Search
BBTiA Pick of the Week
  • The Texas Rangers: The Authorized History
    The Texas Rangers: The Authorized History
    by Eric Nadel
Powered by Squarespace
Sponsors
Featured Article

Baseball Time in Arlington ranks the Texas Rangers' top 25 prospects

Sponsors
« Prospect Interview Series: Martin Perez | Main | Attempting To Make (Some) Sense Of The Michael Young Debacle »
Monday
12Jan2009

Monday Evening Rangers Notes: Chaos In Arlington

Michael Young - nrrh/Flickr.comYou know, "Michael Young Trade Watch" is neither as catchy nor as fun as "Ben Sheets Signing Watch."

THE LATEST

From T.R. Sullivan's latest comprehensive update on the still-developing impasse between the Texas Rangers and shortstop Michael Young:

"I still believe there is a likelihood that we can come together on this and put it behind us," [general manager Jon] Daniels said Monday morning. "We want to have further discussions with Mike and talk to him about it. We're all preparing for Michael to be an integral part of our team going forward. That's how we're preparing and that's my expectations."

[...] "Obviously, Michael took issue with the word choice that I used, but I also wanted to put it honestly," Daniels said. "Clearly this was the direction we felt we needed to go. Rather than sugarcoat it, I thought it was the best course of action to be honest and lay it out the way we wanted it to happen.

"I completely understand his sentiments, but I don't agree with the term that we're tearing his job away from him. If anything, we're asking him to take on a more prominent role. Not necessarily moving from short to third -- you can argue that either way. We're asking him not only to play third base but also help a 20-year-old shortstop who could benefit from his experience and knowledge of the game. That's a big reason why we think it will work."

The reality of the matter is that there is blame to be assigned to all parties involved in this hardball melodrama, but Daniels, to his credit, is not exacerbating an already precarious situation with his public commentary (such as the famously short-tempered J.P. Ricciardi might have done under similar circumstances).

It is quite curious that Young cites the Rangers' negligence to present him with the choice of either moving to third base or staying put at shortstop as his primary source of agitation. Might this entire imbroglio have been averted if Daniels and company had presented their proposal from a more sympathetic angle, or perhaps approached Young with a greater degree of sensitivity in mind?

Perception is a powerful thing, after all, and while Daniels clearly doesn't believe that the front office's "request" amounted to an ultimatum, Young certainly did, and that, in turn, insinuates a breakdown somewhere in the communication process, or perhaps even a lack of foresight that he might possibly react in such a hostile manner to the idea of switching positions again.

Meanwhile, Richard Durrett of the Dallas Morning News writes that Texas believes 20-year-old shortstop Elvis Andrus is "ready" for the majors, with Scott Coolbaugh (Double-A Frisco's hitting coach in 2008) and Scott Servais (Rangers director of player development) heaping praise upon his continuously improving all-around game. Manager Ron Washington would apparently employ him in the nine-hole if he made the Opening Day roster.

Again, understand that if the Rangers are truly committed to giving Andrus an extended big league audition in 2009 (and actually follow through on that proposition), it's going to be exceedingly rough going at times; it's a foregone conclusion that he's going to struggle (though to what excent is the real question), and how quickly he makes the proper adjustments will dictate how many plate appearances he amasses as a Ranger this coming season. From a pure value standpoint, however, don't expect total production (hitting + fielding + baserunning) beyond that of what a replacement-level shortstop would provide.

YOUNG'S CONTRACT

Thanks to Richard Durrett for clearing up some of the misconceptions surrounding Young's lucrative five-year contract extension, which actually comprises $59 million in salary (and which I've reproduced here in chart form to make it more graphically appealing):

Year Salary
2009 $11 million
2010 $11 million
2011 $12 million
2012 $12 million
2013 $13 million


A total of $9.24 million is reportedly deferred: $870,000 in 2009 and 2010 and $2.5 million in 2011-2013, payable beginning in 2016. That's still an awfully difficult contract to move, however -- ESPN.com's Buster Olney suggested on Monday morning that Texas would have to subsidize a substantial portion of his contract to facilitate a trade, arguably the worst conceivable outcome of this entire fiasco. League-wide interest in Young's services is certain to remain cool, and the number of teams that Young would waive his no-trade clause to join can apparently be counted on a single hand, and it is for those reasons that I still expect Young will be a Ranger in 2009.

There is, by the way, a new poll on the right sidebar asking the very straightforward question of "Will the Texas Rangers trade Michael Young?" Thus far, the overriding consensus is no, but we'll see how that holds up.

