Lone Star Ball: An SB Nation Community

Navigation: Jump to content areas:

Around SBN: Want to help build SB Nation? We're hiring! Bar-right-arrows

Young offered contract - no details

Tiny by mtex on

Evan Grant is reporting that the Rangers have offered Michael Young a contract extension. No words on the numbers of it, yet.

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/spt/baseball/rangers/stories/022107dnsporangdate.13a930a .html

Hopefully, this all gets resolved before the end of the week, right about the time that Sosa gets there, so we have something else to talk about.

0 recs | Comment 77 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Display:

young
read that this morning, but what stuck out most to me is that he has said if a contract isn't done by the time he reports, then he wont discuss it anymore because he wants to focus on the season
Pimps be damned, it's harder out here for a Rangers fan!

by rentz on Feb 21, 2007 8:33 AM CST   0 recs

I guess they've got 24 hours then!
Make it happen!
When all else fails, there's always delusion. - Conan O'Brien

by mtex on Feb 21, 2007 8:36 AM CST to parent up   0 recs

Tough to get too excited
until the numbers are disclosed.

I'd like to see something like a 3 year extension onto the end of his current contract, and about $51 million tacked onto his current contract.  I think that would make it 5 years/$59 million or thereabouts from today.  Maybe $10 million of that a signing bonus.

"I think that Donald Rumsfeld will go down in history as one of the worst secretaries of defense in history" -- John McCain

by DJCahill on Feb 21, 2007 8:59 AM CST   0 recs

It's just hard
for me to stomach knowing that they'd be paying him 17 million for those three 32, 33, 34 year old seasons. I love the guy, we all do, but is he that good? And isn't 2009 about the time that we could see a correction on this current spending?

by zywica on Feb 21, 2007 9:10 AM CST to parent up   0 recs

You can't really look at it that way..........
it would be a 5 year $60M deal. You have to tear up the (cheap) contract he's got.......It's a renegotiation based on his "actual" performance, it happens all the time......his performance has been way, way above his pay scale for an extended period.......call it good faith $$$ or whatever......granted you'd be adding $50M and divided by 3 years, that's $17M per, but only an average of $11-$12M.

by tklawless on Feb 21, 2007 9:36 AM CST to parent up   0 recs

well
and its actually better than that.  its nice to be able to pay that 5M in 2011 rather than 2007
"I want him focused on figuring out a way to beat that lefty's ass." - RW

by ab03 on Feb 21, 2007 9:38 AM CST to parent up   0 recs

Dress it up however you want
but he's still already signed (or optioned) for these amounts.

by zywica on Feb 21, 2007 9:49 AM CST to parent up   0 recs

I don't understand that logic
If he's already under contract for $10 million for the next 2 years, and you tear it up and give him a 5 year, $60 million deal, you are giving him a 3 year, $50 million extension.

by Adam J. Morris on Feb 21, 2007 10:05 AM CST to parent up   0 recs

But, my contention is you ARE tearing up.....
the existing contract.......or you can say screw him, he's signed for cheap for the next two years. But, if you do that then the chances of signing him long term go to zero. When guy's  outperform their contracts they renegoiate their deals all the time, in all sports.

If you're saying make him play for the cheap contract he signed, then be prepared to let the chips fall where they may, and after 2008 we may have to blow it up anyway. Under that scenario MY will be gone and Tex will test FA probably no matter what we do.

by tklawless on Feb 21, 2007 1:54 PM CST to parent up   0 recs

I disagree
When guy's  outperform their contracts they renegoiate their deals all the time, in all sports.

I don't think that's the case.

In particular, I don't remember a team ripping up a player's contract and giving him more money in either the MLB or NBA in recent years.

The NFL, they do, but that has more to do with salary cap issues than anything else.

by Adam J. Morris on Feb 21, 2007 2:04 PM CST to parent up   0 recs

NFL
And in the NFL contracts are not guaranteed.

by zywica on Feb 21, 2007 2:16 PM CST to parent up   0 recs

All these contracts are stupid low
The guy is going to get absurd numbers on the open market.

