Young Close to Extension

by hurley325 on Feb 25, 2007 12:59 AM CST

http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20070225&content_id=1815020&vkey=news_mlb&fext=. jsp&c_id=mlb

Looks like it is a 5 year deal that would keep him here through 2013 at about $15 mil a season after 2008.

Sullivan also says that the basis for the deal is Utley's contract.

The deal could get done this week.

0 recs | Comment 54 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

So now word is leaking out?

That's not good.

Edwards-Obama '08

by RangerMoto on Feb 25, 2007 12:57 AM CST 0 recs

Bad deal

Paying $15 million a year for Young's age 32 through age 36 seasons is a bad deal for the Rangers.

by BurntOrange on Feb 25, 2007 1:11 AM CST 0 recs

Gotta

do what you gotta do...

Without him, we are in trouble...

"He just gave me a 10-minute hug," Michael Young, being greeted Wednesday by Washington

by miles on Feb 25, 2007 1:13 AM CST up 0 recs

That kind of thinking

Is exactly what puts you into a payroll bind and gets you in trouble.

I would rather turn it over to Arias in 2009 than give Young a 5-year, $75 million contract for his age 32 through 36 seasons.

by BurntOrange on Feb 25, 2007 1:25 AM CST up 0 recs

just going to

pretend you didn't mention that name for replacing one of the best hitters of the game...

You don't just go throwing money at people, but Young is a cornerstone of our franchise.

Thank about our offense without him, its kind of scary... I think he will hold up for a long time, he takes care of his body.

36 is the new 29...

"He just gave me a 10-minute hug," Michael Young, being greeted Wednesday by Washington

by miles on Feb 25, 2007 1:42 AM CST up 0 recs

Burnt Orange is a lost cause

For ever supporting resigning a Ranger if he cant get behind this.

You might as well forget it.

Shocking news flash, Britney Spears is stupid.

by Sharky on Feb 25, 2007 2:53 AM CST up 0 recs

Michael Young is a fine player, a much better player than I thought he would turn out to be. However, to say he's one of the best hitters of the game is stupid. His career OPS is less than .800, playing in a hitters' park for his entire career.

I just hope this turns out to look more like the Craig Biggio contract than the Jeff Bagwell contract.

by BurntOrange on Feb 25, 2007 8:08 AM CST up 0 recs

Well

Are you more an advocate of waiting another year, Burnt? I can see the reasoning there, just getting a better idea of whether the player will decline.

But I don't agree, because I do think we're dealing with a new market. ARod and Manny are both viewed to value contracts, for example.

If you wait, the term of the extension would probably stay about the same. Young is a talented enough player to refuse less than a 4- or 5-year extension. He'd get that on the FA market.

So if you don't sign him now, you wind up signing him for a year later (ie, his age 37 year). Otherwise he pushes away from the table, I have to think.

Even the Young doubters should be leery of outright losing the guy (and I say this with the belief there'll be room in the budget for Teixeira). Arias hasn't proven himself.

by hightowersmith on Feb 25, 2007 9:00 AM CST up 0 recs

Incredible deal

That's an absolute pittance compared to what Young would earn as a FA. Which would probably be about 25m per.

Shocking news flash, Britney Spears is stupid.

by Sharky on Feb 25, 2007 2:39 AM CST 0 recs

$25 million/year?

Sharky, I don't think you have any concept of what things are worth. Maybe you were kidding...I don't know.

By the way, Republican Debacle: 3/14/00

by Dustin on Feb 25, 2007 2:20 PM CST up 0 recs

I th

I think that yall are forgetting the fact that in 5 years $15 million for a SS will sound like a bargain.

I like you, I like baseball!

by RangerMack on Feb 25, 2007 2:39 AM CST 0 recs

You'll be able to get

Royce Clayton for that price.

Maybe.

Shocking news flash, Britney Spears is stupid.

by Sharky on Feb 25, 2007 2:41 AM CST up 0 recs

that was funny.

by t ball on Feb 25, 2007 12:26 PM CST up 0 recs

exactly

sure i dont like giving that kind of cashto a player for years where he will be that old, but after this years fa market, 15mil for young wont sound too bad in a few years.

Pimps be damned, it's harder out here for a Rangers fan!

by rentz on Feb 25, 2007 6:57 AM CST up 0 recs

good deal or bad deal im still happy

sorry i just dont care

but yeah, if it really is 15 mil thats too much, but i cant say no to signing michael young.

i understanding the reasoning but im not going to lie and say i dont like it just because thats the logical decision. i cant say no to signing michael young.

sorry if thats the kind of thinking that ruins franchises...

by DSheppard on Feb 25, 2007 2:54 AM CST 0 recs

I'm pretty much with you

Just do what it takes, as long as it's not insane.
I still think they should pay him more up front, and then have it diminish to around 8 or 9 towards the later years.
Pay for his value now, and pay for his value later.
Plus, who wouldn't want to get their money NOW?