STREAM OF CONSCIOUSNESS

Among the more salient points made by Lone Star Ball's Adam Morris earlier today was the assertion that trading Young could have significant negative implications in terms of available talent on the free-agent market wanting to come to Texas, given that Young is universally respected across the game and given that he has evidently received broad support from both former and current ballplayers for his discordant reaction; is it not possible, however, that some damage has already been inflicted as far as free agents' perceptions of the Rangers as an organization? ... So much public turmoil surrounding the team can't be productive in terms of inducing season-ticket sales ... If Andrus does make the Opening Day roster, it's certainly possible that he might log a few weeks of playing time at Triple-A Oklahoma City at some point down the line so as to prohibit him from reaching a full year of major league service time in 2009 (and thus preserving an extra year of club control) ... Surely Ian Kinsler wouldn't abdicate his throne at second base to preserve Young's status as a middle infielder, would he?

ADDITIONAL TAKES

Jamey Newberg | Mike Hindman | Adam Morris | Scott Lucas | Rob Neyer | Rich Lederer | Dave Cameron | Richard Durrett | Jim Reeves | Tim Cowlishaw

MISCELLANY

The Dallas Morning News's beat coverage of the Texas Rangers is officially no more. Effective February 1st, the Dallas Morning News will share its Dallas Mavericks and Dallas Stars beat coverage with the Fort Worth Star-Telegram, and the Star-Telegram will, in turn, supplement the News with Texas Rangers beat coverage; both newspapers will continue to cover the Dallas Cowboys independently.

Rickey Henderson (94.8%) and Jim Rice (76.4%) have been elected to the National Baseball Hall of Fame. Bert Blyleven (62.7%) and Tim Raines (22.6%) embarrassingly remain on the periphery.

Reader Comments (8)

I would think the LAST thing the Rangers want to do is change both the positions of Young and Kinsler. Kinsler has good range at 2B, though Young's would be subpar. Also, I believe Young to have the stronger arm and clearly the more consistent glove. While Kinsler's bat makes more sense at 3B as well as Young's at 2B, it just doesn't make sense defensively.

January 13, 2009 at 3:36 AM | Unregistered CommenterRobert Bolyard

Well, you wouldn't think so, but that isn't the case according to the above article Reeves:

Ryan reached out to Young on Friday and even offered to let him move back to second base, if he preferred, which would mean uprooting Ian Kinsler and shifting him over to third. But Young refused, saying he didn’t believe that was fair to Kinsler, either, who has worked hard to improve as a second baseman.

So because Young doesn't want to move to third base, the Rangers offered to give him Kinsler's job instead? What?

The more that comes out about all of this, the more you get the sense that Texas saw absolutely none of this coming and foresaw no issues arising when it came to approaching Young. That obviously hasn't been the case.

January 13, 2009 at 8:42 AM | Registered CommenterJoey Matschulat

Management has to take the stand with MY, and he should play 3B. What is going to happen in the outfield when Borbon is ready etc. You can't ask every player, and if they're not willing trade them. You're their boss right? MY still has a job playing baseball right?

On another note, I really wanted Tim Raines and Rickey Henderson to go into the hall together. They are the best two leadoff hitters in their eras if not in all the history of baseball.

Blyleven and Raines need to get in next year, but I don't see Raines getting in with so little votes this year. I think Roberto Alomar is a first ballot guy next year.

January 13, 2009 at 9:22 AM | Unregistered CommenterSean

J,

Good work on getting everything together in one place, I've been running from website to another this morning trying to track this info down, so thanks for compiling it for us. I think what we are seeing is the 8 year old on Christmas who wanted the blue bike but got a red one. Michael Young, if he is the team player we have all seen him to be, will eventually back down (hopefully him and JD have a pow wow on the way the whole situation was handled) and be the third baseman on Opening Day. I think this is more a product of the Free Agent Market, his declining skills, and the economic state of MLB, than anything. So get on your red bike, Mike, and realize that you are overpaid and over appreciated here, and we will be more than happy to continue doing both if you are on the hot corner in April.

January 13, 2009 at 9:29 AM | Unregistered CommenterRanger Floppy

You know, that quote from the Reeves article has me convinced that the Rangers aren't going to trade Young. Well, that and this latest tidbit from Buster Olney today:

_______________________________________________________________

"To trade Young, the Rangers likely would have to eat a huge chunk of his contract and accept a deal that probably would not yield topflight prospects.

Put it this way," one GM said. "If the Rangers offered up Michael Young for free -- with that contract, I don't think there would be any takers."

Said another GM: "Good luck moving that contract.".
_________________________________________________________________

Doesn't sound like Young is going anywhere anytime soon. The Ranger front office has to know that, plus it seems that their plan was to have Young covering 3B for the next 5 years. From what I've read over the past few days, it looks like to me Young is indeed simply throwing a hissy fit over moving off SS (which, as mentioned by Michael Gleason in yesterday's thread, is the only position Young will still be considered and all-star, or even a plus player offensively) - I think Young's trying to use his untradeable contract status to cow the Rangers into giving him what he wants, myself. We'll see who blinks first, but I've got a feeling this little standoff could go on for awhile longer (after all, it's apparently been going since December already...)

