Rosenthal reports Michael Young has now requested a trade.

 

Here's the interesting part of the article:

KW would be foolish not to at least look into this. We could still aqcuire Young and be 'Young' at the same time (no pun intended). You figure you have Thome and Contreras off the books next year and you could still potentially move Dye this offseason for a young starter or even a young outfielder. I remember a few years back KW said he wouldn't aqcuire a certain guy and then aqcuired him later on in that same offseason (AJ Pierzynski).

While I won't argue the merits of this trade, I do believe Young would hit in any stadium. At this point in his career (and for the past few seasons), he's a singles, line drive type hitter. He's not the type of hitter than benefits greatly from a launching pad. He may hit a few less doubles in the Cell as the gaps are smaller than in Texas, but he'd still get a ton of hits.

Michael Young OBP in away/road games over the last three years=.338

Michael Young OPS in away/road games over the least three years=.730

 

.317/.681 (OBP/OPS) in away games for 2008

 

 

Why in God's name would you pay $15-16 million per season for a guy putting up those numbers and STARTING the season at age 32 1/2? That contract is a death sentence for the White Sox to have any type of financial flexibility moving forward in the future in the future. The Cubs and Yankees can assume that type of risk (we've gotten away with long-term deals for Konerko and Thome so far...not so much with Contreras), we can't. At least not now.

 

If we're going to spend that kind of money, we might as well give it to Manny Ramirez for 2 years and $30-40 million. Then you can trade Dye. There's other ways to get leadoff hitters other than spending that money on Michael Young OR Willy Taveras.

 

The Rangers would want Fields after bringing back Blalock and having Chris Davis at 1B? Doesn't make sense. And, if we trade Fields, who is going to play 3B? Betemit? Viciedo?

Edited January 12, 200917 yr by caulfield12

Because he's clutch!1!!!1!

While I won't argue the merits of this trade, I do believe Young would hit in any stadium. At this point in his career (and for the past few seasons), he's a singles, line drive type hitter. He's not the type of hitter than benefits greatly from a launching pad. He may hit a few less doubles in the Cell as the gaps are smaller than in Texas, but he'd still get a ton of hits.

....and instead of drawing walks he makes outs.

 

Garrett Anderson still gets a lot of hits too. Wouldn't cost $80 million either.

Edited January 12, 200917 yr by santo=dorf

If we could somehow get them to knock off about half of his remaining contract without including any top prospects like Poreda, fine, but I don't see that happening.

 

 

....and instead of drawing walks he makes outs.

 

Garrett Anderson still gets a lot of hits too. Wouldn't cost $80 million either.

 

Never said I would make this trade, but I do believe Young would hit anywhere he is traded. And I have little doubt that any team Young's traded to would be getting serious salary relief unless it's a swap of bad contracts.

Idk if anyone pointed this out yet, I didnt read every post but, Michael Young is a SS not a 2B so its not another 2B for the Sox.

A new article in the Trib from an AP writer.

 

http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/sns-a...0,4477374.story

 

Most interesting:

 

*Young's 5 yr deal is worth $62 mill, after taking into account bonus and deferred money; Which makes his contract $12.4 mill a yr;

 

*The Rangers plan on having Blalock be DH, so they'd be looking for someone to play 3b;

 

Yes, but you're extending that contract until age 38 or 39 when he's already shown signs of decline over the last three years...which is perfectly normal in the newly-discovered reality baseball world where players peak between 27-30 and decline in their 30's.

Yes, but you're extending that contract until age 38 or 39 when he's already shown signs of decline over the last three years...which is perfectly normal in the newly-discovered reality baseball world where players peak between 27-30 and decline in their 30's.

He did play with a broken finger for 2 months last year. He's still a good player. I don't know if he's as good of player as his future contract suggests.

Idk if anyone pointed this out yet, I didnt read every post but, Michael Young is a SS not a 2B so its not another 2B for the Sox.

I think most people here realize he's a second baseman playing shortstop.

 

I think Michael Young would be a very good fit on the South Side. Having watched Young play here in Dallas for the past 6 seasons, I really like him. Clutch hitter who comes up with the key base hits when needed, not for padding stats. Yes, he has been knocked for his range at SS, but at 2nd he would be much better. He would be a great Double Play tandem with Alexi. He may be a little overpriced, but he will give 100%, play through injury, and what the Sox are always looking for, a great locker room guy.

 

 

He did play with a broken finger for 2 months last year. He's still a good player. I don't know if he's as good of player as his future contract suggests.

Young was a 2nd baseman who moved to SS when the Rangers acquired Soriano, who would not give in to playing the outfield. So, being the team player, he moved to SS. But, I think he does not want to move to 3rd base now after having spent the past 5 years learning and improving at SS. If he were to change positions again, he would go back to 2nd where he is comfortable.

I take no offense whatsoever to your post. You bring up good points.

 

iamshack mentioned the short grass at Arlington - they have to keep it that short here... otherwise it would get too thick with all the water they have to use to keep it from burning up.

 

Anyway, I actually like Young just from watching him play over the past few years down here. It's interesting to me to see the opposition to getting him for the Sox as I have always enjoyed watching him play and thought he shows a lot of hustle in his play. But I'm talking intangibles, and some of the "tangible" evidence to not sign him is interesting.

 

Good conversation. Like I said, I'm 50-50 on this one - I could see the value, but I also respect what those of you who are opposed to this are saying.

 

Which if he is benefiting from the grass on offense, it has to be really hurting his defensive metrics on the other side. Is there anyone who breaks down defense #'s by road versus home? I'd be curious to see if there was a difference.

Idk if anyone pointed this out yet, I didnt read every post but, Michael Young is a SS not a 2B so its not another 2B for the Sox.

 

He played the first few years in the majors as a 2B, until Alex Rodriguez was traded to the Yankees

I've been thinking about something, and I think it is very likely we might be planning on moving Beckham to 3B. I don't think either KW or Ozzie are too high on Fields anymore and they might be viewing Vicendi (I forgot how to spell his name already) as more of a LF/1B/DH type.