/.336), but the latter are notoriously lenient with young players. Could you live with a full season of that caliber of production out of the shortstop role in 2009? Could the Rangers? Could the fans?
Beyond Andrus, there's Joaquin Arias (who I guess might be an okay stop-gap, but he still doesn't do all that much for me), German Duran (who probably doesn't have enough range for that position), and some miscellaneous free-agent options, including the seemingly unwanted Orlando Cabrera. If, however, Young were to be traded, the short-term problem would be exacerbated; the entire left side of the infield would be liquidated, and the Rangers' reluctance to employ Metcalf at third base would still be a problem.
● One last thing before collapsing into bed for a few hours and doing this all over again in the daylight: Jeff Wilson of the Fort Worth Star-Telegram wrote late Sunday evening that playing Chris Davis at third base and Hank Blalock at first base again "[wasn't] an option" according to Jon Daniels (not a surprise there), and suggested that a trade would "almost certainly have to produce a quality starting pitcher." To that latter proposition, I say ... well, good luck.
According to unnamed sources cited by FOXSports.com, the Rangers would seek a young third baseman in any trade involving Young, purportedly "creating the possibility of a deal with the White Sox, who could offer Josh Fields, or the Angels, who could offer Brandon Wood." Anaheim may well be on Young's list of teams he would waive his no-trade clause to join (Young's a native of southern California), but that remains an unlikely destination due to their status as a hated divisional rival.
We'll talk more about this soon, but in the meantime -- have at it.
Reader Comments (16)
I made this point a few weeks ago, but it seems like JD's biggest problem is that he doesn't seem to know when to do and say things at the right time. I pointed out how most of the controversy about the starting catcher position in 2008 was a result of JD's bizarre statement to the press in the winter that "Salty is our starting C." By saying that then, he not only put a dent in Laird's already questionable trade value, but also created unnecessary animosity from a usually easy-going Laird.
And now this. I find it hard to believe that JD just woke up one day and said "Hey - Elvis is going to be our starting SS this year, no matter what." Yeah - it could happen - but don't you want to see how he plays in ST, and make him earn his shot like all the other young guys? And what happens if he needs more seasoning? Or gets hurt? Then all this bad blood is completely unnecessary. What JD should have done is just proceeded ahead with Young as SS and Metcalf/Blalock/Duran duking it out in ST for the starting job at 3B. Then, once the season progresses, if guys aren't getting it done, and Elvis is rocking at AAA, THEN you approach MY with the IDEA and see what he says. I think he would go along with it if he could see the team floundering and a solution just waiting down in AAA. But now - before ST has even started?
My point is that there are way too many things that can happen between now and the start of the season to warrant this kind of damn-the-torpedoes move.
My guess is that they are really going after Sheets, and they've decided that will preclude them from signing a 3B. So, in desperation they're trying to find a 3B "in house" - and Young is the best short-term solution, offense-wise. But it all seems to ill conceived when you look at it from an ignorant fan's perspective.
Of course Michael is going to resist a position change ... at first. IMHO, it only appears to be a PR mess on the Rangers part because of the "leaking" of information on the part of MY's agent ... which is one of the things you hire an agent to do ... represent your interests. That the Rangers kept this quiet for the better part of a month speaks to the sensitive nature with which they hold this matter ... evidently, something wasn't going to MY's agent's liking, and thus the news "leaks" out.
But, given the sensitive nature of the situation, why did Nolan wait so long to inject his thoughts into the situation. Seems that all parties involved would have been better served if all five of them (Michael Young, his agent, Jon Daniels, Ron Washington ... and Nolan Ryan) had gotten together, perhaps at Michael's home in So. Cal., and laid out the teams plans ... and presented them less as an ultimatum and more as a evolutionary process ... and left things with a "take some time, and let us know how you feel after a few weeks" kind of position. And both sides should have worked out a way that, if it came to it, a trade could have been worked out to accommodate Michael without totally torching the Rangers position.
Bottom line: This should have been handled better ... by all involved.
Great job Joe. (Unrelated note, I'm now going to call you "Joe" instead of "Joey" or "Joseph". This will be the name that you'll pen your first book under)
My biggest fear in all of this is not that Young gets traded and Andrus won't be able to get the job done. There's obviously a 100% belief that he will get it done, and be pretty darn good at it too.
