Some thoughts on the MY situation
by Adam J. Morris on Jan 12, 2009 3:38 PM CST
362 comments
Regardless of how this situation with Michael Young turns out, the reality is that this has turned into one more embarrassing black eye with a franchise that seems to specialize in these sorts of things.
This is a p.r. nightmare for the Rangers. The guy they have been pumping as the "Face of the Franchise" has publicly said he wants out, is willing to waive his no-trade clause to no longer be here, because he doesn't want to play third base.
And the Rangers, quite honestly, would probably be willing to deal him, if a team would take on his contract. But as has been pointed out by many folks, he's a declining average to somewhat above average player who is being paid like a star. He's a guy who wants to play shortstop, but who doesn't have the defensive chops to play the position much longer. The market for these guys is limited.
So, we've got the Face of the Franchise who wants to be gone, and an organization that would probably be fine with going another direction were it not for the fact that they'd have to eat some of the contract to make that happen.
And this starts looking like ARod Redux, where the team's All-Star shortstop has gotten into a snit and both parties want to get out of the marriage, but it can't be done without the team taking a financial hickey. Five years after ARod forced his way out of town, to catcalls and raspberries, while Tom Hicks paid a huge amount to facilitate a deal, it appears that we're getting deja vu all over again.
And even if that's the worst case scenario...what, exactly, is the best case scenario here? Either Young backs down, but there's still the issue of underlying tension and unhappiness between the organization and the clubhouse Alpha Male over the fact that he has to move to third base, with the problems that will inherently cause when Elvis Andrus gets promoted.
Or Young doesn't back down, a team is willing to give the Rangers a grade B prospect and take on Young's whole contract, and an organization that has generated little excitement among its fan base and has done almost nothing in terms of outside moves to get better this offseason has to sell the fans on the idea that moving its marquee player for next to nothing, and slashing payroll to a Floridian level, is a positive.
Now...taking a step back, looking at this from an unemotional, purely left-brain standpoint, is dumping Young and his contract good for the Rangers, long-term? Particularly if he's going to refuse to switch positions?
Quite possibly.
But from the softer standpoint, in terms of p.r., in terms of fan goodwill, in terms of the impact on the players in the locker room and selling the team to free agents that you are trying to get to come here for less than what they think is fair, is this a good thing?
No. It is a disaster. Try selling Ben Sheets on the notion that he should come and try to rehabilitate his marketability in Texas after you've just given away one of the most respected players in the game after an ugly public breakup.
And from Young's standpoint, I have to think that part of the frustration is that he doesn't understand why now, all of the sudden, after everything that's gone on historically with this franchise, he's the one they draw the line in the sand with.
I'm sure he remembers when he first was coming up, and had to move from shortstop to second base because of the Alex Rodriguez signing. He remembers when Mark Teixeira came up, and had to DH because Rafael Palmeiro was here and wanted to be the first baseman. He remembers how the Rangers wooed Carlos Delgado, promising that if he'd sign with Texas, the organization would make Teixeira go back to DHing again. He remembers how Alfonso Soriano threw a fit over moving to shortstop, and how he defused the Soriano situation by volunteering instead. And how the organization went ahead and simply traded Soriano two years later, rather than force the situation by making him change positions. And how the organization seemingly decided that, since Jarrod Saltalamacchia didn't like playing first base, they weren't going to make him play first base anymore, but would just let him catch.
I'm sure he looks at this past season, and sees Milton Bradley, who played when he felt like it, didn't play when he didn't feel physically up to it, but refused to go on the d.l. and forced the team to play short-handed, sees a guy who was here only one season that the manager catered to. I'm sure he looks at Vicente Padilla, and sees a guy who couldn't be counted on to go take the mound every fifth day, whose neck was hurting or who had a twinge or who otherwise couldn't be counted on, but who again was catered to and not put on the d.l.
I'm sure he sees this organization as historically, during the time he's been here, bending over backwards to cater to and coddle players, particularly (but not always) veterans. And I'm sure he's now wondering why it is that, all of the sudden, they decide to take a hard-line position with him, the guy who has sacrificed and done all the right things and played hurt and played hard and done everything the team wanted.
And I think he saw how the organization caved and moved Alex Rodriguez when he caused a fuss, and caved and moved Mark Teixeira when he made it clear he didn't want to be here, and figured, it worked for them...no reason why it shouldn't work for me.
This is just one more chapter in the embarrassing history of this organization. And as I said at the beginning, there's no way for this to be resolved without besmirching everyone involved. The organization looks bad. Michael Young looks bad.
And really, management looks even more incompetent for handing out that huge contract extension before the 2007 season. It was widely criticized for being too much for a guy who simply wasn't that good, but was justified from a p.r./marketing/soft factor standpoint. But if you are going to give out a huge contract because you don't want to take the p.r. hit that would result from letting the guy go, if you are going to make him the Face of the Franchise and the center of what you are trying to do...
You can't do that and then, less than two years later, before the contract has even kicked in, decide you made a huge mistake and try to dump him on whomever will take him, even if it means picking up a good chunk of his contract. That is, quite simply, utter incompetence, and it makes you wonder what happened, what the thought process was, that went from thinking 5 years, $80 million being a good idea in early 2007, to thinking it is a totally unpalatable, unmitigated disaster that is going to require subsidizing to get off the books less than two years later, the baseball equivalent of mortgage backed securities.
I hope everyone involved in this thing is embarrassed. Because really, watching all this unfold, and really thinking about it, it makes it embarrassing to be a Ranger fan.
But then, that's a feeling I guess we are all used to by now.
6 recs |
362 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
Someone's feelings are still hurt over the ARod trade.
The best-case scenario is also the likeliest scenaro.
Young comes back give or take a press-conference statement, plays SS, and puts up better offensive numbers than last year.
Not a stretch of the imagination: even if he’d agreed to JD’s initial request to change position, would it have happened before mid-season?
That said, it’s too bad some of these quotes got aired out.
Go Strangers.
by hightowersmith on Jan 12, 2009 3:42 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
Really?
All that, and you come away from that with the response that my feelings are hurt about the ARod trade?
by Adam J. Morris on Jan 12, 2009 3:54 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I have to say Adam
That was a very thoughtful and well-written piece. Not trying to come off as condescending, but I think it’s a really good take.
by brettgardner on Jan 12, 2009 4:15 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Yes a clear minded take
Ideally, Blyleven goes into the HOF. Ideally, Mike Young apologizes (even privately) and diligently takes up a quest for excellence at 3B. Ideally, Andrus is given the SS job patiently with clear expectations for 2010 prime time readiness. Ideally, Ben Sheets takes a reasonable contract with the Rangers for a couple of years with an option. And (Heh) ideally the world of finance can be stabilized without caving in governments.
There are about 140,000 other ideals I’d love to see. And few mistakes are truly not correctable. The next 48 days will tell us a lot about the capacity of the Rangers organization to manage its’ assets. Up to now, the mistakes are not really errors, the were well intentioned initiatives that mostly didn’t work. Some did, and the future is pretty bright. But it doesn’t need cancer of the intestines in its’ process.
"He uses statistics as a drunken man uses lamp-posts... for support rather than illumination." - Andrew Lang (1844-1912)
by Ed Coffin on Jan 12, 2009 4:30 PM CST up reply actions 1 recs
+3
Give me Sheets or give me Offseason Blues Part III.
by Chase Irwin on Jan 12, 2009 6:46 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
It’s just not that bad a situation, and nothing that’s going to alter the course of the franchise.
“What are we going to do with X?” is a question orgs ask all the time, whether behind closed doors or in a scenario like Boston waiving Manny.
This gets more play because it’s FOTF: a good guy at a sensitive juncture of his career. His salary is jumping by almost eight digits on a small-budget team, right after he’s gotten an iffy Gold Glove, and his numbers are beginning a textbook pattern of decline.
And maybe he’s not in decline – that’s what happens at 32-33, but he had those finger injuries…
Probably what’ll happen is he’ll perform better, make a public statement, and eventually move for Andrus. With the astonishing groundswell of talent this org boasts, winning is likely in the next couple years, and I actually think Young’s numbers are going to improve at least a little. He does deserve credit for his work ethic.
Underneath it all, as Jamey said on the radio, Young knows his time as a SS is nearly up.
Resolution will happen in the much bigger contexts of increased wins and rational personnel decisions by the org and this one player.
Adam, sometimes the ARod thing comes up when you editorialize. When Teixeira to NYY rumors arose for example, you posted “how could he ever play on a team with ARod?” You have to take responsibility for that kind of thing if you post it — most of your readership is over the ARod storyline.
Go Strangers.
by hightowersmith on Jan 12, 2009 4:32 PM CST up reply actions 1 recs
if MY was more like NY Arod
everything would be fine and dandy…
Stability is key, and JD is a Beast.
Jindal - 2012
by Longhorn on Jan 12, 2009 4:36 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I havn't been able to listen or read all day
can someone give me any new information that has come out?
the preceding post was a great success.
by DSheppard on Jan 12, 2009 3:45 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
Nothing new
Just more of the same stuff we were talking about last night.
By 2028, Mark Teixeira will be in the HOF.
-The Outlaw
by Gdawg on Jan 12, 2009 4:00 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Exactly
A pitch-perfect take. This whole mess just makes me sad.
"Was this really necsarry?" - cowpoke/hurler hurley
by trza on Jan 12, 2009 3:48 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
Winning cures all.
"My mother always taught me that if the only thing you have to say is,
‘(Expletive) Dave Samson,’ then don’t say anything at all.
So I’m not going to say anything at all.
Is my mother the greatest or what?"
- Mariners GM Bill Bavasi, after signing Ichiro to a $90 million contract
by tyd3311 on Jan 12, 2009 3:49 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
Yes to this, too. Absolutely.
Go Strangers.
by hightowersmith on Jan 12, 2009 3:53 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
i'm not all that embarrassed
maybe i should be, i don’t know…
I think Young is the one who should be embarrassed, either for the fact he’s being unrealistic or naive…
Stability is key, and JD is a Beast.