Shame on you guys for playing stupid as usual.

"Longview's record low temperature for Friday morning is 20° set back in 1909...I think that will fall...we will see."<--sez weatherman.

by Sharky on Feb 21, 2007 3:17 PM CST to parent up   0 recs

As opposed to what? Your idiocy...
...which isn't an act at all?
Edwards-Obama '08

by RangerMoto on Feb 21, 2007 3:33 PM CST to parent up   0 recs

Well, the problem is
if you don't pay off a bonus for the 2 years he is under contract, he has zero incentive to do the deal.  If you want to offer him say, an additional 3 years at 12 million per, why wouldn't decide to test the market instead?

One of the reasons you do it, is because, quite frankly, our minors are bare.  I'm not particularly interested in hearing how Joaquin Arias, who can't hit in the minors, is the replacement.  Even if Arias develops with age, there is a good chance that 3B becomes a hole.

At some point, you have to lock up better than average players, because you can only fill so many holes in Free Agency.  Since our farm system appears as if it will be useless positionally for the forseeable future, I think it may be worth overpaying up to 35.

"I think that Donald Rumsfeld will go down in history as one of the worst secretaries of defense in history" -- John McCain

by DJCahill on Feb 21, 2007 10:40 AM CST to parent up   0 recs

Yeah
in theory I agree. But will Young be a better than average player when he's 33 or 34? And there's locking him up, then there's making him the highest paid player on the team and giving him what you would a pretty dominant player.

If you had any confidence that he'd be the offensive player he was in 2005 or that he'd still be playing decent defense by then, yeah. But how can you have any confidence of either of those things?

It's just A LOT of money for someone who is looking at being caught in between not being productive enough to be a plus 3B and not still being able to handle SS. Are you thinking that he will be one or both of those things?

by zywica on Feb 21, 2007 11:02 AM CST to parent up   0 recs

Would you feel better
If a lot of that money was given as a signing bonus, say $15 million, so the payouts in 3-5 were $36 million?
"I think that Donald Rumsfeld will go down in history as one of the worst secretaries of defense in history" -- John McCain

by DJCahill on Feb 21, 2007 11:13 AM CST to parent up   0 recs

What I don't want to happen
is to have an overpaid Young and no Teixeira come 2009. It's the easy road, not the smart one, and it appears to be where they're headed.

And no, I really wouldn't care how they characterize the contract unless there was so much money deferred for so long that the real value was significantly less (and as a corollary to that, the assumption that Hicks wouldn't try to use the face value as some sort of accounting gimick for how committed he was to payroll).

by zywica on Feb 21, 2007 11:24 AM CST to parent up   0 recs

Well, I think
Teixeira is not signing here regardless of what happens with Young.  I think Boras is gonna do what Boras normally does, and that is test the market.
"I think that Donald Rumsfeld will go down in history as one of the worst secretaries of defense in history" -- John McCain

by DJCahill on Feb 21, 2007 12:05 PM CST to parent up   0 recs

Yeah more than likely
What worries me about that scenario is that then you have a $17 million, poor fielding, 800 OPS having SS, and what else? The rest of your core is Kinsler, Laird, Cruz? Unless you're both able to replace Tex's bat and add something else in the mean time (prior to 2009), Young seems like a misfit on that team.

by zywica on Feb 21, 2007 12:12 PM CST to parent up   0 recs

An overpaid Young CAUSES no Teixeira come 2009
I'm reading that alot today.  

Why do you think its either/or? That doesn't make any sense to me.

We've made some mistakes in the past, granted. But that would be stupid. Really stupid.

"Sorry Mark, we broke the bank on Mikey. Not enough left in the coffers for a 975 OPS young slugger entering his prime. We'll just have to make do with a wicked Nate Gold/Andres 'Big Cat' Gallaraga tandem. You remember the Cat don't you? Rudy says it all still there."

