clock menu more-arrow no yes mobile

Filed under:

Thursday a.m. things

That was disappointing yesterday.  Apparently, if we trade Gerald Laird this offseason, we're going to have to send Kevin Millwood with him, because there's no one else that Millwood seems able to pitch to.

Evan Grant's game story from yesterday focuses on the two unearned runs that were the difference in the game. 

And that segues into Mike Hindman's blog post about Michael Young, his contract, and his defense at shortstop.  I've been thinking about writing about the Young situation, but haven't, for a variety of reasons.  And now, thanks to Mike, I don't have to...he sums it up pretty well.

Michael Young isn't an acceptable defensive shortstop, and his bat isn't going to play well at any other position.  As Hindman points out, the idea that folks float out there about Young being an asset as a left fielder or a DH just don't make sense, because he's not going to hit enough at those positions to be better than replacement value there.  You are stuck either putting him at third base and hoping he's good enough defensively there to be average overall, or maybe just a little below average, or you can put him on the bench at $16 million per year through 2013.

For some reason, there's been this notion that Michael Young is going to break the mold and get better, not worse, as he gets older, with the broadcasters repeating the oft-used meme of "just tell Michael Young he can't do something, and he'll do it."  Tom Grieve said, after that comment was made, that someone should tell Young he can't get 200 hits this year, although my reaction was, someone should tell him he can't be a good defensive shortstop, because him proving the world wrong on that issue would be a hell of a lot more meaningful than getting 200 hits.