Troy I.

by tdi1985 on Feb 25, 2007 9:37 AM CST up 0 recs

Because......

If you pay him less now and more later it actually is a much better deal for the franchise when you consider time value. Paying more up front is not a good idea at all.

by bdavison94 on Feb 25, 2007 12:55 PM CST up 0 recs

good....

if we lock up young i just hope theres an option for a sixth year.. I honestly dont think that the salaries are going to get out of whack like everyones predicting. Its going to come back down at some point. I mean its not like we are paying 20 mil a year for young. Think of some players making 15 mil a year. are they in youngs league? how bout 20 a year? Sorry but i cant think of any so seriously list some, cause overall i think 15 mil is a steal for someone of his calaber.

by NYTXFAN on Feb 25, 2007 6:45 AM CST 0 recs

PECOTA - MORP

It only goes to 2011, but here are it's breakdowns of his worth:

MORP
2007 - 21.2 million
2008 - 20.1 million
2009 - 19.6 million
2010 - 14.8 million
2011 - 14.8 million

Here's a definition of MORP in case you are wondering:

"Marginal Value Above Replacement Player, as introduced in this article. MORP is modelled based on the actual behavior of recent free agent markets, and accounts for non-linearity in the market price of baseball talent (e.g. teams are willing to pay more for one 6-win player than two 3-win players).

As listed in a player's PECOTA card, a player's MORP includes the major league minimum salary of $380,000 for 2007. Further, in a player's Five-Year Forecast, we assume salary inflation of 8% per year through 2010 (EXCEPTION: a player's Peak MORP does not include the minimum salary or the inflation adjustment.)
For 2007, a player's MORP is estimated as follows:
1200000*(WARP^1.5) + 380000"

by rangeressary on Feb 25, 2007 6:58 AM CST 0 recs

one worry

IF this is true, and they are sinking 15mil per year into MY, that probably is not a good sign for resigning tex. I dont see hicks giving young 15mil, yr, then turning around and giving tex what would likely be more than that.

Pimps be damned, it's harder out here for a Rangers fan!

by rentz on Feb 25, 2007 6:59 AM CST 0 recs

Very True

And Tex would provide much more value to the team over the life of a contract, than Young. Of course, I don't know if these contracts are mutually exclusive. Still I'd rather see Tex a long-term Ranger than Young.

by Excel Hearts Choi on Feb 25, 2007 8:11 AM CST up 0 recs

Young and Tex

If the Astros could afford both Biggio and Bagwell, the Rangers can afford both Young and Tex. I think it's just a matter of whether some other club moneywhips Tex when he hits free agency.

by RCCook on Feb 25, 2007 8:22 AM CST up 0 recs

Biggio and Bagwell

And we see how well the Bagwell contract and, to a lessor extent, the Biggio contract worked out for them.

Not only were they bad contracts, but the owner's continual meddling and insistence that the popular Biggio stay in the lineup cost them one of the best general managers in baseball.

by BurntOrange on Feb 25, 2007 8:34 AM CST up 0 recs

Biggio and Bagwell

The difference in those contracts is that Biggio was 35-36, and Bagwell 33, when they received those deals. Young just turned 30. Teixeira will be a free agent at 28 if he's not re-signed.

I'm not sure giving Young 5/75 for his age 32-36 seasons is a wise idea either, but I think it will work out better than the Biggio and Bagwell deals.

by RCCook on Feb 25, 2007 8:45 AM CST up 0 recs

Biggio

Biggio's deal was only for three years, though, and was for his age 35, 36, and 37 seasons. I think it's pretty comparable to Young's deal.

Teixeira is an entirely different ballgame, due to how young he will be when he's eligible for free agency.

by BurntOrange on Feb 25, 2007 12:10 PM CST up 0 recs

Your theory presupposes that Hicks and Daniels

are dumbasses.

I'm quite sure they are both well aware that Teixera is a much more valauble player than Young. They have 2 perceived franchise players that they'd like to lock up. Obviously, only one of the players shares that interest.

While I'm not thrilled w/ this contract from the club's standpoint, don't you think is better to lock 1 of the 2 "cornerstones" up now, even if he is the lesser of the two, gaining a little roster certainty, than wait till FA time for both of them?

This either/or viewpoint would only make sense to me if both players had said they were interested in contract extensions.