Hicks has pulled some weakass shit in the past. Maybe I'm an optimist, but I don't see it going down that way...

I looked around the Duff boards after watching her on TRL.

by Brian Thomas on Feb 21, 2007 6:08 PM CST to parent up   0 recs

If you think I'm saying that
I'm not. I don't think that what they do with Young should have anything to do with what they offer Teixeira when the time comes. All I've said is that I don't want to look up at this time in 2009 and have lost Teixeira (which is likely however you slice it) and not replaced him, and have paid Young way too much for the next three years.

by zywica on Feb 22, 2007 12:45 AM CST to parent up   0 recs

I think that...
14M is right about what he will get per season.

by jasun on Feb 21, 2007 9:21 AM CST   0 recs

This scares me
I just can't help but think that the Rangers are about to spend $12+ million a year for the equivalent of Jimmy Rollins.

by Chris Martin on Feb 21, 2007 9:52 AM CST   0 recs

Michael Young has been a better player
albeit slightly.  
"I want him focused on figuring out a way to beat that lefty's ass." - RW

by ab03 on Feb 21, 2007 10:33 AM CST to parent up   0 recs

And...
...have you heard all the praise that his teammates constantly have for him?  Can't put a price on that.
Edwards-Obama '08

by RangerMoto on Feb 21, 2007 10:39 AM CST to parent up   0 recs

few things
  • whats wrong with rollins?
  • young is a better hitter anyway.  rollins has hit 270 on the road the past 3 season.  Young is at just over .300.
  • youngs skillset doesnt seem particularly prone to falling off a cliff to me.  he doesnt rely on speed or power.  sure the later years of an extension would be risky, but they are with any player
also, i place some value on his meaning to the franchise.  I think if you lose young and tex you lose even more attendance, barring the team actually doing well again at some point.

id like it if the rangers could keep any deal with young relatively short (as in not more like 5 years and not 7), but if they could get him for 12 million a year i hope they do.

by DSheppard on Feb 21, 2007 10:47 AM CST to parent up   0 recs

RE: few things
Nothing is wrong with Rollins.  He's a good player.

Young is a better hitter but not by a lot and Rollins adds speed and better defense.  Plus, Rollins is 2 years younger.  If you look at Young at the same age Rollins is they are extremely similar.

I agree that Young's skillset doesn't seem likely to fall off a cliff.  My problem is that his current skillset isn't worth $10-14 million a year right now and certainly not when he is 34 or 35.

I think people over-rate the value of players to fans.  If the team wins, fans show up.  If they lose, fans don't show up.  The only time I see it making a difference is with guys like Bonds/Ryan/Clemens that people come to watch no matter what else is going on.

I would much rather today's story be about the Rangers trying to extend Teixeira.  If they determined that they can only keep one then that is the way to go in my opinion.

by Chris Martin on Feb 21, 2007 10:53 AM CST to parent up   0 recs

well
i wouldnt argue against preferring to have tex signed because he just has more impact on an offense.

but you arnt talking 12-14 million per year with him.  you are talking 17-20 million.

anyway.. young is a .300 + hitting shortstop who can  knock in 100 runs and actually played above average defense in 2006.  Maybe hes not actually worth 12-14 million, but those guys arnt a dime a dozen, and if you can sign one for that i think you do it.  especially given that he has a fan connection.  ok sure that may be overrated, but its still good for the franchise to keep a key player around every once in a while when you can pay him near market value.  and if GMJ gets 10 million a year, surely michael young could get significantly over that in the free agent market.

by DSheppard on Feb 21, 2007 11:06 AM CST to parent up   0 recs

Teixeira
I see no reason why they won't be able to re-sign Young and Teixeira both.  This past offseason makes me think the league is so embarassed with money, and the Rangers would appear even more flush...the closest thing to a bad contract on the roster is Blalock's.

by hightowersmith on Feb 21, 2007 11:15 AM CST to parent up   0 recs

In this market
If Young or Rollins were available via free agency, I think they'd each get 12-25M/yr and a 5 year+ contract.