What a mess.

PS - Joey, how do you use the HTML code to blockquote something in the middle of your post without it blockquoting the rest of it as well?

January 13, 2009 at 3:23 PM | Registered CommenterJon Page

Here's the entire selection from Olney as mentioned by Jon (sorry for being absent most of the day -- first day of spring semester):

Many rival executives and even some agents have little sympathy for Young, and some are flat-out appalled by his response. "The guy is well-compensated by the Rangers, and the Rangers are asking him to make a change that they think is good for the team," one executive said. "They should tell him, 'You're unhappy? OK, would you like to void your contract?' And of course the answer would be no."

Said another official: "What a joke. It's all about him, and not about the Rangers."

There is unanimity among executives I spoke with Monday on this point: It will be very, very difficult for Texas Rangers general manager Jon Daniels to arrange a suitable trade of Young because of his enormous contract. But Young's deal is loaded with deferred money, which diminishes the real value of the contract.

[...] To put this contract in perspective in the current market: Orlando Hudson is a free agent. He is not in Young's class as a hitter but is an excellent defensive player and at 31 is a year younger than Young. So if Young is a Grade A player, Hudson is a B-plus/A-minus type of guy -- and there is a perception among some executives that Hudson would be fortunate to get two years and $20 million this winter. But the real value of Young's deal is $62 million.

To trade Young, the Rangers likely would have to eat a huge chunk of his contract and accept a deal that probably would not yield topflight prospects.

Put it this way," one GM said. "If the Rangers offered up Michael Young for free -- with that contract, I don't think there would be any takers."

Said another GM: "Good luck moving that contract."

There is some question among rival executives about how much production Young would generate outside the bandbox in Arlington, where his OPS in the past three seasons has been 100 points higher than it has been on the road.

And, fair or not, the idea that Young -- who has had a pristine reputation in the game -- is balking at a position change raises doubts about what kind of employee he will be in the last years of his career. "I'm curious to see whether Nolan Ryan (the Rangers' president) comes out and says something about this," an AL GM said. "He's all old-school, and this can't be sitting well with him."

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/blog/index?entryID=3829374&name=olney_buster

I've seen it suggested that perhaps Texas could stick Young on irrevocable waivers and see if anybody would take him (ala Manny), but that's not going to happen in a million years.

Jon -- you should be able to throw [blockquote] and [/blockquote] around the selection in your posts and have it work (replacing the brackets with the standard HTML arrows which apparently don't want to appear in the body of this comment). Sorry that the commenting interface isn't quite as user-friendly as LSB's yet -- perhaps Squarespace will improve that facet of their system at some point in the near future.

January 13, 2009 at 3:41 PM | Registered CommenterJoey Matschulat

Thanks Joey - I didn't know you had to put that dash in the second bracket, but I've got it figured out for future reference. I suck at internet a little less now! ;)

January 13, 2009 at 3:59 PM | Registered CommenterJon Page

MY's trade-exploration-request is so Peavy-ish (hard to sell AND further limited to only a few teams-- like trying to sell downright decent lemonade for $4-per-cup from our driveway on a dead-end street) that it almost seems to have been designed to test the market. ... As if it were the Rangers' and MY's mutual way of finding out if there's an opportunity out there, whereby he could remain a shortstop (or play 2nd w/o displacing his friend Ian).

Otherwise, the next strategy is ... Don't do anything!...Just have MY play 3rd. Pencil him in from Day 1 of ST.

I like it.

We've got our 3B, and we have a battle between Andrus and Arias to look forward to. (And if anyone wants to please this Ranger fan, you all know there's a certain back-up SS/3B in Atlanta that would make a great birthday present ...in March)

So let's just treat it as official: ("Test. Test...") "MY is our NEW 3rd BASEMAN!"

Thank you. Thank you very much.

Now we can get back to work... on our last step toward the future: Let's see a battle between Golson and Borbon for CF! (Hey, that leaves Murphy or Byrd available for a certain SS/3B in Atlanta...) Let's see Max for a year before Smoak pushes Davis into the DH role, crowding out one of our DH/C's !

That means trading Hank.... for example, Hank & Padilla for Liz, (and Sheets money).

I'm excited again!

Let the last wave of rebuilding begin!...

Play 'em!

January 14, 2009 at 1:39 AM | Unregistered CommenterMichael Gleason

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.

My response is on my own website »
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Post:
 
Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>