Jindal - 2012
by Longhorn on Jan 12, 2009 3:50 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
Adam, a question:
Do you think Teixeira would’ve accepted an 10-year, $200 million contract extension from the Rangers before he was traded?
by Snark on Jan 12, 2009 3:51 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
I am not Adam
but I say NO.
Elvis Andrus - 2009 AL Rookie of the Year
by RangerMad on Jan 12, 2009 3:59 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I bet he would have accepted
a 10 year / $ 150 million deal after 2005.
"Dying ain't hard. It's living that's hard."
by Josey Wales on Jan 12, 2009 4:16 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
but not 8/140 right before the trade deadline?
Mandatory reading before suggesting a trade
by ab03 on Jan 12, 2009 4:45 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Lets say he would have signed a more plausible 8 year 160 million dollar contract
Would you even be glad they did so in retrospect?
Chris Davis/Justin Smoak for relatively nothing vs Teixeira for 8/160 is not a missed chance that keeps me up at night. And thats not even considering the potentially epic trade return.
the preceding post was a great success.
by DSheppard on Jan 13, 2009 7:22 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I forget the timing, had they traded Tex already when they signed MY to the extension? The extension made more sense when Arias was the best SS in the minors. Not that I’d defend giving him that salary number
by thedudeabides on Jan 12, 2009 3:52 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
no
Teix was still in the fold when FFace inked his deal.
"I see their [Angels] rotation as John Lackey and a bunch of decent starters." - AJM
by tricer on Jan 12, 2009 3:55 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Uh huh
One of the spins on the deal by some was that MY’s contract would provide Teix the proof that they were serious about winning and would pay their players handsomely to do so.
Nothing pithy here. Please move long.
by WyoRanger on Jan 12, 2009 3:57 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah I remember that
And it was supposed to make Kinsler feel the same way that he could play and be paid by the rangers.
Knowing how much the younger players look up to and emulate MY makes this so much worse for the Rangers.
by thedudeabides on Jan 12, 2009 4:47 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
x
And how the organization seemingly decided that, since Jarrod Saltalamacchia didn’t like playing first base, they weren’t going to make him play first base anymore, but would just let him catch.
This seems like a GIANT stretch to me.
Nice article otherwise, AJM.
Did Jon Daniels downsize your old position at Dunking Donuts?
by lonestarJon on Jan 12, 2009 3:54 PM CST reply actions 2 recs
excellent take Adam
One of your best posts.
"I see their [Angels] rotation as John Lackey and a bunch of decent starters." - AJM
by tricer on Jan 12, 2009 3:56 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
Add it to the almanac!
Michael Young Saga: what should have never been.
Give me Sheets or give me Offseason Blues Part III.
by Chase Irwin on Jan 12, 2009 6:50 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
If the direct approach was a poor choice by JD, does anyone know of an approach with
less risk for volatility?
I thought the approach they would take was to let Andrus handle SS while Young was playing in the WBC. Maybe that would open some eyes. When Young gets back from WBC, give him a ST off day to watch Andrus play and hopefully they can begin to establish some communication. More like…. take this guy under your wing this ST. I didn’t think they’d push Andrus to the majors at the beginning of the ’09 season.
I’m not all that embarrassed as a Ranger fan. I was more embarrassed about the contract JD had given to Young. Will two wrongs make a right in this case?
I still think Young will be the opening day SS. It will be awkward, and I’m not sure there is any chance Young takes Andrus under his wing during ST. I think now more than ever the Rangers need to get a little more talent in their rotation so they have a little better chance at a wild card to take away the bitterness from this move.
Go Rangers!
by rooster on Jan 12, 2009 3:59 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
The problem with the soft sell
is what if Young still throws a hissy fit then where are they?
The same darn place they are today except JD looks like an even bigger idiot for saying pretty please.
by Hull Fan on Jan 12, 2009 4:01 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Yep
Exactly. I’d rather have this fallout now, rather than heading into 2010, when we’re (hopefully) going to be gearing up for some competitive baseball.
Did Jon Daniels downsize your old position at Dunking Donuts?
by lonestarJon on Jan 12, 2009 4:03 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
That's what I've been thinking as well.
I thought they would go with a soft approach, but the more I think about it the more I like the direct approach. I think JD had a good approach, maybe poor execution.
Go Rangers!
by rooster on Jan 12, 2009 4:19 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
it looks like the front office cares
this, whether you like it or not, looks horrendous for JD. Young has been positioned both through his actions and by the media, as the face of the franchise, whether we like it or not, and JD has been positions by his actions and the media as a slick kid who was initially thrown in over his head. While even the average fans have no doubt heard about the impressive farm system JD has collected, it doesn’t give him more clout than Young.
I don’t think people realize how bad this is for JD.
by clark on Jan 12, 2009 4:23 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I think this situation could EASILY cost JD his job
Does he now go to Hicks and tell him that the contract that I negotiated with Young is so bad that we really need to subsidize it so we can even expect any talent in return?
"I see their [Angels] rotation as John Lackey and a bunch of decent starters." - AJM
by tricer on Jan 12, 2009 4:28 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
i think you are right.
to me, that sucks as much as any other aspect that we have collectively discussed.
by clark on Jan 12, 2009 4:31 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Did Hart lose his job
after he traded A-Rod away and paid the Yankees a shit ton of money?
By 2028, Mark Teixeira will be in the HOF.
-The Outlaw
by Gdawg on Jan 12, 2009 4:35 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
You tell me
Is he still the GM?
"I see their [Angels] rotation as John Lackey and a bunch of decent starters." - AJM
by tricer on Jan 12, 2009 4:36 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Was that why he was ousted?
You tell us.
by Athos on Jan 12, 2009 4:38 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I don't know, can't tell you, don't care too
Before Gdawg brought Hart into the conversation, the point I made was that this debacle could easily cost JD his job. Do you disagree?
"I see their [Angels] rotation as John Lackey and a bunch of decent starters." - AJM
by tricer on Jan 12, 2009 6:05 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I only brought Hart into the conversation
because he made a similar move in trading a huge contract and paid a ton of money to the other team to take that contract on. It didn’t cost him his job and he is still technically employed by Hicks. I don’t see why trading Young could easily cost JD his job.
By 2028, Mark Teixeira will be in the HOF.
-The Outlaw
by Gdawg on Jan 12, 2009 6:08 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
It shows lack of direction
Can’t have it both ways, as alluded to by Adam.
Give me Sheets or give me Offseason Blues Part III.
by Chase Irwin on Jan 12, 2009 6:52 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
huh?
I thought its pretty clear what direction this team is going in. The first 1 and a half of JD’s tenure showed lack of direction or rather a direction that couldn’t be accomplished with the team’s resources.
By 2028, Mark Teixeira will be in the HOF.
-The Outlaw
by Gdawg on Jan 12, 2009 7:30 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I understand where the team is headed
my point is that:
That is, quite simply, utter incompetence, and it makes you wonder what happened, what the thought process was, that went from thinking 5 years, $80 million being a good idea in early 2007, to thinking it is a totally unpalatable, unmitigated disaster that is going to require subsidizing to get off the books less than two years later, the baseball equivalent of mortgage backed securities.
I don’t care who is at blame. The point is that MY contradicts the supposed movement of the organization.
Give me Sheets or give me Offseason Blues Part III.
by Chase Irwin on Jan 12, 2009 7:39 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Yes
You have Nolan, Wash, and JD on board with moving Young to third base. If Hicks is firing JD for being forced to trade Young, then Nolan and Wash are going too which I can’t see happening all at once. Wash obviously might go for different reasons, but Nolan isn’t going to be going anywhere.
By 2028, Mark Teixeira will be in the HOF.
-The Outlaw
by Gdawg on Jan 12, 2009 4:42 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
missed the point
Nolan wasn’t around when the contract was handed out, there is no blood on his hands. I don’t think JD would get fired for asking MY to move, or for trading him away, but because he was responsible for negotiating a long term contract that only two years later, and before it has even kicked in, has proved to be an unmitigated disaster.
"I see their [Angels] rotation as John Lackey and a bunch of decent starters." - AJM
by tricer on Jan 12, 2009 6:18 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Nolan wasn't around
but if he still supported the catalyst to this whole incident, I don’t see how he isn’t involved in this. If the goal is to blame one person and only one person, than you can hold JD responsible (that is, if you aren’t looking to blame a player). But this isn’t solely on JD’s shoulders and since Hicks was most likely for a Young extension in the winter before 2007, I don’t see how JD gets fired over this move.
By 2028, Mark Teixeira will be in the HOF.
-The Outlaw
by Gdawg on Jan 12, 2009 6:45 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
You seem to be assuming that Hicks wasn't totally onboard with the Young extension
I highly doubt that Hicks didn’t have a really big hand in an 80 million dollar deal.
In fact, I’d wager it is pretty likely that our esteemed douche of an owner was the driving force behind it.
Would that salient fact give him pause in the blame game now? Unfortunately, prolly about as much hesitation as Josey Wales would have before ferociously fellating some high Texas man-cider…
Nah, noob.
by Brian Thomas on Jan 12, 2009 7:20 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Hart didn't negotiate the original deal
by clark on Jan 12, 2009 4:39 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I think you are forgetting just how much money was spent on trading A-Rod
Young is owed 62 million over the next 5 years. Hart made a trade that had us paying the richest franchise in baseball 71 million dollars. Even if JD agrees for the Rangers to pay all of Young’s contract, its still not as much money as Hart agreed to pay the Yankees for A-Rod.
And I’m pretty sure Hicks was pretty involved in the Young negotiations. Maybe not in exact numbers, but JD had his blessing on the offer he made Young.
By 2028, Mark Teixeira will be in the HOF.
-The Outlaw
by Gdawg on Jan 12, 2009 4:48 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
believe me
i am not advocating firing JD and I truly believe Hicks’ complete incompetence should shoulder most of the blame for the franchise’s decade long woes.
