Jim Reeves has a few thoughts up at the S-T blog, but this one really jumped out at me:
With the Rays adding Pat Burrell and the Yankees adding someone new to the Forbes 500 almost daily, will the BoSox feel the need to make a bigger splash themselves? Are they happy with Jed Lowrie at short, or would they have an interest in the Rangers' Michael Young?
Here's the thing...Lowrie is, right now, probably about as good as Young.
Lowrie had a .263 EQA last season. Young had a .268 EQA last season.
Defensively, Lowrie was a +8 at shortstop, using Dewan's +/- system. Young was -7.
Bill James projects a .278/.366/.417 line from Lowrie next year. James projects a .297/.349/.427 line from Young next year.
From an overall performance standpoint, if you had to choose between Lowrie and Young for 2009, ignoring contract status and everything else, it might be a coin flip, although you could reasonably argue Lowrie would be expected to be better.
So why would the Red Sox, with a front office full of people who have shown that they know what they are doing and are more worried about wins than making a big splash, want to go with Young instead of Lowrie?
I doubt the Red Sox would trade Lowrie straight up for Young. Or would take Young in exchange for a bag of balls, given his contract and the fact they don't have anywhere to play him, really.
But this is emblematic of the deification of Michael Young that goes on in the D/FW media. There seems to be this idea that, well, maybe the Rangers could get a huge haul of players, a Teixeira-like return, if they were willing to deal Young. And it is implied that the Rangers would be foolish to take anything less.
And maybe a deal like that is out there.
But it won't be with a team like Boston.