Rangers looking to move Michael Young

[mahonedog88]

Here's a big possibility for the Red Sox to upgrade their lineup.

The Rangers are now looking into the possibility of moving their star shortstop because they want to move him to 3rd base which is he apparently unwilling to do.  He's obviously a big upgrade over Jed Lowrie.  All trade talks involving the Red Sox usually always start with Clay Bucholz.

Jed Lowrie, Clay Bucholz, and maybe another smaller prospect for Michael Young?

[yall hate]

Here's a big possibility for the Red Sox to upgrade their lineup.

The Rangers are now looking into the possibility of moving their star shortstop because they want to move him to 3rd base which is he apparently unwilling to do.  He's obviously a big upgrade over Jed Lowrie.  All trade talks involving the Red Sox usually always start with Clay Bucholz.

Jed Lowrie, Clay Bucholz, and maybe another smaller prospect for Michael Young?

Barf.

Young is vastly overpaid (set to begin a 5 year, 80 million extension this year), is aging (32 now, 37 at the end of his contract...his defense is slipping so he will likely need to move to 2nd or 3rd in a year or two), and is trending down words offensively.

he batted .284 with 12 home runs and 82 RBI last year, numbers that do not warrant the kind of salary he currently possesses. Further, Young's OPS has dropped in each of the last four years, down to .741 from the .898 he posted in 2005, when he batted .331 with 24 home runs, 91 RBI, 114 runs scored and 40 doubles.

http://www.boston.com/sports/baseball/redsox/extras/extra_bases/

Thankfully the Sox have already said they have no interest in him.

[Donoghus]

Not willing to give up much youth for Young. 

I'm actually pretty content with Lowrie right now and anxious to see how he progresses this upcoming season.

[Chris]

I am a huge fan of Young, but I agree with the others here who have said he is on the downside of his career, and is not worth giving up top prospects for (Buch, Ellsbury, Andersen)...

With that said, if we could get him for say, Bowden, Lowry (who could be their third baseman), and maybe a lower level prospect, I would do it in a second.  But considering they don't seem inclined to take less than Bucholtz for Salatalamachia, I highly doubt a deal like that would get it done.

Even though he is older, he is still a very good defensive SS, and a very good hitter, who can step in and be a leadoff hitter if Ellsbury faulters, or solidify the bottom of the lineup.

[Nerf DPOY]

Barf.

Young is vastly overpaid (set to begin a 5 year, 80 million extension this year), is aging (32 now, 37 at the end of his contract...his defense is slipping so he will likely need to move to 2nd or 3rd in a year or two), and is trending down words offensively.

This sums it up for me. Besides the money, I'm not convinced tha he'll outperform Lowrie over the course of that contract. I put a lot of Lowrie's struggles down to league adjustments and the lingering wrist injury. He slugged over .500 ( 13 HR's, a slew of doubles ) in 2007 between Portland and Pawtucket. I think with a little more meat on his bones that he could get back there. That's pretty good value for a rookie salary batting in the 8th spot.

[Redz]

He's super clutch in the All Star Game though

[nickagneta]

What about expanding the trade and give up Clay, Lars and Lowrie and get Young and Teagarden or Saltamacchhia? I think that works for me.

[yall hate]

What about expanding the trade and give up Clay, Lars and Lowrie and get Young and Teagarden or Saltamacchhia? I think that works for me.

If the Sox wouldnt move Clay for either catcher, why would they then move Lars and Clay in a package...

I think it would take an amazing young talent to get the Sox to move Lars (like a Hanley type). I would shoot myself in the face if we did the trade you suggested...(Young is overpaid, and declining. Lars is the young power type the Sox havent had in years)

[Donoghus]

What about expanding the trade and give up Clay, Lars and Lowrie and get Young and Teagarden or Saltamacchhia? I think that works for me.

If the Sox wouldnt move Clay for either catcher, why would they then move Lars and Clay in a package...

I think it would take an amazing young talent to get the Sox to move Lars (like a Hanley type). I would shoot myself in the face if we did the trade you suggested...(Young is overpaid, and declining. Lars is the young power type the Sox havent had in years)

I agree with YH here.  I'd be awfully reluctant to give up a multitude of youth especially with Anderson included to grab a 32 year old SS with a huge contract even if a catcher is included. 

If the Sox are committed to acquiring one of the Rangers' catchers, I'd prefer it to be done in a seperate deal (sans Young) and without Anderson. 

[Big_Matt34]

No thanks, Michael Young is slipping bigtime, his defense is average at best now and will have to move to 3rd or 2nd base soon and his offense is not nearly what it was. With him getting older i think his numbers look more like they did last year than even his 2006 numbers. He hit .284 with 12 homers, a .339 OBP and a OPS of .741 and that was while playing half of his games in Arlington. I think Lowrie puts up numbers very similar to that next year, atleast his OBP and OPS. His contract is beyond awful, id have a hard time taking him even if we only gave up mid level prosepcts because he is so overpaid.

AS for the Lars/Buchholz/Lowrie trade for Young and one of Teagarden/Salty, id pass. I wouldnt give up Clay or Lars alone in a trade for Young or in a trade for one of the young catchers, nevermind throwing Lowrie in. Value wise id take Lars over Young/Salty/Teagarden and same with Buchholz, those 3 obviously have more value than Lowrie but Jed is cost controlled and will be giving you similar numbers to Young soon enough.

The most id give up in a package for Young and one of the catchers is Bard, Bowden, and maybe someone like Josh Redick which the Rangers wouldnt do anyways. Im just happy the REd Sox supposedly already said they have no interest in Young.