I am just saying, when stuff like this blows up, it is the GM who takes the blame, whether or not it is rightfully so.
The numbers you mentioned are actually what is hurting JD. With A-Rod, everyone knew it was stupid money, so when they had to move it, people were prepared to get screwed. But after that ordeal, Young’s contract does not seem so bad, so fans will have a hard time swallowing the idea of moving a player with so much perceived value for nothing.
by clark on Jan 12, 2009 4:53 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
The fans don't control Hicks' decision to stick with JD or not.
Hicks might be different from when he had Hart around, but based off that situation, Hicks was willing to stick with Hart and pretty much just lived with the fact that the only way to get anything in return was to eat a lot of money. With Young, how much money do you think the Rangers will end up eating of Young’s contract if they trade him? 15-20 million maybe? It still shouldn’t exactly be a hard sell to Hicks if he is that worried about the money to fire a GM over it. Just tell him its either 62 million dollars or 20 million dollars and some nice prospects, which would he rather spend.
By 2028, Mark Teixeira will be in the HOF.
-The Outlaw
by Gdawg on Jan 12, 2009 5:00 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
"It still shouldn’t exactly be a hard sell to Hicks"
It’s a very hard sell.
Just consider the scenario in your last sentence. I don’t know how much business experience you have, but to suggest that JD can just saunter into Hicks office and explain to him that he is going to be paying $20 freaking million dollars to a rival owner, so the guy we just annoited the face of our franchise can play for his team, without any negative consequences resulting, well that seems a bit out of touch.
"I see their [Angels] rotation as John Lackey and a bunch of decent starters." - AJM
by tricer on Jan 12, 2009 6:38 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Once again
look at what happened with A-Rod. Hart told Hicks that he was going to pay 70 million dollars to the New York Yankees of all teams and that guy is still getting a paycheck from Hicks.
By 2028, Mark Teixeira will be in the HOF.
-The Outlaw
by Gdawg on Jan 12, 2009 6:46 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
So because he did it once
he’ll gladly do it again? Maybe he’s learned that paying someone to play for another team isn’t exactly ideal?
"He will not coddle them. Nolan Ryan doesn’t coddle." - Jeff Passan
by Dirk Diggler on Jan 12, 2009 8:01 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Maybe, but how much do you think Hicks has learned as an owner these past few years?
We’re also talking a much smaller amount. Young’s owed 60 million dollars, the Rangers aren’t going to be paying for more than half of that in any deal to get a good return and I don’t think we’d see more than a quarter of it, if that.
My prediction is also that Young ends up moving to third base so I think this is all a moot point.
By 2028, Mark Teixeira will be in the HOF.
-The Outlaw
by Gdawg on Jan 12, 2009 9:25 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Well yeah I agree
he’s going to move to 3B
"He will not coddle them. Nolan Ryan doesn’t coddle." - Jeff Passan
by Dirk Diggler on Jan 13, 2009 7:51 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I doubt it.
Hicks has to sign off on those kinds of signings. JD didn’t make that deal in a vacuum. He made that deal because his tight was owner said “Make that deal.” Hicks did it before with ARod, and the MY contract is consistent with a Hicks led deal.
by Athos on Jan 12, 2009 4:40 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Like you, I’d guess that Hicks wanted a deal with MY. But part of the job of a good GM is to talk the owner out of doing stupid things, and JD didn’t.
I don’t want JD fired, but I think as this issue plays out, it is going to be exceedingly difficult for him to come out of this without his credibility taking a hit and when you combine that with the futility of the big league team, it’s pretty easy for me to think Hicks might let him go, especially if this season is disappointing and revenues are down.
"I see their [Angels] rotation as John Lackey and a bunch of decent starters." - AJM
by tricer on Jan 12, 2009 6:28 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
"But part of the job of a good GM is to talk the owner out of doing stupid things, and JD didn’t."
At the end of the day, the guy signing the paychecks is going to do what he wants to do.
By 2028, Mark Teixeira will be in the HOF.
-The Outlaw
by Gdawg on Jan 12, 2009 6:51 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
From Young's comments ...
I doubt the approach makes any difference. He doesn’t want to play third. Is really reasonable to believe that he has such a fragile ego that had they just asked him did he mind moving to 3rd, that he would have said “Sure,” but because they said, “Here’s the plan. We need you at 3rd this season.”, he’s going to throw a fit? That just doesn’t seem rational to me at all.
He’s pissed about the content of the conversation, not the form in which it was delivered.
by Athos on Jan 12, 2009 4:03 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I agree with this...
how do you soften the approach? Bake MY a cake that says please move to 3B?
This was going to happen regardless of the approach by the Rangers.
by death of the cool on Jan 12, 2009 4:27 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
the Wild Card is coming from the AL East.
mark it down.
I guess you heard Fat Joe left Atlantic.
by Haeger Champ on Jan 12, 2009 4:58 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Must be lonely
Give me Sheets or give me Offseason Blues Part III.
by Chase Irwin on Jan 12, 2009 6:56 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
x
The Rangers are not the only team I live and die for which seems to do nothing right (Aggies, god help me). It is really frustrating to see this level of behavior; I think my biggest problem is before the contract even kicks in it seems the team is just panicing about it, realizing it’s a bad K. I don’t really know what to think, but I am extremely unimpressed with the team and with Michael Young over this mess.
by FuturePants on Jan 12, 2009 4:03 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
MY was overestimated
In his willingness to be a team player, as much as his level of talent if not moreso. Assuming that a substantial amount of his contract can be attributed to “PR” or leadership characteristics, the Rangers certainly are not getting a return on their investment on that front.
by Back Door Yakker on Jan 12, 2009 4:03 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
silly me
I still think they will kiss and makeup and MY will be the opening day thirdbaseman.
Elvis Andrus - 2009 AL Rookie of the Year
by RangerMad on Jan 12, 2009 4:04 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
I think Young will be a Ranger, but still at SS.
Go Rangers!
by rooster on Jan 12, 2009 4:21 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I think that may be true Opening Day
but then we’re bound to repeat some of this midseason when Andrus becomes ready.
by JBP on Jan 12, 2009 4:24 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Which Is Why That Won't Occur
No chance for that imo. Newberg had a good write up regarding that. You can’t have MY move during the middle of the season. You ask him now at the beginning of the season
MY is either at 3rd or he isnt a Ranger imo
by Horns130 on Jan 13, 2009 7:27 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Do you think that
maybe this situation gets settled by MY and JD agreeing on MY playing SS until Andrus is ready? MY tells the Rangers that he wil move to 3B without a fuss. The Rangers start Andrus in OKC for about 3 months.
Elvis Andrus - 2009 AL Rookie of the Year
by RangerMad on Jan 13, 2009 8:16 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
IMO
It shouldn’t be embarrassing for the Rangers or their fans. There is still plenty of time for them to come out and say something stupid, but they’ve handled this the right way considering the fact that they didn’t want this coming out publicly. Nolan and JD have come out and said how its best for the team, how they have tired to talk with Young about giving him a bigger role on this team, and JD recently said he was just being honest with Young and didn’t feel he needed to sugar coat it. They are saying the right things here. The door is still open for Young to come back and make nice and the Rangers will accept that with open arms and let this be water under the bridge. The ball right now is in Young’s court and he should be embarrassed with how he has handled this thing.
By 2028, Mark Teixeira will be in the HOF.
-The Outlaw
by Gdawg on Jan 12, 2009 4:04 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
This isn't about Elvis
This is about the fact that the Rangers don’t want Young to play shortstop for them anymore. They believe, and I think rightfully so, that he is no longer Big League capable. Thus they’re saying we want to make room for the kid. Even if he’s not ready. Well he isn’t but a stop gap could be found.
There’s going to egg on everyone’s face but if the Rangers somehow manage to trade him, two years from now JD and company are going to look smart for letting him go.
by Hull Fan on Jan 12, 2009 4:04 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
I think it has more to do with
3B than SS, this year at least, and the talent available out there for each position. I don’t think the Rangers would be doing this if they had a good option at 3B.
by Back Door Yakker on Jan 12, 2009 4:08 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
This thing is about Elvis
IMO, its about 3 things:
-Elvis Andrus being ready for some Major League playing time in 2009 (not necessarily opening day)
-Michael Young eventually needing to move off SS so the sooner the better
-This team has no 3B options they are comfortable with
I didn’t expect the Rangers to do this because I really didn’t think they had it in them to ask Young to move off shortstop this soon, but they did have the cajones to do so. I think this also is saying that they think they can be a good team in 2009. Whatever happens at SS if Young is at third base is probably better than Young at shortstop and Metcalf at 3rd.
By 2028, Mark Teixeira will be in the HOF.
-The Outlaw
by Gdawg on Jan 12, 2009 4:08 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
This
Did Jon Daniels downsize your old position at Dunking Donuts?
by lonestarJon on Jan 12, 2009 4:13 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
The Rangers may think Elvis
is ready but truthfully no one knows how he’ll respond to AAA. He could be fine he could also plummet and need not just one year but two. He’s still only 20. But rather than plan for the worst case scenario they’re making their plans now. Why would they wait till next off season? Young’s defense isn’t going to improve in 2009. So bite the bullet and tell him now. Then they can make whatever moves they want to shore up SS, play Duran, or some other combination.
The fact that the 3B Free Agent market is bad doesn’t help either. There’s a confluence of events but at the end of the day this was a decision about improving their team. Mike Young at SS doesn’t help that.
by Hull Fan on Jan 12, 2009 4:15 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
2010
Daniels said that 2010 was the year we were going to compete. Right now it appears that Borbon, Feliz, Holland and Andrus will all be in the minors to start the 2009 season. If we’re planning on making our run in 2010, I can’t imagine us going into that year with 3 or 4 of those guys making their major league debuts or just coming off a few ABs/inning pitched in September.
Sounds to me like it’s very possible/likely all 4 of those players will get significant time this season to get that major league experience so when 2010 comes along, we have our “championship caliber” players on the field already.
by chase1971 on Jan 12, 2009 4:47 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
2011
Sounds to me like it’s also very likely we won’t be competitive in 2010.