Sammy Sosa is a shower-sidling meat-gazer.

by Brian Thomas on Feb 25, 2007 11:16 AM CST up 0 recs

Good news

This makes me happy. It's probably overpaying, but it's not too bad. I think Teixeira is going to take 8 years/$150 million at least.

It's Coagulicious!

by trza on Feb 25, 2007 9:03 AM CST 0 recs

I think you might be about 25 mil. short

And if I were him, I'd be looking for a 5 year contract w/opt outs...

Sammy Sosa is a shower-sidling meat-gazer.

by Brian Thomas on Feb 25, 2007 11:01 AM CST up 0 recs

and

the rangers should be giving him that kind of money. shit guys we can afford it. come next year, we wont be looking for two or three starting pitchers. isnt it great to finally have the feeling that our pitching might be stable. our bullpen has good depth. I mean next year, we might just be looking for a center fielder, and maybe some depth. if we can sign tex long term, i dont think it will be a burden to our team. even our starting pitching has a little depth with a couple of young studs developing just fine. curious though, is diamond going to be a starter or is he gonna be our closer of the future? if a starter whats he projected to be?

by NYTXFAN on Feb 25, 2007 9:22 AM CST 0 recs

Great Deal

$15 mil a year for the best shortstop in baseball? Hell yeah.

Rangers in '07. Obama in '08.

by ghtd36 on Feb 25, 2007 11:06 AM CST 0 recs

Young is the best SS in baseball?

by zywica on Feb 25, 2007 11:09 AM CST up 0 recs

Better than Young

Jeter
Reyes
Guillen
Tejeda
ARod if he was still playing there

Anybody else I am missing?

by Chris Martin on Feb 25, 2007 11:52 AM CST up 0 recs

Young

He's not the best SS in baseball but he is pretty damn good. Considering we are not increasing his money for the next two years, I think this isn't bad.

It's Coagulicious!

by trza on Feb 25, 2007 12:18 PM CST up 0 recs

Yah...

Rob can definitely pick it...

by hightowersmith on Feb 25, 2007 12:21 PM CST up 0 recs

LOL

First time I've seen that go the other way.

When all else fails, there's always delusion. - Conan O'Brien

by mtex on Feb 26, 2007 9:56 AM CST up 0 recs

I don't have the energy,.........

but 1/2 of those guys don't hold up.......I'll let you guess which.

by tklawless on Feb 26, 2007 6:42 PM CST up 0 recs

I could guess

But I will just pussy out of it like you did.

Milk, milk, lemonade, around the corner fudge is made.

by Chris Martin on Feb 26, 2007 7:23 PM CST up 0 recs

Win Shares vs 2006/07 offseason contracts...

I think that if you compare this contract to each of the other contracts in which a positional player was signed to a deal of 10 million or more per year this past offseason, it is clearly one of the better deals out there. Simply, we could have a roster full of cheap players, or get marginal improvement in quality of roster but only at significant costs. Those are really the only two options. Given that we will probably be scratching our heads at even more outrageous contracts next offseason, this deal should be done.

I have compared below cost in millions, per win share over the past three years, of all the big positional player deals from this offseason, assuming the following MY deal:

Mike Young
30 years old
78 win shares last 3 years
Assume 5 years, 15 mil per
0.57 mil per year per win share

The probably better deal:
Chase Utley
26 years old
55 win shares last TWO years (since he wasn't a regular 3 years ago)
7 years, 14 mil per
0.5 mil per year per win share

The possibly equivalent deal:
JD Drew
31 years old
68 win shares last 3 years
5 years, 14 mil per
0.62 mil per year per win share

The MUCH worse deals:

Gary Matthews Jr:
32 years old
45 win shares in last 3 years
5 yrs, 10 mil per
0.66 mil per year per win share

Carlos Lee:
30 years old
73 win shares last 3 years
6 years, 17 mil per
0.69 mil per year per win share

Aramis Ramirez
28 years old
64 win shares last 3 years
5 years, 15 mil per
0.70 mil per year per win share

Alfonso Soriano
31 years old
62 win shares last 3 years
8 years, 17 mil per
0.82 mil per year per win share

by PatrickWalz on Feb 25, 2007 11:10 AM CST 0 recs

Thanks for that

it confirms what my gut tells me -- that we are not yet really accepting what the current market is, and will be in the years to come. These numbers all still sound outrageous, but that's the price of playing ball, so to speak, these days.