That's not to say that it would be a good idea to GIVE Young 15 mil right now. But it would be fair to say that they can get him locked up tomorrow for 10 or 11 mil per right now, it's not a ridiculous idea since they won't get that cheap a price when he actually goes on the FA market.

by JM Barten on Feb 21, 2007 4:32 PM CST to parent up   0 recs

Fat girl at the prom
Here's the bind I think JD is in.  If the Rangers lowball Young and can't resign a guy that is tremendously respected by the fans and other players around the league, what does that say to FA's?  Those players will say, man they won't even do what it takes to keep a guy they consider a leader, fan favorite, and one of their best players, they won't take care of me either.

They had to overpay Millwood and Padilla a tad (though in the current market the deals don't look too bad) to get them here.  It's easier to get hitters here, obviously, but still, the perception around the league is that the Rangers are not the first choice of free agents.

I think in that context, the Rangers are willing to overpay Young in the last 3 years of his contract, but probably won't completely break the bank on the deal.

by t ball on Feb 21, 2007 11:22 AM CST   0 recs

There is no question that
he's in a difficult situation, as much as anything because his franchise player is a Boras client. But that's why he's in the big boy seat, and there are guys who are capable of making something of the situation, as challenging as it might be, whether that means trading one or both at some point, signing one or both, losing them and replacing them with other overpiced FA, whatever.

But Daniels faced a few real hurdles when he took the promotion, a pretty depleted farm system, a slew of decent but not great players headed for FA in 2006, and this Blalock/Young/Tex mess to work out. It will take a really good GM to come out looking good.

by zywica on Feb 21, 2007 11:29 AM CST to parent up   0 recs

crossing my fingers
that we can resign both Young and Teixeira...

by t ball on Feb 21, 2007 11:40 AM CST to parent up   0 recs

Teixeira vs Young
I'm pretty sure Young won't be worth the 13-15M he will probably get in his mid 30s...

But is Teixeira going to be worth what he'll end up making? What's the highest we'd feel comfortable with?

I'm not stating an opinion, but it's something to think about.  Right now I would put Tex is the really good category, but I have a feeling he's going to be demanding "really great" money and that's certainly his potential.  I'd still like to see a 1000OPS season from him before breaking the bank on a first basemen.

by chase1971 on Feb 21, 2007 11:54 AM CST   0 recs

It can easily be argued that NO player...
...is worth $13-15 million per year, but that seems to be about average for the upper level players in 2007.  To me, Young clearly falls into that category, and even if his performance drops off when he's 34 or 35, its quite possible that $13-15 million will be considered pretty cheap for players of his caliber in 2011...

If it were my money, I'd rip up the current contract and offer around $14.5 million/year for four or five seasons, since that's what Young would probably get on the open market.  As Young has said, if the Rangers are going to negotiate with him, they need to treat it like free agency.  Anything short of that, and I fear he walks after 2008...

"Hello, win column..."

by rangersfan34 on Feb 21, 2007 12:15 PM CST to parent up   0 recs

Agreed
If you rip up the current deal and give him 5 years, $70 million, you are OK on lifetime annual average and have done the duty. Far too much worry about his capability age 33 and beyond, IMO. Remember, he is a "blue" health risk and not dependent on speed or power.  What's to not like?  

I particularly find rational comparisons to Rollins or others ridiculous.  He is who he is, he doesn't play for the Phillies, gotta consider his and the teams' cirumstances in abstraction.  The only comparisons that may matter are annual salary, and given past performance it's neutral (unbiased) to consider his pay averaged over the life span of 10 years.