Teams just don’t make that kind of jump in one year with that much young talent. All that young talent is not going to come in and paly well immediately.
They don’t make that kind of jump in pitching staff compostition with so little of that talent in the minors or not even under Ranger contracts 1 year out.
The more I look at it the more 2010 is a yet another wish of us Ranger fans. It’s not delusional, but 2011 is far more likely the start of truly competing, which is three seasons away and really too far to even have a credible understanding where we’ll be at that point.
I really hate to be so pssimistic, but I just can’t fathom being competitive in 2010, there’s just not enough talent in place at the major league level.
by gr7070 on Jan 12, 2009 5:23 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Well that's my point
2010 is not the year you bring up your players and expect to start doing well immediately. You have to give them some time to get used to the majors. That’s why I’m thinking all 4 of those players will have significant time here in 2009.
And i’m not talking being WS winners or even for sure playoff contenders in 2010, I’m just saying we’ll be competitive in 2010… meaning, we won’t be looking to dump contracts at midseason.
But I agree if Feliz and Holland aren’t given enough innings this season, I don’t see how we could expect them to come up their rookie year and pitch us into post season. I’m thinking both Feliz and Holland (and Andrus and Borbon) WON’T be rookies when 2010 comes around.
by chase1971 on Jan 12, 2009 5:36 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Agreed
We’ve all seen a lot of 2010 talk around here for a while. I just don’t see it happening.
I am talking about being a playoff contender, and not one solely because our division might suck then. Although I’d be happy with that even.
I’ve mentioned a few times they need to make a reasonable acquisition this off-season or mid-year with the intent of them helping in 2010, if they really have any hopes of competing in 2010, for the reasons we’ve both mentioned.
While I’d be on board with moving MY (even for contract reasons alone), moving him probably sets us back for 2010 comeptition – assuming we get no real talent in return, which is a resonable assumption.
Dumping MY and adding nothing isn’t exactly a great off-season for 2010 hopefuls.
by gr7070 on Jan 12, 2009 5:42 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Dumping MY
I really don’t think that’s what the Rangers want to do. I mean they want a young 3rd basemen for him and if they somehow managed to get one, then yes dumping MY would help the Rangers in 2010. But I don’t see us just dumping him for some low level prospect. Which means he’s probably going to be at 3rd base next year. Which helps us in 2010 because it lets Andrus come up midseason and get some at bats under his belt.
by chase1971 on Jan 12, 2009 5:47 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
That's a great read, AJM...
I guess it’s easy to put to the side how this organization goes out of it’s way to cater to dudes who don’t wanna play hard and be reliable, but it attempts to find those rare gems who play every day and don’t whine and then take advantage of them until they get sick of it and leave. It’s kinda like where I work…the squeaky wheel gets the grease. Management obtains that grease for the squeaky wheel by approaching the desk of the guy who never calls in sick and always gets his work done on time. “Yeah…I’m going to need you to go ahead and move your stuff into storage room B to make room up here. and we’ve got a rat problem down there, so don’t forget your fumigation spray. And I’m gonna need that stapler so I can give it to a guy who’s not going to appreciate it as much.”
"Does this effectively hide my thunder?"
by Bob Loblaw on Jan 12, 2009 4:04 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
the only difference between the Rangers and Marlins
at this point, is that the Marlins are a better run organization and have two WS championships to show for it. I hate to sound too negative, but people who are exclusively blaming Young on this and not pointing a finger at management are either naive or stupid. This team’s complete lack of foresight disheartens me to such a great extent that it almost completely tempers my enthusiasm about the incredible farm system it has built.
Sadly, it is stuff like this that makes it less and less likely that JD will be able to reap the benefits of the glut of young talent he has assembled. He simply made too many poor decisions at the onset of his term and he is still paying for them.
by clark on Jan 12, 2009 4:07 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
I think the difference is more like the Marlins know what they are
And have known what they are for a long time, while the Rangers are only 2 years into knowing what they are.
"My mother always taught me that if the only thing you have to say is,
‘(Expletive) Dave Samson,’ then don’t say anything at all.
So I’m not going to say anything at all.
Is my mother the greatest or what?"
- Mariners GM Bill Bavasi, after signing Ichiro to a $90 million contract
by tyd3311 on Jan 12, 2009 4:36 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
not even!
that’s the problem. less than two years ago they gave young this deal. two years ago they aggressively went after zito. just last year they did the same to hunter. and now we are lead to believe that they are so poor that they will field one of the cheapest teams in all of baseball, cheaper than the Royals and A’s.
the marlins would have never done that because they know their limitations.
by clark on Jan 12, 2009 4:38 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
2 years into realizing that having a plentiful farm system
Is what gets you places in baseball. 2 years from now we will be the Marlins, but with the ability to retain the majority of our talent, in turn leading to a long run of success. Unlike the extreme highs and lows of the Marlins organization. Obviously, the economy may keep us quiet this winter, but I do believe, when the timing is right, we will act like a big market team once again.
"My mother always taught me that if the only thing you have to say is,
‘(Expletive) Dave Samson,’ then don’t say anything at all.
So I’m not going to say anything at all.
Is my mother the greatest or what?"
- Mariners GM Bill Bavasi, after signing Ichiro to a $90 million contract
by tyd3311 on Jan 12, 2009 5:05 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
When we gave Young this deal
We were not in rebuilding mode yet. We were still in win now mode. Which is why we gave him this contract, which is why we signed Lofton and Gagne, and why we offered Tex 8/140 a couple months later.
Bryan Smith (12:17:17 PM PT): Justin Smoak and Josh Hamilton. The AL West might just have found their Bash Brothers, v. 2.0.
by bigsteve on Jan 12, 2009 6:00 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
x
<
You can’t do that and then, less than two years later, before the contract has even kicked in, decide you made a huge mistake and try to dump him on whomever will take him, even if it means picking up a good chunk of his contract.>
I haven’t seen anything to suggest the Rangers are willing to dump Young and assume some of his contract.
This morning, Norm Hitzges suggested that the Rangers wanted for Young to ask out (to get the contract off the books). I don’t buy it for this main reason: I think JD has a good enough handle on the market to know that Young has negative trade value this offseason.
by Randy Richardson on Jan 12, 2009 4:08 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
I agree.
I think the Rangers’ motives are pure here.
If they really are wanting to dump the contract, this is a pretty dumb way to go about it. Especially as making this whole thing public virtually destroys any leverage they might otherwise have had.
by Athos on Jan 12, 2009 4:12 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Not to mention...
If he wanted to trade Young, he’d try to maximize his value by keeping him at SS. Why would another team view him as a SS if the Rangers no longer do?
by cstorm15 on Jan 12, 2009 4:25 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
While I will disagree with the content written by both Adam & Jamey from time to time
the quality is usually top-notch.
Adam’s post on his thoughts regarding the MY Situation is probably the best thing either one of them has ever written…at least that I have read.
This whole thing is yet another fucking embarrassment trotted out by the organization that specializes in this type of thing..
"Dying ain't hard. It's living that's hard."
by Josey Wales on Jan 12, 2009 4:13 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I thought these "embarassments" wouldn't happen with Nolan at the helm?
Cuz, you know, that’s what you said.
Alot.
Like hundreds of times.
Nah, noob.
by Brian Thomas on Jan 12, 2009 4:48 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Oooh, I know, I know the answer
Brian,
Nolan wasn’t around when MY’s contract was signed, but if he had been, he damn sure wouldn’t have agreed to this horrible contract. Now Nolan has to come in and try and clean up Boy Blunder’s mess.
I’m pretty sure that’s close to Josey’s response.
Nothing pithy here. Please move long.
by WyoRanger on Jan 12, 2009 4:55 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Where was Nolan when this contract
was signed?
This is JDs baby all the way.
"Dying ain't hard. It's living that's hard."
by Josey Wales on Jan 12, 2009 5:03 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
or...
…as neyer said, its hicks doing… especially if he thought it would make it possible to keep tex later on…
"Anyone that isn't pro-choice never met you" ~Brian Thomas on Seth...
by ivysafety39 on Jan 12, 2009 5:04 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
make up your mind
do you want michael young around or not?
Mandatory reading before suggesting a trade
by ab03 on Jan 12, 2009 5:24 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
ultimately
i have a feeling MY agrees to move to 3B and this whole thing dies. they will bring in some one year stop gap like Vizquel (who I wouldn’t mind being the guy to help usher in the Andrus era) and we will keep with the theme of this offseason. Lots of bark, no bite.
by clark on Jan 12, 2009 4:11 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
Vizquel
is interesting. He is probably still better than MY defensively. He has some skins on the wall so MY should repesct him. Andrus could spend 3 months in OKC and Vizquel could either be traded or become the backup IF.
Elvis Andrus - 2009 AL Rookie of the Year
by RangerMad on Jan 12, 2009 4:16 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
there is no doubt
that vizquel still has something defensively. he was still one of the top five defensive shortstops in baseball last year, and top 3 in most metrics. plus, he doesn’t cost a draft pick (like Cabrera) and, as you said, moving off of a position because your org has signed one of the best people to ever play that position is a little easier on a) his ego and b) the team’s pr guys.
by clark on Jan 12, 2009 4:18 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I wonder what MY's
reaction would have been if JD had told him that they had sign Vizquel to play SS and they wanted him to move to 3B?
Elvis Andrus - 2009 AL Rookie of the Year
by RangerMad on Jan 12, 2009 4:25 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
"He's still alive?!?!?"
By 2028, Mark Teixeira will be in the HOF.
-The Outlaw
by Gdawg on Jan 12, 2009 4:36 PM CST up reply actions 1 recs
The only fact the Rangers knew before agreeing to MY's new contract
Was that MY would have to move to 3rd at some point in the contract.
Now, do you address that situation with MY before the contract is signed to gauge his response or do you not bring it up because you don’t want to offend the person you’re trying to sign to a contract?