My concern is what kind of hit will the Rangers end up taking from John Q. Ticket-Buyer? It's not that there's ever a good time for a club to get engulfed in hot molten lava spewing rumors about someone once labeled the "Face Of The Franchise" being dealt away. But with this team about to rev up some two (or is it three? I honestly don't know) state tour promoting their product, how the hell are you going to deal with this little bundle of joy of a story sitting in your lap?
I'm with "Joe" on the stance that I love Young as a baseball player and a human being, and I'd love to see him switch gears and decide that yes, maybe he could fit in at third base for this club in the future. That being said, if this has come to a point where trading him away is what ensures a clear path for Elvis Andrus to make it onto the big league roster and be successful - so be it.
He is getting paid $12,000,000 to play baseball! Play where they tell you or go get a real job in the real world and see how you like playing 3rd base. I'm really tired of these ball players, both baseball, basketball and football getting paid unbelievable amount of money (more money in 1 year than most people earn in a lifetime) and complaining. What would he be doing if he wasn't playing baseball?
Cash, that's a very good old day syndrome post, but I can't say I necessarily disagree with you.
You should read Richard Durrett's post in the DMN blog this morning found here. He makes some really good points.
Him being upset with the club is understandable. Young is at point in his career where he has to think about himself along with the needs of the ballclub. They asked him to move once before when the club acquired Alfonso Soriano and he obliged, but you're not dealing with a young pup ballplayer who just won a Gold Glove anymore. This is a seasoned vet - one that's already changed positions once and while he's not Ozzie Smith, he's become a pretty decent fielder in a new position.
I also whole-heartedly agree with Durrett in the sense that if this club is serious about their belief of playing to contend in 2010, then go for it. This means that you've got to get Andrus in the lineup this year one way or another.
They asked him to move once before when the club acquired Alfonso Soriano and he obliged
2/25/2004 article by Evan Grant, "Unsolicited, Young walked into manager Buck Showalter's office Tuesday morning and said he wanted to move from second to short full-time"
This is becoming a common mistake on all blogs/forums etc... MY was not asked to move from second to short.
Sorry. You're right, I'm wrong. Yes, I knew that's how it happened in 2004, I promise. Richard Durrett even mentioned it in his article again this morning. I will never blog anything again.
Recomended reading Part II: This entry from Jeff Wilson of the Star-Telegram with a bunch of less disgruntled sounding quotes from Michael Young himself.
Some notables...
On his reaction: "It was shocking, to be honest with you. One thing that deserves to be noted is it wasn’t a request. It was them telling me what was going to happen. That was a fine line that I thought had been crossed."
On the December meeting with general manager Jon Daniels and manager Ron Washington: "After a while, I asked them, 'What’s going on here?' At that point, they said I’m a third baseman. If I’m going to have a career with the Rangers, it’s going to be as a third baseman."
On what he believes will happen: "I don’t know. Time will tell. They have their stance, and they have mine. We’ll see. It's gotten to be difficult. I’ve earned my job. I feel like all I’ve been my career, and will continue to be, is a team player. That’s what I want to do. But at the same time, a team player, it has to be a give and take with the player. It has to be that everyone’s best interest is at heart.
Also, let me just add, the fact that Jason always knows everything before it actually happens means one of three things to me. A. He's actually Peter Gammons and isn't telling us, B. He's some kind of powerful sorcerer with the ability to see into the future, or C. He's got a bunch of really great, and credible sources and is excellent at providing us with what he knows.
I'd like to think its A or B though. Those are more fun.
If a trade is inevitable, it's still not necessarily urgent. We can say "3B by the time we deem it necessary to bring up Elvis," but that certainly needn't be now.
My preference (as you all know ad nauseum) is to land Prado (as a potential long-term solution) or Cincinnati's Keppinger as a short-term fix, to play 3B or SS as necessary. Not too many guys can play both. That way we don't have to commit to trading or not trading MY; and if we do trade him, it could be now, at mid-season, or next year (or even in '11 if that's when EA proves ready).