"When you're riding in a time machine way far into the future, don't stick your elbow out the window, or it'll turn into a fossil."

by Ed Coffin on Feb 21, 2007 12:47 PM CST to parent up   0 recs

Personally
I don't want to extend him for 20 million a year for 3 years.  If thats my only option, I enjoy the bargain of his next 2 years for the 8 or so million, and then say good bye.
"I think that Donald Rumsfeld will go down in history as one of the worst secretaries of defense in history" -- John McCain

by DJCahill on Feb 21, 2007 1:01 PM CST to parent up   0 recs

I can understand the desire to avoid...
...the perception of a $20 million/year contract, but the reality of the situation is that Young will walk if we don't pay him fair market value (or slightly more than fair value).  He's pretty much said that several times.  If he walks, we're then put in a position where we have to significantly OVERPAY Teixeira to keep him here.  Boras would eat us alive in that scenario...  I love me some Tex, but I could easily see him and Boras demanding $25 million/year if Young isn't around.

The only way the Rangers win anything before 2010 is if we resign Young and Tex, even if the annual salary favors the player more than the team...

"Hello, win column..."

by rangersfan34 on Feb 21, 2007 1:22 PM CST to parent up   0 recs

Will the Rangers win anything
paying Young $20 million per year and with Teixeira elsewhere? That's the situation that I want to avoid.

I think that chase makes a good point in that however much better of a player Teixeira is than Young, he'll be paid like it, but at least he will be ont he upward or level curve of his career and will continue to be a quality defensive player throughout the contract.

Regardless, is a team paying out the nose for Michael Young and with no Tex going to be good?

by zywica on Feb 21, 2007 1:28 PM CST to parent up   0 recs

Of course it is
MY will make it so....

by Chris Martin on Feb 21, 2007 1:31 PM CST to parent up   0 recs

Actually, if we cant sign Young
we probably trade him, Teixeira and Millwood, replenish our barren farm system, and start rebuilding.
"I think that Donald Rumsfeld will go down in history as one of the worst secretaries of defense in history" -- John McCain

by DJCahill on Feb 21, 2007 1:51 PM CST to parent up   0 recs

That's what I was saying is the alternative.......
MY only wants what he's worth, (or maybe a tad less) but won't accept another cut-rate deal. If you don't think he's worth signing for 5/$60 then trade him at the deadline, start putting feeler's out about Tex ('cause he's gone, no matter what) in a trade and try to get a couple of major league ready guy's with a bunch of top-notch prospects and hope the pitching holds up/youngsters come on. In reality that may look better than this current offense, unless a lot goes right!

by tklawless on Feb 21, 2007 2:06 PM CST to parent up   0 recs

I'm a Ranger fan first & a MY fan 2nd
if getting value & letting him go helps the club more, so be it. I really believe Tex (his words & Boras' influence) will test FA......so like zy says we may end up with a high paid MY and no Tex. I think JD may need to explore ALL the options.

by tklawless on Feb 21, 2007 2:10 PM CST to parent up   0 recs

Replenishing a barren farm system
Hopefully this year's draft helps out.

And please don't remind me of our past ineptitude, Dan, you parade-rainer, you.

I looked around the Duff boards after watching her on TRL.

by Brian Thomas on Feb 21, 2007 2:12 PM CST to parent up   0 recs

I don't think that
Millwood has to be dumped. And I don't think that Young himself is good enough to determine whether you're in rebuilding mode or not. IMO if you lose Teixeira and can't replace him, you're in rebuilding mode with or without Young. Hell, positionally we need to rebuild even with those two.

by zywica on Feb 21, 2007 2:18 PM CST to parent up   0 recs

Yep, the rotation is stable ( for 3-4 years)
and I agree Millwood needs to stay. His contract is already looking cheap based on this past offseason and it would be nice to ONLY have to fill one (maybe two) spots with youngsters the next few years.......then they can concentrate on the position player weakness we've got coming.

by tklawless on Feb 21, 2007 2:25 PM CST to parent up   0 recs

Stable rotation
2 solid starters does not a stable rotation make.  Can we at least see a full year of McCarthy and Tejeda before we make statements like these?