If I recall correctly, MY never started talking about how he wasn’t going to move and was going to be a SS until after he signed the contract. The Rangers saw a player that had moved before so perhaps they assumed he’d move again. However, making an $80MM commitment based on assumptions was probably a huge mistake. This probably should have been something the Rangers figured out before they inked the contract.
Nothing pithy here. Please move long.
by WyoRanger on Jan 12, 2009 4:12 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
80 million dollars usually
helps deal with a person’s pride. Ever watch Fear Factor? Those people throw pride out the window for a hell of a lot less money.
By 2028, Mark Teixeira will be in the HOF.
-The Outlaw
by Gdawg on Jan 12, 2009 4:14 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I have trouble putting myself in the shoes of typical fans.
Partly because I’m a world away from the metroplex, and partly because I just can’t understand the thinking, but I don’t think this should be a black eye for the team at all. The contract, yes, but not trying to do what it takes to win. MY should have a black eye for being too much of a whiney douche to handle it.
by philkid3 on Jan 12, 2009 4:12 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
I guess I don't get
All the “whining” allegations. Maybe I’m being naive here, but I don’t think baseball is so different from all the other employment in the world. You don’t usually hire “general workers”, you hire a programmer or a manager, etc. Similarly, MY was signed to do one thing and now they want him to do another.
Now, maybe prudence dictates handling the situation differently. Maybe not. But I guess in general the idea of a “general baseball player” whose career direction is at the constant whim of another seems kind of wrongheaded to me.
It just seems to me that there’s a general feeling that baseball players are paid so much money that they should constantly be grateful and accept anything with a smile “for the good of the team.” But that’s not really how the world works, is it?
by brettgardner on Jan 12, 2009 4:28 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
They hired him to be a baseball player
They aren’t asking him to clean the locker rooms. If management thinks he’s be a more valuable baseball player at a different position, then that should be what he does. When I first started as an associate, part of my duty was to shovel the walks at my office and I’ve spent (and still spend) time as a glorified legal secretary. I may not like it, and I’m sure MY doesn’t like it, but whatever
Nothing pithy here. Please move long.
by WyoRanger on Jan 12, 2009 4:37 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Well
I think they hired him to be a 2B. If they want him to move, that’s fine, but it doesn’t mean he has to just accept it.
That’s how I see it, at least. And as for your example, there may be something to that for people just starting out, but they knew (supposedly) at the time they signed him what he was and what he would be. Seems a little chickenshit to back out now and then claim the high ground.
by brettgardner on Jan 12, 2009 4:39 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
He doesn't have to accept it.
Of course, that’s about a $12m per year decision on his part, but he doesn’t have to move if he doesn’t want to.
by Athos on Jan 12, 2009 4:42 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I get the financial aspect
That’s not really what I’m arguing here. More the “right v. wrong” aspect.
by brettgardner on Jan 12, 2009 4:43 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
The difference
Is that a lawyer gets better with time and experience.
by Back Door Yakker on Jan 12, 2009 4:43 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Not saying it's anyone's fault
Just that your assessment vis a vis someone just starting out in a legal career was off target
by Back Door Yakker on Jan 12, 2009 4:45 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Why?
I don’t get the relevance of your point.
by brettgardner on Jan 12, 2009 4:46 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
MY
and any other athlete has to understand that as they age and decline, they can’t expect to be SS forever.
by Back Door Yakker on Jan 12, 2009 4:48 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Again
That’s not his problem. That’s the Rangers’. I still don’t see the relevance.
by brettgardner on Jan 12, 2009 4:49 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Seems like
his problem too now
by Back Door Yakker on Jan 12, 2009 4:49 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I'm not sure
That you’re making the right argument to me.
by brettgardner on Jan 12, 2009 4:51 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I don't know why
you can’t see the relevance. you say they hired him to be a SS. I doubt it says that in his contract. They hired him, especially him, to be a team player. That’s why he got the amount he got. If anyone is reneging on the deal it’s MY refusing to be the team player he previously has been.
by Back Door Yakker on Jan 12, 2009 4:54 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
They hired him
To be a team player? They could have just given that money to the fucking mascot, then.
They hired him for a specific baseball skill.
by brettgardner on Jan 12, 2009 4:55 PM CST up reply actions 1 recs
which
translates best to 3B now
by Back Door Yakker on Jan 12, 2009 4:56 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
They hired him
for a specific set of baseball skills ~ a set that is transferable to different positions.
by Snark on Jan 12, 2009 4:56 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
so says common sense
What the hell do you think they signed him for?
By 2028, Mark Teixeira will be in the HOF.
-The Outlaw
by Gdawg on Jan 12, 2009 5:00 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Look above
Before you get too pissy. I already answered your question.
by brettgardner on Jan 12, 2009 5:01 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
You said they signed him to be a SS
Okay, then I guess Young was just hitting for free.
By 2028, Mark Teixeira will be in the HOF.
-The Outlaw
by Gdawg on Jan 12, 2009 5:02 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Are you serious?
You’ve got to have something better than that.
by brettgardner on Jan 12, 2009 5:03 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
You've got to have something better than
the Rangers signed him to be a SS and therefore moving him elsewhere is wrong.
By 2028, Mark Teixeira will be in the HOF.
-The Outlaw
by Gdawg on Jan 12, 2009 5:09 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
He makes a valid point, imo
I think they hired him to be a 2B. If they want him to move, that’s fine, but it doesn’t mean he has to just accept it.
Backing out of that commitment is fine, but don’t assume the moral high ground. You’re both at fault, if anyone is.
Give me Sheets or give me Offseason Blues Part III.
by Chase Irwin on Jan 12, 2009 7:06 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Both the Rangers and Young are at fault
but I’m not sure it’s so much a matter of moral high ground as of what the club and Young are contractually obligated to do.
If anything, Young’s talk of his job being “torn away” and what he deserves in return for his loyalty, hard work, sacrifices, etc. seems to speak more to the morality of the situation than anything Daniels or Ryan have said.
I agree that both the Rangers and Young are at fault
by Snark on Jan 12, 2009 7:20 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Completely disagree
Your answer truly baffles me.
Are you really asserting that teams don’t have every right to switch a player’s position, or that if they do some set of ethic points are subtracted?
This position really leaves me scratching my head.
Nah, noob.
by Brian Thomas on Jan 12, 2009 7:31 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Not sure if that was directed to me
but if so, you’ve misunderstood my point: I agree with you.
by Snark on Jan 12, 2009 7:37 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
It was to Chase
When in doubt, hit the up button…
Nah, noob.
by Brian Thomas on Jan 12, 2009 8:03 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I was wondering what that button was for.
Give me Sheets or give me Offseason Blues Part III.
by Chase Irwin on Jan 12, 2009 8:04 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Where I have a problem
is in the inconsistency.
No matter which way you look at it, someone is at fault, which is why I’m glad this has all come to light.
The team can switch him wherever they want, but they can’t then spin it as a “malcontent refuses to do what’s best for team.”
Evidently, JD could give a flying fuck about P.R. Fine by me. I just think it’s going to be difficult to sell a fan base on a team that never keeps cores together. Then again, JD probably realized long ago that MY wasn’t exactly putting butts into seats.
If he can’t keep his team from signing terrible contracts, what end is there in sight?
Give me Sheets or give me Offseason Blues Part III.
by Chase Irwin on Jan 12, 2009 7:45 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
If Young spins it
as his job being “torn away” and so on and so forth in his exchanges with the media, then I think it’d be understandable if the Rangers spin it as a malcontent refusing to do what’s best for the team. I’m not sure I’ve seen the club spin it that way yet, but I’d understand it if they did.
None of this changes the fact that in the long view, both parties have screwed this situation up in a few different ways.
by Snark on Jan 12, 2009 8:00 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
OK
I haven’t seen any evidence of JD trying to spin this as Young is a malcontented prick. What are you referring to with that allegation?
And what makes you think JD doesn’t “give a flying fuck about P.R. ?” That a really strange accusation.
So, when he does hour long Q&A’s at Newberg events, he isn’t doing that for PR? Really? He is easily the most accessible, accountable General Manager in DFW sports. He’s definitely had his fair share of blunders, but to claim he doesn’t give a shit about PR or fan relations is kind of ridiculous. Perhaps you are just pissed off and caught up in the moment.
Nah, noob.
by Brian Thomas on Jan 12, 2009 8:02 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
If he wasn't on board with this reaction
he shouldn’t have put himself in that position?
Is that unfair?
Give me Sheets or give me Offseason Blues Part III.
by Chase Irwin on Jan 12, 2009 8:02 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I honestly don't follow
Nah, noob.
by Brian Thomas on Jan 12, 2009 8:04 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
The issue
is with the original signing of Young’s contract.
Who is responsible?
Give me Sheets or give me Offseason Blues Part III.
by Chase Irwin on Jan 12, 2009 8:05 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Rhetorical question
Seems like a non sequitur to me.
Why does the fact that JD signed Face to an atrocious contract segue into him 2 years later painting Young as a piece of shit or not caring about fan relations?
Nah, noob.
by Brian Thomas on Jan 12, 2009 8:10 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
If you were not familiar enough with the player
to gauge what type of reaction he would have when presented with this inevitability, then you probably shouldn’t have committed to THAT extent in the first place.
Again, who is responsible?
Give me Sheets or give me Offseason Blues Part III.
by Chase Irwin on Jan 12, 2009 8:13 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I was pretty surprised by his reaction
Very taken aback.
I take it you weren’t?
Nah, noob.
by Brian Thomas on Jan 12, 2009 8:15 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Not at all
I fully expected him to make a big stink over this — he’s overtly prideful.
If it’s Hicks’ fault, then we need a GM who can keep his owner from forcing stupid signings. JD should quit while he is ahead.
If it is JD’s fault, then he should have done more to prevent that contract from exacerbating additional problems. The franchise is hurting enough as it is.
Give me Sheets or give me Offseason Blues Part III.
by Chase Irwin on Jan 12, 2009 8:19 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I'm not pissed off and caught up
I think this is a very good thing in the long run.