But to think we have to move him or trade him before this season starts is an expensive mistake that we should avoid. It would be rushed in a market that offers cheaper options (e.g. O. Cabrera). It would be done in a year in which MY has MUCH MORE CONTROL over which teams we may engage in trade talks, and it just might be our best option to keep MY at SS for '09. It would also make EA's pre-mature season angrily scrutinized rather than patiently embraced by the fandom.
MY's not going to refuse to play SS in '09 (even if we openly plan on trading him at our greatest convenience rather than his). If anything, it will make him play with a vengeance, trying to convince us and his future suitors not to move him off Short-- the only position at which he might continue to be elected an All-Star. (1B, 2B and 3B are already reserved for Red Sox and Yankees).
For his sake, I hope he eventually embraces 3B, whether for us or another team. (Hopefully us, though, because it would be almost sad to enter the playoffs in '10 or '11 without him!) Awards and power comparisons aside, he really could excel as a fielder at 3rd, in a way that few teams experience. It's amazing how low 3B-fielding-percentages are league-wide. It's obviously difficult. I think MY could definitely raise the bar there, if he'd take this on, ... and raise his hero status in Texas even higher for the insensitivity and awkwardness he proved to endure. (I see the movie getting written as we speak...)
Again,... am I putting 2 + 2... together... or am I just stuck in my own little world of a trade proposal?
1) The Braves, had they signed Furcal, would have played him at 2nd base.
2) MY has said he'd move back there.
3) If they did, they're rumored to intend making 2B Kelly Johnson that OF bat they want (over all their current youth.)
4) (From MLBTR today)
"According to David O'Brien of the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, the Braves signed Omar Infante to a two-year deal with a club option. Troy Renck says the deal is worth $4.35MM. The club 2011 club option is for $2.5MM with a $250K buyout. I believe that would buy out one free agent year.
Infante, 27, hit .293/.338/.416 in 348 plate appearances in '08 while playing second base, shortstop, third base, left field, and center field."
(Martin Prado's roles plus CF)
5) (From a Frank Wren interview yesterday, taken from MLBTR today)
"Wren explained that the Braves have other options besides Derek Lowe, and had several things in play prior to John Smoltz leaving:
There's other guys out there that we like. I have trade proposals on my desk as we speak that would bring another pitcher to us. There's other things we can do...The trade proposal that I have on my desk - that was put in place six weeks ago."
(They have already mentioned Padilla and Millwood.)
6) They were rumored to be on the verge of signing Lowe, but are suddenly backing off.
7) They have money left after missing out on Furcal and Burnett
Voila!
My conclusion?
MYoung + Padilla + Murphy + CA$H to ATLANTA for Prado + Josh Anderson + JoJo Reyes + Charlie Mortensen (of whom we hope to salvage at least one)
(And we sign Sheets).
The more and more I think about this situation, I think the best possible outcome for both parties is to make every attempt to mend fences with Young. Obviously, explore the trade, then talk to him and his agent and explain the fact that his money coupled with diminishing range and hitting skills make him a pretty unattractive option at SS throughout the league. Obviously you don't have to be as big of an ass I just sounded, but point out the fact that no other team in baseball values him nearly as much as we do. Also continue to explain the fact that playing 3B will extend his career as I would think there is less wear and tear from playing the hot corner as opposed to SS, especially when you consider the prospects of Andrus playing SS and the range that he can cover. Just doesn't seem like there's a whole lot of options for Young unless some team makes an incredible offer for him and he chooses to waive his no trade clause.
Taking a similar point of view to Cash, my question is does MY even have a legal, contractual, CBA-supported choice in the matter? I seem to remeber a few years ago that Alfonso Soriano told the Nationals he "was not going to play outfield." And when he tried to make good on his threat by not taking the field, the club pimp-slapped him with a conduct-detrimental-to-the-team sanction, docking his salary and freezing his clock counting down to free agency. [After thinking about this I don't remeber if the Nats actually sanctioned Sori or they just threatened to do so if he didn't take the field immediately. My point works either way, though.]
