Goatriders of the Apocalypse

Theriot Haters Take Note

Michael Young is asking to be traded.

The so-called "Gold Glove" shortstop has been told (not asked) by Rangers management that he will play 3rd henceforth, in order to give his current position to a 20-year-old defensive whiz.  In a typical display of player entitlement, Young figures that he has already changed positions once for the good of the team (moving in 2004 to short to enable the Rangers to play newly acquired Alfonso Soriano at second, and How YOU Doin'?), and he has had enough, it appears.

Whether you agree with Young's stance against the long-standing ineptitude by his current masters, or whether you think a man in the early stages of a $60MM contract should do what it takes, fact is, he plays shortstop. Fact is, many of us on this here site and elsewhere in Cub Fan Universe believe that our shortstop is in the need of an upgrade, upgraaaade, gimmegimmegimme an upgrade! 

Fact is that the Rangers are pitching poor, as they have always been, and like the Rockies and anyone else that plays in a bandbox, the future success of the Rangers depends on the over-development of their pitching corps. Fact is that we have several pitching prospects of various levels, from the raw to the experienced, available for trade.  And we would have even more if MacFail would ever quit playing with his Tinkertoys long enough to send us Garrett Olson for Felix Pie already.

Fact is that Young, like Jake Peavy, has a no-trade clause and has the right to dictate to the Rangers where he would like to go.  Fact is, the North Side of Chicago is at the moment a Destination of Choice for many players, especially those who would like to play shortstop and see an incumbent with limited range and minimal pop in his bat, who would be better off at second base anyway.

Think about how swell it would be to see Young in the two-hole, and Aaron Miles stuck in a hole with Buffalo Bill handing him down lotion in a basket?  I heart Michael Young, his latest stance aside, and I'm sure you all will tell me what YOU think, which of course is the purpose of this here portal-o-fun.

So, first Pie-for-Olson, then Olson, Hart, and one of the "DeRosa Prospects" for Young?  Maybe two of the DeRosa Prospects, make Nolan Ryan feel like he's pulled a fast one on us?  THIS would make me feel like the DeRosa trade was not in vain.

Of course, there's always the money.  Come On Already, Sam Zell.  SELL THIS EFFIN TEAM ALREADY, YOU WITHERED UP PUPSTICK!!!  You're jackin' around with my mortality, you real-life Mr. Burns wanna-be.  Give it to somebody who wants to win ballgames, and you can go back to doing what you do best, which is altering the size of the page of your newspapers in order to achieve maximum pleasure when you roll one up, rubber band it, then fenestrate yourself with it.

Michael Young

I wouldn't mind having Michael Young aboard HMS 2009 Cubbies.

He doesn't have an .800 OPS.

He doesn't have an .800 OPS. Are we sure we want to throw an extra ten million dollars at the shortstop position, just to get someone different from Ryan Theriot?

I'd rather use the $10MM or whatever it is to upgrade the pitching staff. Couldn't Ben Sheets be had on a two-year deal for this type of money? Sure, he's injury prone, but if we don't have to give up Marshall, then we have a handful of spot starters available.

Z-Sheets-Demp-Lilly-Harden? Or Young over Theriot?

Also

The Rangers want a young third baseman in any deal. And we need Vitters to ship to Whale's Vagina. And we also don't need Mike Young.

I have lost hope

on the Peavy deal EVER happening, to be honest.

Would you rather have

Would you rather have Michael Young for $16MM over the next 5 years, or Lowe for $14 or 15 over the next 3? Or Ben Sheets for $10-12 over the next 2?

Also, neither Lowe nor Sheets would cost trade pieces.

Lowe turned down a 16 mil

Lowe turned down a 16 mil per year already but Sheets could be had for 10-12

I think he turned down 30

I think he turned down 30 over 3 from the Mets. I think he'd take 14 or 15 to sign, but also really wants a fourth year.

you are correct sir, it

you are correct sir, it wasnt 16 mil. he turned down a 3 year 36 mil contract. boras wants 4 years 64 mil which he is not going to get from anyone. so he could probably be had for 3 years 13-14 mil plus a team option for 15-16 mil. still a little much for a guy who will be 36 years old in June. if we have to sign another free agent starter id prefer Sheets at 2/20 plus an option for a third year at 12 mil.

While it would be nice to

While it would be nice to have Young, the discussion is unfortunately academic.

MLB.com's reporting Hendry's close to signing Takahashi to a one-year deal to bring another Japanese player to the team to help Fukudome and bring a lefty to the pen. Then Marshall could potentially move into the rotation.

It's such a patchwork solution that it really looks like the coffers are empty, and that pitching right now is the priority.

It would be awesome to have Young, though.

love it!

I live close to the Rangers and though I love having him on the Texas Rangers, I would love it more if he were a Cubbie! I'd love to see him in the blue pinstripes. What an incredible addition that would be to the club!

Michael Young's on the down slope of his career...

...and was never a good defender, in spite of his laughable Gold Glove award.

Then there's his contract - $16 million annually!!! To 2013!!!!!! This is the WORST IDEA EVER.

Hendry will do ONE more big thing

and it will require somebody's bad contract. It will either be Peavy's or Young's. One of the two. Which one do you prefer, because one of the following will happen.

Peavy has a MUCH greater

Peavy has a MUCH greater chance of being worth his contract.

fangraphs

Right, fangraphs prettymuch put 2 to the temple on this idea and mlbtraderumors doesn't even mention the Cubs as a potential suitor. This would be a pretty poor use of resources for +1 WAR.