If anything, it should help to clarify exactly who’s role is what.
I don’t think you can deny that everybody loses when something like this happens. I’ll retract my statement: JD doesn’t care about PR as it pertains to the face of his franchise. I don’t buy all the “shock” of this issue. Who didn’t see this coming? Honestly?
Give me Sheets or give me Offseason Blues Part III.
by Chase Irwin on Jan 12, 2009 8:10 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Brian
The second clause—“ethic points”—is a bit of a bastardization of my position, but it’s at least close.
My “problem” (though it’s certainly only from the theoretical standpoint) is not that, in the abstract, a team asked a player to switch positions. As I said before, it’s just very situation-specific. So, for instance, Texas making Moreland pitch or some other such thing is completely different, to me, than demanding an established veteran that you just signed do something quite different than what he agreed to.
So even if all those who have a problem with my analogy were correct, and it’s not some massive shift between SS and 3B—even if your job title goes from “Pencil Pusher A” to “Pencil Pusher B”, it’s still different than what you agreed to.
And the problem certainly isn’t that teams don’t have the prerogative to demand a player play position A, B, or C, it’s just that they shouldn’t, in my opinion, be automatically granted the moral high ground for doing so. I don’t think MY need be shitted upon for being upset here, is all.
Spilling the whole thing through the media? That’s beyond my argument, and quite possibly a shitty thing to do.
by brettgardner on Jan 12, 2009 8:43 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
by your logic
the team should be just as angry with MY for not continuing to put up the numbers he was putting up just before they inked his deal. In fact, that is the exact flip side of your point.
MY is mad because he signed a contract as a SS and is now a 3B.
The Rangers should be mad that they signed one player to a contract and are now left with much less than they originally bargained for.
Both happenings are predictable, and therefore neither one should elicit the type of response that MY publicly did. To assume that nothing will change throughout the term of the contract is not realistic.
by Back Door Yakker on Jan 12, 2009 10:57 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
That's not
The exact flip side, actually. You give someone a contract for their services going forward, which could obviously include a change in production, but that’s the risk inherent in a long-term deal.
MY has no similar expectation that he’s going to be moved all around to suit the club’s fancy, even if it’s been speculated here for some time. The fact that it happens, or that it may be predictable, really has no relevance, because it wasn’t on the table at the time. You saying that it’s predictable doesn’t mean that MY shouldn’t still be upset.
by brettgardner on Jan 12, 2009 11:14 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Any baseball player should know
that later in their careers a position switch could happen.
If they don’t realize that, they are just blind to the fact that they will get older, slower, and less good at baseball.
"He will not coddle them. Nolan Ryan doesn’t coddle." - Jeff Passan
by Dirk Diggler on Jan 13, 2009 7:54 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Again, though
That’s not my point. The point is that the team shouldn’t be granted the free pass.
This argument is really really starting to bore me.
by brettgardner on Jan 13, 2009 9:06 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I don't see how they are getting a free pass
But, I don’t see why they should be held to some sort of standard just because it is MY.
I agree this argument is boring, I just wanted to make the point that baseball players move all the time. Constantly. Every year it happens. MY needs to swallow his pride and help the team.
Conversely, the team needs to realize this didn’t quite go over spectacularly and consider it the next time they want to move their crappy-overpaid-SS to another position.
"He will not coddle them. Nolan Ryan doesn’t coddle." - Jeff Passan
by Dirk Diggler on Jan 13, 2009 9:23 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
When he signed his name on an 80 million dollar deal
He signed that he was going to do whatever the team asked of him to do. The only exception would be in regards to who trades him. There was no commitment to him to be the SS for the team through 2013 and assuming that would have been stupid on Young’s part. You won’t find many players in their mid 30s still playing a position like SS unless the team doesn’t have any other options, especially when that player wasn’t great defensively to begin with.
By 2028, Mark Teixeira will be in the HOF.
-The Outlaw
by Gdawg on Jan 12, 2009 7:32 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
You guys are essentially making the same argument.
"Please. What the hell do you know about starting a sports-related website and then deciding to leave it to work on other things and then? How dare you, sir." -- Michael Schur, aka FireJoeMorgan's Ken Tremendous, to Will Leitch
by ghtd36 on Jan 12, 2009 5:00 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
That's cute.
How’s that working out for you, being cute?
by Snark on Jan 12, 2009 5:05 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Very well.
I can see you have a very high opinion of yourself, and of your opinions, but that doesn’t mean I need to spend 10 minutes arguing opinion-based rhetoric.
So yeah, I’m a cute motherfucker.
by brettgardner on Jan 12, 2009 5:08 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
lame.
ah the ‘ole i-can’t-argue-you’re-points-so-i’m-going-to-resort-to-witty-personal-attacks ploy… well layed.
"Anyone that isn't pro-choice never met you" ~Brian Thomas on Seth...
by ivysafety39 on Jan 12, 2009 5:11 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I'm trying to argue his points.
But you can’t argue with, “So say you.”
by Snark on Jan 12, 2009 5:11 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I can tell
You’ve never tried to end an annoying phone call before, sir.
by brettgardner on Jan 12, 2009 5:12 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Best way to end an annoying phone call is to hang up
By 2028, Mark Teixeira will be in the HOF.
-The Outlaw
by Gdawg on Jan 12, 2009 5:13 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
The difference is
I won’t cry myself to sleep thinking about your razor wit.
I’ll move on in the discussion.
by brettgardner on Jan 12, 2009 5:16 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Well considering you are responding and keep responding to him
no
By 2028, Mark Teixeira will be in the HOF.
-The Outlaw
by Gdawg on Jan 12, 2009 5:20 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Listen
I don’t have anything against him, so I don’t have a problem responding to some other argument, but that particular line was going nowhere, so I ended it.
He took offense. His problem.
by brettgardner on Jan 12, 2009 5:21 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
That
“Well, good” was supposed to go here.
by brettgardner on Jan 12, 2009 5:25 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Here's what I don't understand.
You say that MY was hired to be a shortstop. That’s all well and good.
Snark says that MY was hired for a specific set of baseball skills. That’s all well and good.
So why the vitriol? There doesn’t need to be an argument here. There’s no need to say, “So say you.” You could say that about any of your assertions, too. Just agree to disagree and move on. Not everything has to be an argument.
"Please. What the hell do you know about starting a sports-related website and then deciding to leave it to work on other things and then? How dare you, sir." -- Michael Schur, aka FireJoeMorgan's Ken Tremendous, to Will Leitch
by ghtd36 on Jan 12, 2009 5:08 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
What I don't get
Is why he seemingly took that as vitriol. I just didn’t have anything to respond to, so I left it at that.
by brettgardner on Jan 12, 2009 5:10 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Derek Jeter says “Hello.”
"I'd like to f*ck Sandra Bullock." - Pedro Martinez, explaining his secret ambition to Sports Illustrated for Kids.
by OCD SS on Jan 12, 2009 4:49 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Unless there's a provision in Young's contract
that gives him veto power over a positional shift, it does mean he has to just accept it.
Working with your real life analogies: if Young was hired as a Java programmer, he just got asked to learn Perl and work on a slightly different project. Or if he was hired as a manager for one team that manufactures widgets, he just got asked to move to the team next door that manufactures gizmos. It’s not like he’s being asked to shift from practicing law to medicine ~ or even to give up a career in corporate law to work in the DA’s office.
This happens a lot in baseball. Players and their agents know it. Coaches and managers know it. GMs and owners know it.
Michael Young knew it.
He can kvetch about it if he wants, but then it’s no mystery why people are saying he’s kvetching.
by Snark on Jan 12, 2009 4:53 PM CST up reply actions 1 recs
I honestly don't think
Those analogies are accurate at all.
by brettgardner on Jan 12, 2009 4:54 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Why not?
It’d move the discussion along further if you provided your rationale.
by Snark on Jan 12, 2009 4:55 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Because
We’re accepting, of course, that he’s still playing baseball. So no, it’s not like moving from medicine to law, but we also have to assume that players cannot play every position on the field in baseball.
So, it seems pretty obvious that moving from one position to another could easily be considered a drastic career shift.
If MY had only a year left on his contract and the team came to him with this, would you feel differently? In that scenario, the move could have a significant impact on his future earnings.
by brettgardner on Jan 12, 2009 4:59 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Moving from shortstop to third base is drastic?
I don’t think so. In fact, we can assume that many players who have the skill sets to be major-league shortstops also have the skill sets to be major-league third basemen, because it’s happened historically, and not all that infrequently. It’s not at all obvious that this is a “drastic” move, especially for a guy who signed a five-year, $80 million contract extension knowing full well that in 2013 he probably wouldn’t be playing shortstop any longer.
If Young had only one year left on his contract, this would be something he could use in negotiations. Signing a five-year, $80 million contract extension tends to mean you give up some negotiating power.
by Snark on Jan 12, 2009 5:03 PM CST up reply actions 1 recs
It does?
It seems you could argue that it means the team gave up negotiating power since they signed him for what he was.
by brettgardner on Jan 12, 2009 5:04 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
they gave up
the power to pay him less. he gave up the power to determine who he plays for, which includes management of the team
by Back Door Yakker on Jan 12, 2009 5:06 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Yes
You’re making some awful points here.
by brettgardner on Jan 12, 2009 5:08 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
How full of yourself are you
That you feel its beneath you to actually explain something.
By 2028, Mark Teixeira will be in the HOF.
-The Outlaw
by Gdawg on Jan 12, 2009 5:10 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Best possible answer.
"My mother always taught me that if the only thing you have to say is,
‘(Expletive) Dave Samson,’ then don’t say anything at all.
So I’m not going to say anything at all.
Is my mother the greatest or what?"
- Mariners GM Bill Bavasi, after signing Ichiro to a $90 million contract
by tyd3311 on Jan 12, 2009 5:17 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
How excited are you right now if
you’re a Broncos fan? McDaniels to run the offense, and Mike Nolan for the defense. Best possibly scenario if you ask me.