Granted, MY is in a different situation contractually and interms of service time than Sori was, but the analogy still applies. What if neither side has budges, MY holds out of spring training, we get to opening day and Wash fills out the line-up card with MY at 3B, and MY refuses to take the field? Sure, this is a dooms-day scenario, but what if? Can the Rangers sanction MY like the Nats did Sori? Does a player of MY's service time and contractual standing grant him the authority to demand a trade that would indemnify him from being subject to sanctions for refusing to comply with team orders? Does MY really have the legal ability to say no in this matter, or is PR his only leverage? I don't know enough about the MLB CBA to answer any of this, and hopefully someone out there does. Short of any legal rights or remedies available to MY, I find it hard to have sympathy for anyone who, like Cash said, wouldn't sell popcorn for $12 million if told to.
I don't know the answer to your question, but I also think that things neither would nor should come down to what Soriano's came down to. The history with the team and community is too different.
If things aren't going Daniel's and Nolan's way, then I think the best resolution is to say (in our best Napoleon Dynamite tone) "Fine. Play SS, but we'll trade you at our convenience (which gets more convenient next year, when the FULL no-trade clause turns into a LIMITED no-trade clause).
A decent trade could actually help the team out of the fact that he was on his way to being a 16-million dollar Utility Infielder by 2012. So he SHOULD do for now whatever will help the team most!
The funny thing is, Michael Young DOES sell popcorn. He does windows! He slices, he dices, he even helps the kids with their homework!
The only way I see this resolving in a way that is not only NOT a PR NIGHTMARE, but IN FACT becomes a PR PLUS, given who MY has been in the past, is that NOW THAT WE (THE FAN BASE) KNOW HOW MUCH MICHAEL YOUNG DOES NOT WANT TO DO THIS...
HE DOES IT.
Then, although the fans regard Ranger brass as being in need of sensitivity training, since Nolan was included it must be excusable, so they'll let it go, and flock out to see MY at his new position, along with the 20-year-old kid, whom MY supports more loudly than all others.
AND WE ALL LIVE HAPPILY EVER AFTER.
You know, the more I think about this, the more I believe that the reason why MY got so upset and is acting so un-MY-like is because he's smart enough to figure out what's really going on here. The Rangers are simply trying to dump his salary so they can sign Ben Sheets without increasing payroll. But they have to do it in a way that saves face & doesn't run off the faithful, since MY is so popular. So they just make it look like he's not willing to be a team player, and that it's HE who has asked for the trade, not the Rangers. How can it be anything else? If you look at it that way, it all makes perfect sense.
But JD$,
if you were already paid 18 of the 80 million you had been promised, and you'd get the rest at a rate of a million per month,... (not necessarily for playing SS, mind you but) for "playing baseball" for the next five years... whether you progressed, stayed the same or declined,... wouldn't you be willing to catch, pitch, coach, practice,... and even play 3rd base?
I agree that if you are the Rangers, realizing that you could have Ben Sheets and Orlando Cabrera for the same money as MY next year, and then have Big Ben and Andrus for even less money for the four years after that, your biggest problem is figuring how to make any trade ASAP, and then sell that improvement to your fan-base.
And even if you're MY, willing to go along with a trade because you don't want to switch to 3rd, a position that will never get you into another All-Star Game, and one where your offensive production will always be viewed as "relatively low," even if you can learn the tricks of that new fielding trade, the biggest problem you have is not landing that new job where you can remain a shortstop or 2B, despite having such a lucrative contract, but telling all your fans that THAT means more to you than helping the Texas Rangers...
So you have a "fight." And the fans help break it up by separating the 2 of you (instead of inciting a riot of their own for your not keeping their favorite player, or for his not being willing to stay.
Okay, that's a cynical thought,... but maybe seeing MY "unhappy" in a way that is not the Rangers' fault is the only way we fans could accept his playing for another team. Surely you don't really make life-altering decisions because you, an employee, were TOLD to do something instead of having been ASKED!
I think we'll either see him traded under the alleged constraints of this pitiable, but "hard-to-blame-them" scenario, or we'll see how MY rises "above it all," plays 3rd, takes Elvis under his wing, and we like Michael Young even more for having... well... "shown his emotions, proving that he's human"... before proving himself to be even more altruistic than ever!
"altruistic." Nice