Jesus Christ

I love all you people (Colin included) that do not factor in any human element whatsoever.

Milton Bradley led the AL in OPS last year. If you ask 1,000 baseball people who'd they'd rather have on their team, Michael Young or Milton Bradley, 999 of them would tell you Young. Why? Because he's a better baseball player, even if his WAR or VORP says otherwise. Numbers are not the whole story, they never should be, and I am pretty sure that all the members of the Phillies do not have exemplary stats for the 2008 season. But they get big shiny rings in April, don't they?

What makes you think Young

What makes you think Young is a good guy? The only reason the rumor of being shipped out is being floated is because Young is refusing to switch positions. He sounds selfish to me. In his prime he was good, but Young doesn't seem worth much now and seems pretty selfish.

That being said, again, nobody has ever called Bradley a bad teammate. Why do you think baseball people wouldn't want Bradley? If you want to talk non-stats, how about the fact that Bradley seems super-competative and firey and wants to win more than anything else. It seems that he has the best human elements required to win a championship.

Bringing the Phillies into

Bringing the Phillies into this was a silly move. Victorino, Werth, and Utley, just to name a few, are among the top undervalued players in the league. Fangraphs says Utley's performance last year was worth about $36MM, and Victorino and Werth were in the $15MM range. That's not "competitiveness," or "being a good teammate." That's straight up production, identifiable through statistical analysis.

And you're also being completely ignorant when it comes to Young's "human element." His demand to be traded must be counted against his character. Even A-Rod moved from short to third!

Finally, WAR and VORP aside, Young is just not worth $16MM. Even if you're skeptical of most statistics, don't you think OPS is worth something? Do you think it's wise to pay $16MM to an aging shortstop that won't hit above an .800 OPS? Not to mention the boost he's gotten over the years from playing in Arlington; check out Young's home/road splits. Or don't, if you hate math and logic.

To clarify, I'm not actually

To clarify,

I'm not actually livid over this conversation. I just write intensely. I think you're a swell guy, Rob.

Fine

This is a pretty retarded point you're making to begin with on a lot of levels, but we've been down this road before, haven't we, gritmaster?

1) Which 1,000 'baseball people' are we talking about? Sounds like you're referring to 1,000 crusty newspaper columnists who take great pride in voting for Matt Williams to the HOF instead of Rickey Henderson. That guy, I have no doubt would build a team out of Michael Young types. He'd spend every postgame lamenting Young's ASG heroics with over the top hyperbole.

2) What is it that makes you think Michael Young is better than Milton Bradley? The fact that those crusty writers gave him a BS Gold Glove? The fact that he's great in the late innings of ASGs? His rapidly declining skillset at one of the most athletically challenging positions? Are you the kind of guy who when the Brewers signed Trevor Hoffman, noted that he's the all-time saves leader, like that remotely matters to his '09 performance? If we're talking about 'character,' it seems as though you could make a case that they're both flawed but it's been noted by many that Bradley is a good teammate, so I'm not sure what human element you're talking about.

3) Forgetting about Milton Bradley for a second, have you actually compared Young and Theriot? Absent SLG, Theriot is just plain a better player. He hit for a higher average, gets on base WAY more, walks more, and strikes out less. Even in his one advantage, Young's SLG was still good for only 19th best in MLB last year. Theriot is younger, cheaper and a better defender. But sure, you're human elements analysis is very thought provoking.

4) As for the '08 Phillies, about a 30 second scan of fangraphs shows that 6 of their starting 8 offensive players were in the top 30 or so of win values. I'm just sayin'.

5) In the movie, "The Waterboy," Adam Sandler explains Astrologers to Vicki Valencoat in a way that I think really illustrates what analysis you're bringing to the table, which is about on par with what you might see on your average NFL pregame show. "Maybe by keeping her predictions vague and generalized, you have less of a chance of finding out she's a phony."

Maybe Michael Young gives super motivating clubhouse speeches which the Rangers have used on many occasions to snatch victory from the jaws of defeat. If so, that certainly justifies a $62M expenditure over the next 5 years.

Keep up the great work!

Haha, "The Waterboy" was a

Haha, "The Waterboy" was a funny movie. And it was quoted on Desipio after we got swept by the Dodgers.

OH NOOO, WE SUCK AGAIYN!!!!!!!!

The loss of D-Ro

While Michael Young would be a great upgrade, let's not forget about the huge contract he has. Moving D-Ro was a contract dump - obviously monetary issues in regards to the new ownership situation came into play. Bringing in Young would make matters worse and lessen the likelihood of getting Jake Peavy from the Padres.
As for the moving D-Ro - we all loved stroking him every chance we got, but let's not forget that he was injury prone and we got 2 injury free years from him in his prime and probably his two career years when he hangs them up.
Take a look at Jeff Blauser - in 1997 he hit .308 and had 90 RBIs and 17 HRs for the Braves at 31. He then signed with the Cubs that offseason for $4 mil a year and managed to hit near the Mendoza line. He was out of baseball after the '99 season at 33. This shows how fast a decline can happen in the 30s... Let's hope D-Ro has a good year in Cleveland - but my bet is that it will be more like Blauser w/ the Cubs. A bust.... good for Hendry to build our farm system and potential get pieces for future trades.

Fact is...

Fact is, this article says 'fact is' way too much.

Chicago Tribune's Chicago's Best Blogs award