"My mother always taught me that if the only thing you have to say is,
‘(Expletive) Dave Samson,’ then don’t say anything at all.
So I’m not going to say anything at all.
Is my mother the greatest or what?"
- Mariners GM Bill Bavasi, after signing Ichiro to a $90 million contract
by tyd3311 on Jan 12, 2009 5:19 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Really?
It would scare the shit out of me.
by brettgardner on Jan 12, 2009 5:20 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Definitely
Nolan is what makes it, though. That experience along with McDaniels, I think they could make a great pair. I look for Jay Cutler to become a special player.
"My mother always taught me that if the only thing you have to say is,
‘(Expletive) Dave Samson,’ then don’t say anything at all.
So I’m not going to say anything at all.
Is my mother the greatest or what?"
- Mariners GM Bill Bavasi, after signing Ichiro to a $90 million contract
by tyd3311 on Jan 12, 2009 5:24 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
It'll be weird though
What happens with the O-line scheme?
It seems like they could either go to the Super Bowl next year or be in the top 10 in the draft.
by brettgardner on Jan 12, 2009 5:27 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Yes.
The team’s got rights under the contract both parties signed, as does Young. Assuming it’s a standard contract, Young doesn’t have any power to negotiate his position. He can be unhappy about it, but he can’t refuse to play third just because he doesn’t want to. Or rather, he can, but then the Rangers don’t have to honor his contract. On the other hand, the Rangers can’t decide not to pay him because they don’t think he’s a very good shortstop.
by Snark on Jan 12, 2009 5:07 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
that's backward thinking
being able to play another position enhances his value.
by Back Door Yakker on Jan 12, 2009 5:04 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Not necessarily.
It depends on the positions. Don’t get so hung up on this specific instance—try to extrapolate it.
by brettgardner on Jan 12, 2009 5:05 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
this is
a specific situation – no need to extrapolate. your implication that it reduces his value is wrong. what reduces his value is when someone decides that he’s not a good SS any longer.
by Back Door Yakker on Jan 12, 2009 5:07 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Right
So say, in the one-year example, MY wanted to play elsewhere as a SS. This very scenario would really damage his ability to do that, don’t you think?
by brettgardner on Jan 12, 2009 5:09 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
And suppose the Rangers
Wanted to give a pitcher that $16M instead of an aging SS. We can’t all get what we want once we get locked into a contract, can we?
by Back Door Yakker on Jan 12, 2009 5:13 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
you're right
you are unable to understand relevance
by Back Door Yakker on Jan 12, 2009 5:46 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Before the game
you look at the lineup card, if you are on it you go out and play even if it says 3rd base
I have nothing to say
by rldwb on Jan 12, 2009 5:21 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I don't think a ballplayer's position and the typical job are very analogous.
Ballplayer’s do change positions while they are on the rise in the minors and it becomes apparent they don’t have the skill set for their original position, or when they become older and their physical abilities decline.
OF, C become DH.
3B become 1B.
SS become 3B.
2B become utility players.
1B, well, they take PEDs.
When skills are in decline, it’s time to either retire or re-invent.
Go Rangers!
by rooster on Jan 12, 2009 5:46 PM CST up reply actions 1 recs
Good analogy
Just because MY is a veteran doesn’t make him impervious to a position change, especially when it’s meant to help his team/organization.
by hiafex on Jan 12, 2009 6:21 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
comparison to other employment
This isn’t telling a programmer that his job duties now include managing the janitorial staff. This is telling a programmer who is responsible for writing code for the marketing department that he now is responsible for coding for the accounting department. It is a shift in job description, yet, but it isn’t a shift in jobs.
It’d be different if they were asking Young to learn to catch or become a LOOGY. They are asking him to move from SS to 3b – its another infield position that he’s perfectly qualified for already.
There is also a difference between individuals under contract and typical employees. If a typical salary employee is asked to do something that may go against his best career path, he can leave. If someone is under contract, they are sacrificing personal freedom for financial security. If the programmer signed a contract saying that he’ll program whatever needs to be programmed, then he’s pretty much obligated to do what his company says.
by JBImaknee on Jan 12, 2009 6:02 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Become a LOOGY
That’s exactly how it should have been handled:
JD/Wash: We think Andrus is ready to play shortstop. But we really need a situational lefty in the pen. We’d like you to be that guy.
FOTF: What? I can’t pitch left-handed. Metcalf sucks … what about third base?
JD/Wash: Okay.
by robert_d_wilfong on Jan 12, 2009 7:11 PM CST up reply actions 1 recs
Laid out like that....
…it just makes sense.
by jasonhh on Jan 12, 2009 8:07 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
The Rangers have a way of getting pub.
This mess is not all that bad. Ask Jerry Jones
I have nothing to say
by rldwb on Jan 12, 2009 4:13 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
but too much of it
can backfire. a little pacman pub was good for the cowboys and kept their name in the papers last spring, but not it just epitomizes the sad state that franchise is in.
by clark on Jan 12, 2009 4:14 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I don't get it..
..what is the FO supposed to do at this point? Just accept the fact that they gave him that contract and live with it? Keep him at short because they don’t want to hurt his feelings?
I don’t understand this post at all. I’m not, in any way, embarassed by the Rangers front office because of this. I’m embarassed that they gave him that stupid contract, but that’s not a new thing.
I’m freaking proud that JD and Nolan had the stones to do this. And I’m glad the true colors of an overated player have come to light.
by jthig32 on Jan 12, 2009 4:18 PM CST reply actions 2 recs
The point of this post
is not that JD and Nolan were wrong about forcing this move. I think most people who follow the game closely would agree with them.
The problem is that this is not a new thing for the Rangers. This type of PR nightmare has become commonplace with this organization. Its expected every once in a while. Its mismanagement somewhere when it happens routinely.
Its like the person who always has disastrous relationships that end horribly. They may be great and friendly, but at some point you have to wonder if her decision making process is right to keep ending up in the same situation over and over again.
by JBImaknee on Jan 12, 2009 5:31 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Same situation......
The situation keeps coming up because players keep being succesful in exploiting it.
They should have drawn a line in the sand with Soriano all those years ago.
by bdavison94 on Jan 12, 2009 6:41 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
The front office love
is killing me. They dug this hole when they gave thim that albatross of a contract. They are the reason this is happening. Stop defending them.
by clark on Jan 12, 2009 4:19 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
I don't think anyone is saying that the front office is blameless.
But there is (IMO) understandable malcontent aimed toward Michael Young for this. As AJM put it, nobody is blameless.
"Please. What the hell do you know about starting a sports-related website and then deciding to leave it to work on other things and then? How dare you, sir." -- Michael Schur, aka FireJoeMorgan's Ken Tremendous, to Will Leitch
by ghtd36 on Jan 12, 2009 4:21 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Who's trying to defend the contract?
I don’t think anyone is defending the front office on that point. It’s just that some people agree with the more recent decision to move Young to 3b.
Not to mention a general sense that JD & Co. have done a much better job over the last two years than they had before.
by cstorm15 on Jan 12, 2009 4:30 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
the problem i have
is that, as Adam mentioned above, they have pussy footed around much lesser players, acquiescing to their preferences, and yet they decided to take a firm line against Young less than two years after giving him a huge contract extension and apparently not making it known to him that at some point during that extension he would be expected to move to 3B. It is the lack of foresight and the lack of managing the expectations of their personnel that gets at me.
by clark on Jan 12, 2009 4:35 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Question for you
Pretend that JD was fired last year when Nolan took over, and that the new guy decided that Young needed to move to 3b.
Would moving Young to 3b be the right move or the wrong move?
In other words, I’m asking you to judge this transaction independently rather than using it as an excuse to get pissed off about something else.
by cstorm15 on Jan 12, 2009 4:41 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
there is no doubt
that moving Young to 3B is the right move in the long term. but that isn’t the question here, nor is it the problem. the problem is that this has turned into a PR nightmare for the team because, apparently, it had never crossed Young’s mind that he might eventually be asked to move to 3B. how the hell does management let that happen during the course of guaranteeing him $80M?
Just waiting one more year would have saved face. Let Andrus force his way up to the big leagues, give him his september call up and let everyone see how great he is defensively at the big league level, and then have MY spent next offseason working at 3B. But to move him off now for a kid who hasn’t played above AA, a kid with questionable offensive tools and a propensity for unforced errors, is just not smart.
by clark on Jan 12, 2009 4:48 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
It has crossed Young's mind before
because the question has been asked to him before. He has just refused to believe that the Rangers would actually have a pair of balls and weren’t the same as when Buck wouldn’t man up to Soriano. And the Tex situation is completely different . Tex was nearing free agency, Young has 5 years left.
By 2028, Mark Teixeira will be in the HOF.
-The Outlaw
by Gdawg on Jan 12, 2009 4:54 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
No, that is the question here
Was asking Young to move to 3b this offseason the right move?
See, here’s the problem. You automatically want to blame this “PR nightmare” on management. Why? Well, the team has had plenty of “PR nightmares” in the past, and some of those were the team’s fault. Thus, this one must also be the team’s fualt.
But there’s nothing the team did wrong here in moving Young to 3b. Young created this PR nightmare, not the team.
And as for moving Young to 3b later, that may save face for PR reasons, but it’s a bad baseball decision. You don’t move Young to 3b midseason, and you don’t block Andrus at SS with a defensively inferior player. I’m glad that we’re finally starting to put baseball decisions ahead of PR decisions (although I think someone in the PR department came up with “championship-caliber players” for JD).
by cstorm15 on Jan 12, 2009 4:56 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
re: apparently, it had never crossed Young’s mind that he might eventually be asked to move to 3B. how the hell does management let that happen during the course of guaranteeing him $80M?
Come on. Do you really think nothing had been said by the front office on the subject prior to last month?
And if it never crossed Mike Young’s mind before, well, then he is a delusional half-tard.
And we know he isn’t.
Your first paragraph is a gross oversimplification.