by Chris Martin on Feb 21, 2007 2:31 PM CST to parent up   0 recs

we've had
many years with less than 2 stable solid starters around here.  McCarthy may not turn out to be an ace, but I think it's extremely unlikely that he turns out to be terrible.  Even if he falls far short of his potential he might still be a solid #4, and that's a good thing to have under your control for the next 5 seasons.

by t ball on Feb 21, 2007 3:23 PM CST to parent up   0 recs

What's good
is that if you can count on Millwood/Padilla/McCarthy to be decent, and they probably have about as good of a chance to sustain decency for a few seasons as any trio we've had, you do have a pretty serious prospect in Hurley to go with Tejeda as top possibilities for the other spots. That's a better combination than we've had in some time I think. Of course it would be nice for Diamond to step up.

by zywica on Feb 21, 2007 3:33 PM CST to parent up   0 recs

My thoughts
I really don't think we need to worry about MY's contract somehow getting in the way of re-signing Teixera. That won't happen if Teixera wants to re-sign here. But it's a moot point, because no way Teixera re-ups with us. As sickening as it sounds, he's probably a Yankee.

I also don't see how Young as a 33-year-old is such a scary proposition. He is not at all your typical individual. By all accounts, the guy is really special, and I'd like to see him running our clubhouse for the next 5 years. His defense is improving, and his power numbers will pick back up.

I have no idea how much impact on attendance holding on to a fan favorite has. Probably not a whole lot, because the fans that truly get Mike Young are the really hardcore ones like us, guys who find it easier to cut off an appendage than to stop loving the Rangers. I know I couldn't do it.

It's also obvious that a huge fringe benefit to having Washington here is the fact that positional free agents are not gonna have to be wined and dined.

I'm done babbling on now...

I looked around the Duff boards after watching her on TRL.

by Brian Thomas on Feb 21, 2007 1:18 PM CST   0 recs

Just playing devil's advocate
But what makes you think that the power numbers for a guy on the wrong side of 30 will pick up?

by mparks on Feb 21, 2007 1:52 PM CST to parent up   0 recs

30 is not that old
The back side of 30, as the John Connely song goes, that's the wrong side.

He was a late bloomer, he takes excellent care of himself, and is a student of the game. He also appears to be a good deal smarter than the average player.

In the 2 years previous, he hit in the low to mid-twenties. I don't think it is unrealistic to think that he could slug at those levels for the next 4 years or so (which would make him 33).

Plenty of guys have...  

I looked around the Duff boards after watching her on TRL.

by Brian Thomas on Feb 21, 2007 2:09 PM CST to parent up   0 recs

MY
If he goes back to the miracle offseason where he gained 25 lbs. of muscle, then i am all for this extension. If not...Boooooooooo!

by Longhorn on Feb 21, 2007 2:19 PM CST   0 recs

Speaking of him adding muscle
I've long thought that Young would become a 25 HR type of guy as he neared 30, and while he approached that in '04 and '05, his regression in HRs (although at the same time he added about ten 2B/3B net) was disappointing, as was his regression in OBP. Because I could even stomach paying him a lot if he became a top defensive 3B with the numbers he put up in '05, but playing a mediocre SS (and even though he improved last year, he's going to be playing a mediocre SS at best in his mid-30's) or good 3B with an 800 OPS just doesn't warrant it.

by zywica on Feb 21, 2007 2:27 PM CST to parent up   0 recs

I think we need to...
bring the Cat vs Young debates back up again.  

I'm not sure which was beated to death more...
that or the Juan Gonzalez trade.

by chase1971 on Feb 21, 2007 2:32 PM CST   0 recs

Nah.
Thanks to that trade, we only had to endure two more years of Juangina's crap.

by Athos on Feb 21, 2007 2:38 PM CST to parent up   0 recs

Question.
If the Rangers decide to let Young play out his current contract and get two more years of a good shortstop on the cheap, what will the alternatives be when Young leaves.  Realistically, what better options will be available to the Rangers at the end of Young's contract?