I am one of those that thinks being sentimental in re-signing players is definitely a bad idea. But I grudgingly think that Young at $15 million, while being more than I want the Rangers to spend, is not outrageous or even unreasonable.

by t ball on Feb 25, 2007 12:25 PM CST up 0 recs

Booooooooooooo

this is not good. Unless Hicks opens up his pockets for everyone else and suddenly wants to spend like the yanks and sox, this is not good at all...

by Longhorn on Feb 25, 2007 11:39 AM CST 0 recs

contract

I think it's a little amusing everyones getting worked up over this and it isn't even official.

Pimps be damned, it's harder out here for a Rangers fan!

by rentz on Feb 25, 2007 12:24 PM CST 0 recs

This kills me.....

I can understand not doing back flips over this deal but geez. This is a good deal for both sides. I guess that's why the mixed reaction. In a true win win neither side should be all that happy.

by bdavison94 on Feb 25, 2007 1:02 PM CST 0 recs

yeah

That's pretty much the way I see it. It's probably a reasonable deal, and about what Young would get on the open market.

It's Coagulicious!

by trza on Feb 25, 2007 1:24 PM CST up 0 recs

Why shouldn't "both sides be HAPPY"?

Funny nowadays how you can't be happy unless somebody gets f#cked over....Guess that means the Rangers have been doing cartwheels over Youngs last contract. Well, it's payback time....

by tklawless on Feb 26, 2007 6:37 PM CST up 0 recs

You know what Reese Bobby says

Its the fastest who gets paid, and the fastest who gets laid.

by TexGoesYard on Feb 25, 2007 2:47 PM CST 0 recs

thanks

Sammy Sosa is a shower-sidling meat-gazer.

by Brian Thomas on Feb 26, 2007 9:26 PM CST up 0 recs

LSB'ers always hate signing our own

There's not another team message board in baseball where 50% of the comments would be negative about something like this.

Democrat debacle

by Sharky on Feb 25, 2007 3:24 PM CST 0 recs

must be the damn Texas libs

by a bebop a rebop on Feb 25, 2007 7:59 PM CST up 0 recs

We hate everything

and I just hate that.

by t ball on Feb 25, 2007 8:33 PM CST up 0 recs

I'm proud to admit, I finally agree with Sharky

on something......(proud that I never agreed with him before, Ha!) but it is really wild how many people on here are against giving Michael Young a "market-value" contract, not overpaying but, "market-value". He's played under a way,way less than market value contract and never said a peep, played his ass off, agreed to change positions to help the team (a novel idea), kept getting over 200 hits, improved his defense immensely, yeah, I can understand now why we shouldn't reward him with a new contract! What was I thinking???

by tklawless on Feb 26, 2007 6:48 PM CST up 0 recs

Heh

You'd have to overcome a six year legacy of "he won't amount to anything" and "he can't keep this up".

"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 26, 2007 9:57 PM CST up 0 recs

Just FWIW

I don't think that they need to make a habit of using players not griping about a bargain contract that they signed as a factor in determining whether to pay guys huge contracts into their late 30's. It's just not good business to give 'thank-you' contracts to old players (which Young would be during the back end of the extension) when you're a middle-of-the-pack payroll type of team.

And again, I'm not one of these guys who liked Cat over Young or who couldn't give Young credit. I certainly didn't see in him what he did in 2005 back in 01-02, but I liked the guy just fine. I just think the number they're talking about is too much money for too long for Young at the ages he'll be during this deal. And just like I'll admit I'm wrong if his performance stays at 2005 levels or improves, I hope a lot of people are willing to admit that they let their appreciation for him taint their vision if we're seeing .287/.326/.448 type numbers and very mediocre defense for 15 million per in the latter couple of years of the extension. I guess if he hits .310/.345/.445 and hangs on at SS (regardless of how he plays) we'll both think we were right.

by zywica on Feb 26, 2007 10:22 PM CST up 0 recs

Yeah

But the idea of Manny Ramirez for 140 million for two seasons or whatever it is is a perennial board favorite. And that will only change once he becomes a free agent (remember, Sammy Sosa was a board trade-target favorite, until the day his huge contract ran out).

Give me a break.

Al Gore's very own inconvenient truth

by Sharky on Feb 27, 2007 1:54 AM CST up 0 recs

What's the big deal

Every year we want the Rangers to spend money on big-time free agents and that is basically what they are doing here. He would get that kind of contract if he was a free agent. Of course it is over paying but so is every contract that was signed this offseason all over the league. Plus this guy is the face of our franchise and we have almost nothing behind him w/ the exception of Arias who, by all accounts, wouldn't be much of an offensive force. I think we should sign Young and then pull a blockbuster deal to trade TEX. I don't see us being able to re-sign him especially considering who his agent is.

by cgolden on Feb 26, 2007 4:45 PM CST 0 recs