What happens if the Rangers trade Young?



Is Mike's run with the Rangers over?

 Up until a few days ago, all rumors of Michael Young not being satisfied with his "super-utility/designated hitter" role have been publicly denied by most involved with the club and Manager Ron Washington has been insistent that Young would be an integral part of the Rangers' attempt to repeat as American League champs in 2011.

Now, Young has gone public with his trade demands. He cites being unclear about the intentions of the club in their dealings with him as the main reason that he wants a trade. Nolan Ryan has confirmed that the Rangers are indeed willing to accommodate Young's demand, but he also states that the Rangers are going to need equal value in return for him or they won't do a deal.

I must admit that I've loved having Young be a part of the Rangers organization for the past 10 years, but when a player who is considered your "clubhouse leader" and your "heart and soul" says that he no longer wants to play for your team, then you need to trade him. In fact, this is the second time that Young has demanded a trade after being asked to switch positions (the other time was when he was moved to third base). If Young is so "team-first", how come he keeps making trade demands when the team tries to better itself at the expense of what he wants? If you're getting paid over 13 million by your team, shouldn't you be willing to switch positions if they ask you to?

Those who balk at the idea of trading Young don't want to lose his leadership, but if your leader wants out, can it be good for you clubhouse to force him to stay? I say no. It's time to move on and move Young on to another team for his sake and for the Rangers' sake. The first time that Young demanded a trade (or at least the first time that we know of), the Rangers were willing to weather the storm and convince him to stay. They were willing to do so because of the talents that Young possessed. Now, as Father Time creeps up on Young, his skills have regressed to the point that he's no longer worth keeping around if he's not going to be a team player.

What would be the cost in trading Young? What would the Rangers be losing? In trading Young, the Rangers would be losing their 34 year old clubhouse leader who hit .284 last year from the 2 hole spot. In the magical season of 2010, Young hit 21 homeruns, batted in 91 runs, and had an on base percentage of .330. From an offensive standpoint, Young wasn't at his best last season, but he was still very effective. From a defensive standpoint, we all know that Young was a hack at third base. In 2008, he won a gold glove at shorstop, but his range was so limited that the Rangers moved him in 2009 to third base to accomodate the up and coming Elvis Andrus. While Elvis has been fantastic at shortstop, Young's play at third base quickly became an eyesore to all Rangers' fans.

Young's defense was so bad, that he was replaced at third base this offseason by the newly acquired Adrian Beltre, and moved to designated hitter. When the move was initially planned and then excecuted, the club's all-time leader in hits was reportedly fine with the decision to sign Beltre and move positions. Now, Young has decided to tap the brakes on going to the DH spot in 2011. His desire is to play in the field where he still feels he has a few more years left. For those of us who watched Young play third base over the past two seasons, we know that just isnt the case.

It's safe to say that from a defensive standpoint, the Rangers lose absolutely nothing in a Michael Young trade. In fact, they would actually get better defensively because the Rangers wouldn't have to feel obligated to play Young in the "super-utility" role that had been created for him. For the life of me, I don't know why the Rangers would ever want to use Young in a utility role defensively. I guess they'd at least be alternating the spot where the other team aimed to hit the ball by moving Young around to the diamond.

Offensively is where the loss of Young will be felt...or will it? It depends on what the Rangers get in return for Young (pitching, please say it's pitching). If the Rangers get a quality DH to take Young's at bats, then we've lost nothing. Even if they only got a quality lefthanded bat to take Young's place, then we've lost nothing. Getting a lefthanded hitting DH would give the Rangers a nice platoon at the DH spot (with Mike Napoli getting the at bats against left handed pitching).

If the Rangers got pitching (yeah!) or prospects (semi-yeah) in a deal for Young, then they'll have to look to replace his at-bats internally. Let's look at a projected lineup with this scenario in mind:

1- Elvis Andrus SS

2- Ian Kinsler 2B

3- Josh Hamilton LF

4- Adrian Beltre 3B

5- Nelson Cruz RF

6- Mike Napoli DH

7- Mitch Moreland 1B

8- Yorvit Torrealba Ca

9- Julion Borbon CF

That lineup can hit for power (Hamilton, Beltre, Cruz, Kinsler, Napoli, and Moreland), and it can create havoc with its speed (Elvis, Kinsler, Hamilton, Cruz, and Borbon). Defensively, this lineup would be way better than anything that the Rangers put out in the field last year (Torrealba and Beltre provide significant upgrades to their positions).

Personally, I rather have Hamilton in center field and David Murphy in left, but the Rangers have already stressed that Hamilton will start in left field, leaving center for Julio Borbon to roam. David Murphy will still get a lot of at bats when they face right handed pitching. For those games, Murphy can be the designated hitter in place of Napoli, or we can put Murphy in the outfield and move Hamilton or Cruz to the DH spot to save their legs. Napoli fared much better against lefties than against righties, and having Murphy fill in for him against righties is a smart move for the Rangers.

Is this lineup perfect? No, but it looks like the Rangers could trade Michael Young and not miss a beat on offense. Plus, they'd be getting far better on defense without having to hide Young somewhere in the field.

Whatever benefit a Michael Young trade would bring to the Rangers (prospects? a designated hitter? pitching? salary relief?), would outway the benefit of keeping him in a role that he doesn't want to be in. If Michael Young wants to take his ball and play somewhere else, I say we let him...and the Rangers will be better for it in the long run.