There seems to be a lot of people assuming that Young is going to be a mediocre player when he hits his mid-30's.  Granted, that seems to come from the same sources that said he'd never be a ML hitter so we should have kept Cat to play second base.  How many times does this guy have to prove his detractors wrong?

by Athos on Feb 21, 2007 2:37 PM CST   0 recs

What sort of numbers
do you expect from Young when he's 34 and 35? And do you expect him to be an average or better defender at SS then?

by zywica on Feb 21, 2007 2:41 PM CST to parent up   0 recs

Exactly
The point.  Sitting here and predicting is folly.  You get what you get when you get it.
"When you're riding in a time machine way far into the future, don't stick your elbow out the window, or it'll turn into a fossil."

by Ed Coffin on Feb 21, 2007 2:43 PM CST to parent up   0 recs

Come one, Z ...
... quit answering a question with a question.  I asked you first.  What are the Rangers alternatives?  And what specifically in Mike Young's makeup as a player leads you to believe he will descend into mediocrity by his mid-30's?  Does he keep himself in poor shape?  Does he drink and party too much in the offseason such that he's tearing his body down from the inside?  Has he shown no propensity for improving his performance?

by Athos on Feb 21, 2007 2:45 PM CST to parent up   0 recs

SS alternatives
I think it's pretty hard to know what SSs will become available in the next 22 months. It's obviously not an easy position to fill. But that's really an impossible question to answer in a positive or negative way because it's purely hypothetical.

As far as Young aging, I wouldn't suggest that anything about his lifestyle or approach will cause him to age poorly. I would suggest that someone with very iffy range at SS needs every edge possible, and turning 33/34/35 isn't helpful.

And the same excellent work ethic got him an 814 OPS at age 29 and 836 at age 27 (and of course his career year of 899 at 28). I don't see how you can project better numbers at 34 and 35 than at 29, his most recent season.

I really didn't intend to get into some 'don't sign Young' thing. I just think that Tex is going to be gone, and they've got to be honest about the condition the team will be in at that point. Young isn't going to be the key piece in winning a division championship in 2009 unless a lot changes and Daniels makes some really sweet trades.

I want him here. I want him to stay for his whole career just like I did Rusty and especially Pudge. But I don't get the feeling that people are being honest with themselves.

by zywica on Feb 21, 2007 3:09 PM CST to parent up   0 recs

The team in general hit poorly last season.
And I think that was in no small part thanks to Buck being in charge.  I really do expect to see improved numbers out of Young, Tex, and especially Blalock this season.

And I think that if they don't sign Young, then it will be virtually impossible to sign Tex.  I seriously doubt that Tex will think the Rangers' chances of contending are better if Young isn't on the team.

by Athos on Feb 21, 2007 3:52 PM CST to parent up   0 recs

If Young
puts up a 900+ OPS this season I'd feel better about giving him the gigantic money you guys are talking about. He'd need to at least match his defensive season from last year as well.

by zywica on Feb 21, 2007 4:27 PM CST to parent up   0 recs

Haven't really paid attention to the numbers ...
... being thrown around.  I'm not advocating paying Young $15m+ per season or anything, but they're going to have to pay him $10m+ I'm sure.  And in the current market, with the other options that are likely to be available, that really isn't a bad deal.

by Athos on Feb 21, 2007 5:27 PM CST to parent up   0 recs

Mediocrity
Even if Young could maintain his current level of play until he's 35 or 36 he still isn't worth the numbers being thrown about.  He's an average defensive player who hits for a pretty high average and that's about it.  He doesn't have great power or speed and he doesn't walk very much.  

I will be the first to admit that he is MUCH MUCH MUCH better than I ever thought he would be back in 2002 but still not a $10+ million player.

by Chris Martin on Feb 21, 2007 2:42 PM CST to parent up   0 recs

Are we
Adjudging what a $10 million dollar player is or isn't according to 2002 valuation, or what we think 2011 valuation will be?  

(I hadn't given this much though prior to now)

"When you're riding in a time machine way far into the future,