Nah, noob.
by Brian Thomas on Jan 12, 2009 4:58 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
This Nolan Quote fits here:
"Obviously when Elvis came into the system, there had been speculation at some point in time that the request would come down. It was one of those situations that you didn’t know the time frame on it because it depended on Elivs’ development. It’s unfortuatne the timing is as it is this year with Michael coming off an outstanding season where he won a Gold Glove and was an All-Star. We feel with Elvis’ talents and Michael’s ability that it made sense to move Michael to third to try to put the best team on the field possible."
by cstorm15 on Jan 12, 2009 5:02 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
They are the reason that MY is being a bitch
and won’t move to 3B?
By 2028, Mark Teixeira will be in the HOF.
-The Outlaw
by Gdawg on Jan 12, 2009 4:52 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I really think
That JD and WAS thought MY would move to third without a fight. So I don’t think the FO is trying to get out of his contract or considers it a huge mistake— if that was the case then why even ask him to move? Why not just shop him without asking him about 3rd and not risk lowering his trade value?
If they are thinking “wow this contract sucks how can we get rid of him” they wouldn’t decide the best way to do that is to ask him to move to third knowing he’ll say no and ask for a trade. The best way to get rid of the contract would be to skip the first part and just try and trade him.
www.mavsmoneyball.com
by Wes Cox on Jan 12, 2009 4:23 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
I think they knew exactly how Michael would react
virtually everyone on this blog knew how he would react.
Better to get it over with and leave no gray areas.
I have nothing to say
by rldwb on Jan 12, 2009 4:27 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Everyone knew he wouldn't be happy about it
But honest show of hands, how many people really expected for him to be so against the move to want a trade out of here and pretty much be that type of player we all thought he was different from. The similarity to A-Rod and the 24 kids statements is hilarious if it wasn’t so depressing.
By 2028, Mark Teixeira will be in the HOF.
-The Outlaw
by Gdawg on Jan 12, 2009 4:32 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Mine isn't
I was pretty shocked he reacted this way.
I suspect if we took a poll your view would be in the minority.
Nah, noob.
by Brian Thomas on Jan 12, 2009 7:37 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
i didnt expect it to be this extreme
but i didnt expect him to move quietly
"I'm against picketing, but I don't know how to show it." - Mitch Hedberg
by rentz on Jan 12, 2009 7:44 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
My hand is way up.
And I remember the arguments where I said as much the first time he said he saw “no reason” to move.
by philkid3 on Jan 12, 2009 8:06 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
x
<
if that was the case then why even ask him to move? Why not just shop him without asking him about 3rd and not risk lowering his trade value?>
Young has a no-trade clause, so ostensibly they had to create a reason for him to want out before trading him.
by Randy Richardson on Jan 12, 2009 4:37 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Good point
still seems like they would have been able to keep it in house at least – they obviously screwed that part up pretty badly.
www.mavsmoneyball.com
by Wes Cox on Jan 12, 2009 4:59 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Well JD and Nolan can't control everyone
Especially if Young is calling all his buddies up and asking for their opinions.
By 2028, Mark Teixeira will be in the HOF.
-The Outlaw
by Gdawg on Jan 12, 2009 5:02 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Well Put Adam
This is just one more change in direction from an orginization that can’t pick a direction and stick with it. At least now they have to build from within, because who would sign here long-term?
Messy.
Free Frank Catalanotto
by egriffey on Jan 12, 2009 4:26 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
This isn't a change of direction.
It’s a move to make sure they stay on the direction they’ve chosen and are sticking to. How is this a change of direction?
by Athos on Jan 12, 2009 4:27 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Shedding the Face
IT’s unintentional, but a change nonetheless
Free Frank Catalanotto
by egriffey on Jan 12, 2009 4:28 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
If anything, this is a sign of further commitment to the current direction.
"Please. What the hell do you know about starting a sports-related website and then deciding to leave it to work on other things and then? How dare you, sir." -- Michael Schur, aka FireJoeMorgan's Ken Tremendous, to Will Leitch
by ghtd36 on Jan 12, 2009 4:32 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
It isn't necessarily a "change"
so much as a “lack” of direction.
I don’t even fucking care which direction this team goes in anymore.
Pick a direction.
Give me Sheets or give me Offseason Blues Part III.
by Chase Irwin on Jan 12, 2009 7:16 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Lack of direction?
I think it’s a question of fitting Young into the team’s direction. Remember, when they signed Young, Andrus wasn’t in the system. Was the team supposed to not make the Tex trade because trading for Andrus would cause a problem?
I don’t think that moving our 32-year-old shortstop to 3b to make room for the short stop of the future indicates any change in direction or lack of direction. Frankly, it’s a smart baseball move independent of any “direction” the team is going.
by cstorm15 on Jan 12, 2009 10:51 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
This isn't a 'change in direction'...
…it’s a continuation of the plan of the organization to build from within. The front office is not blameless, but you can’t blame them for trying to remedy the mistake that was that large contract by trying to work with MY.
This is on MY now. If he doesn’t want to play third base, too bad. And like others have said, MY is going to feel really bad when the front office comes back and tells him there’s no market for him anyway.
by j-r-d on Jan 12, 2009 4:29 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
It's a change...
…in that they might dump the guy that they planned to build to build around.
Free Frank Catalanotto
by egriffey on Jan 12, 2009 4:39 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
They can still
“build around” him if he played third base. He can still play for the team. MY is being a prick. Sorry. There’s no two ways about it. The bottom line is the team has all the leverage. MY has little leverage except for some casual fans who will call in to The Ticket and claim they’ll never go to a game again if MY leaves. He has little to no trade value. All he has is a PR campaign.
by j-r-d on Jan 12, 2009 4:59 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I agree
That MY is being childish, and I agree that he has no leverage. I was just trying to clarify my “change in direction” comment. If he is traded, that, to me, constitutes a change in direction. If he is not traded, then the ship is back on its wierd and irrational course.
I hope they do ship him somewhere. I also hope they ditch Millwood, Padilla, Blalock, cat-Man, and every other veteran that has more than a year or two left on their contracts. Go young, do it now.
I also hope that I develop the skill set to pick up girls at traffic lights. And, I want a pony.
Free Frank Catalanotto
by egriffey on Jan 12, 2009 6:11 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I would bet Young and JD can work through the way Young feels about how he was approached, but
the more I think about it the more I’m not sure I would be very happy for what this may appear to mean about 2009, if I were Young.
This whole let’s-get-ready-for-2010 idea is not very comforting for a player, I would think. Young probably believes the improvement in defense on the left side is minimal, since there is a large learning curve in the jump from AA to ML (which is one of JDs points about the luxury of having good-guy Young on the team to teach Andrus). The Rangers also are letting a good portion of their rotation mature. So, Young is approached with the argument that 2009 will be a year of sacrifice. Not exactly a motivational argument.
Maybe Young can say… my feelings are hurt, but let’s put it behind us. I am not sure Young can say, let’s be a developmental team this year, and really have his heart in it.
Go Rangers!
by rooster on Jan 12, 2009 4:30 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
Is Hicks having money problems again?
…because this thing wreaks of a contrived way to make MY unhappy, therefore asking for (or waiving his no-trade clause to facilitate) a trade. He won a GG last year, possibly helping his value, or at least helping his defensive value before he REALLY begins to decline defensively.
It is no secret how MY would react to this proposal. The team’s brass had to know this. Would it surprise anyone if this was the first step toward an outright salary dump?
"I would like to extend to you an invitation to the pants party. The...party. With the...with the pants. Party with pants?"
by BrickTamland on Jan 12, 2009 4:30 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
Nice conspiracy theory
But it makes no sense.
by cstorm15 on Jan 12, 2009 4:32 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
It does not wreak of financial trouble.
There is no value to the Rangers in a salary dump. His salary can’t be dumped.
Go Rangers!
by rooster on Jan 12, 2009 4:32 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
When they gave MY that contract...
they chose to build around him. I’m not absolving MY, he’s acting childish.
Free Frank Catalanotto
by egriffey on Jan 12, 2009 4:31 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
That was beautiful and so well-worded
Great job AJM!
"And the Rangers looking to win it! The Rangers have won it!"
-- Josh Lewin, Sept 23, 2004
by Agreen07 on Jan 12, 2009 4:33 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
Great read, AJM.
You’re right, no matter who people think is at fault here, it looks bad.
"Come on man you have to admit the average guy in a baseball clubhouse...... is relatively a douchebag." BGL.
by sprite on Jan 12, 2009 4:36 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Where's proof?
I want to see the proof that Bradley and Padilla REFUSED to go on the dl.
Yeah, this is ugly and shouldn’t have been publicized. At the same time, why does Mike Young feel like he is above directives of his bosses. This drives me crazy in the sports world. Get a little money and fame and that automatically gives you the right to be above the chain of command? Sorry, I don’t buy into that. I like Mike Young a lot, but IMO he is totally in the wrong on this one.
by maxzoran on Jan 12, 2009 4:38 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
If it comes down to it.....
Do the Rangers pull what the nats did with Soriano?
Will the Rangers say…..Your position is 3B. Play it or sit on the bench.
I could just see the first spring training game with YOUNG and Elvis standing side by side at short….and nobody playing 3B.
by death of the cool on Jan 12, 2009 4:38 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
I think they'll have to.
And it’s the right stance to take.
by Athos on Jan 12, 2009 4:45 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Nolan has already said they won't.
Go Rangers!
by rooster on Jan 12, 2009 5:48 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Young and Elvis standing side by side at short
As long as Elvis is standing to the left of the two so he can cover up the middle I’m fine with that.
by JBImaknee on Jan 12, 2009 5:23 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
haha
Give me Sheets or give me Offseason Blues Part III.
by Chase Irwin on Jan 12, 2009 7:17 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
heh
Young is due $62 million over the next five seasons. That is one of the most untradeable contracts in baseball, and the Nats are inclined to agree: They feel that a $15 million annual salary for a 32-year-old is too steep.
Stability is key, and JD is a Beast.
Jindal - 2012