Michael Young and the Dodgers, and why it sounds like another fantasy

With Eric Chavez now a would-be Yankee, another available third baseman's name has come up connected to the Dodgers.

Michael Young.

Young would bring an almost completely opposite set of qualities to the Dodgers than Chavez -- he's consistent, healthy and expensive.

The latter, of course, is why Young coming to Chavez Ravine is about as likely as Jessica Biel pounding on my door and begging me to leave the wife, and the wife going, "You know, I think you might have to go for that."

Still, in an article on Young's potential landing spots, MLB.com’s T.R. Sullivan writes that the Dodgers are interested but prevented from going forward because of -- are you ready? -- an unstable ownership situation.

Young's current home is the Texas Rangers, the team that recently signed Adrian Beltre to a six-year, $96-million deal -- which pushed Young to DH, and a rather expensive one with $48 million remaining on his contract over the next three years. And since then, the Rangers traded for Mike Napoli.

The Rangers know they will have to absorb some of Young's contract to make a deal, but how much remains a serious stumbling block. The Rockies are reportedly a leading landing spot.

Why this could work for the Dodgers: Young is a pretty reliable 20-home run, 90-RBI guy who would certainly upgrade their lineup, and he can also play second, which would free Juan Uribe to play third (his better position) and enable Casey Blake to be used in the outfield and as a right-handed bat off the bench.

(ESPN.com's Buster Olney -- insider status required -- talked to five different scouts on where Young is currently at in his career and where he would best fit. All give positive, if something less than ecstatic reviews.)

Why this won't work for the Dodgers: Young is 34 years old, and $48 million is a lot of moola for that, even if ownership wasn't going through a divorce.

In a world where the Dodgers' payroll was consistent with their income, and they were truly focused on winning a World Series, maybe this deal gets done anyway.

But we're not in that world, and I don't think that's Biel knocking at my door.

-- Steve Dilbeck

Comments

[Darren]

Let's say the Rangers were willing to eat almost half of the salary, what would they want in return? Chad? Prospects?

[Michael Green]

I find it interesting that when we get to the end of the article, Mr. Dilbeck makes the point that this deal might not be made even if the ownership were stable. This begs the question of why we have seen so much of a focus on what hasn't been getting done--big free agent signings and trades--and why it's supposedly related to ownership. Has anybody noticed that Ned's biggest trade was the mid-season move for Manny, and, other than that, it was probably signing Jason Schmidt for a ton of money when he turned out to have a bad arm? Maybe those big signings DON'T pay off and haven't been part of Colletti's approach anyway?

[Labeldude]

Why would we even want Michael Young? Ned would have to give up more prospects to make the team older again, and he won't mean a damn thing to this team.
.
With ownership obviously in question and money a big issue, why not take this opportunity to rebuild? Supposedly you get a cable deal in a couple years to start adding legitimate pieces of the puzzle. You haven't got the horses anyway to win this year or next, take this season and sell off the vets at the trade dealine and bring back as many prospects as you can. Reinvest some of the money you'd be saving into scouting and Latin America and bringing in some prize draft picks. Let's see more of what the kids have got and less of Neddy's reclaimation projects. If attendance goes down, team payroll's been halfed anyway for a couple years while the prospects are gaining experience. I'd gladly get behind that plan rather than watch this franchise deteriorate further. At least it would be a plan and something to work towards - its obvious this franchise has no direction as it sits today.

[alanw19]

haven't seen her at my door either

I've thought about Young for LA before this offseason, but just dismissed it due to the price tag. Like Chad, I wonder what else besides Texas eating salary would the deal include, specifically, what the Rangers request for him?

[steevo17]

"In a world where the Dodgers' payroll was consistent with their income, and they were truly focused on winning a World Series, maybe this deal gets done anyway."

Be more blunt and just say as long as we have ownership that is more interested in personal profit than building a winner and working toward long-term success, we are sunk. Deals like this will never get done with a McCourt as owner and we will never get the "over-the-top" type of player that this team needs. We all know this so no need to mask your words.

BTW, not saying Young is that type of player, but he would be a nice piece to add to the lineup, especially offensively. Its a shame that there are no deals in the near future that will have any chance of getting done because of our "unstable ownership situation". Thanks Frank.

[16blows]

Young hit just .260 with 5 hrs , a .299 OBP & .380 slugging away from hitter-friendly Rangers Ballpark in Texas - his $16 mill contract 2011 is even more impressive.

He turns 35 in 2011 & had a .950 fielding % 2010; Casey Blake who turns 38 fielded .957 (Juan Uribe, 32, actually fielded better at 2nd than 3rd, .1000 to .957 and .984 at ss (Rafael Furcal fielded just .955, comparison; he turns 34.)

My guess is Uribe will have played ss, 3rd base & 2nd base by the time 2011 is fini, Blake will have manned 3rd, spent some time in left (and a little on the DL too; that's ok because Furcal will be there to keep him company.)

With Young or sans, Colletti calls his 2011 roster 'versatile' as it stands, with lots of 'flexibility'. This is code - Nedspeak for playing musical chairs.

[68elcamino427]

Michael Young, older player now on the decline with a bad contract.

[N.P.Krohn]

Getting Young would go along way towards winning the division this year but it seems alot like the Blake deal only more expensive. We would have to give up someone valuable that we wished we had back later and it would take up alot of money needed to sign Kemp longterm after he rebounds this year. Not to mention locking up Kershaw to a career contract. And while it it would help us win the division it doesn't have the World Series connotations that the miracle push for Pujols would inspire. Then again we may never resign Kemp so having Young's 190 hits could come in handy the next few years. He is still a plus defender and one of the best 2 hitters in baseball when not forced to hit 3rd or further back in the lineup. He would never hit 20 hrs at Chavez Ravine.

[OldBrooklynFan]

Personally I don't think the Dodgers are that much in need of a third baseman or any infielder for that matter at the present moment to spend that kind of money. I wasn't surprised that they didn't go after Chavez and If Jessica Biel knocked on my door I wouldn't have to worry about a wife.

[Native Angeleno]

Not in grade-B second-tier LA where cheapskate is baseball's middle name. Not gonna happen. No need to debate further. Young wants to get paid past this year. Not gonna happen, not here. We've got a miser for a "steward of the game", courtesy of Bud & MLB. And this has nothing to do with "freeing up payroll" for other younger players. They're not coming here either.

[Alina]

As nice as it would be have another local guy on the Dodgers, there is just no way it would happen. Young seems like a great guy and it totally sucks that he is getting squeezed out of Texas like his. May he find a new home where he is truly wanted.

[Airedale]

The Rangers seem to be acquiring "the most expensive option" rather than filling their need, i.e., pitching. Right now they are in the process of paying one very good third baseman and one pretty goood third baseman $36M over each of the next three years. Those road splits make Young not much of an upgrade over Casey Blake, so it doesn't make sense.

[Mrs. Steve Dilbeck]

Jessica Biel?

[BlueinAZ]

>> its obvious this franchise has no direction as it sits today.

I disagree completely. Running around in circles is a direction. Driving in Figure-8's is a direction. Even wandering blindly in the dark is a direction. The Dodgers have tried all these directions. What they don't have is no direction, and honestly (I was going to say "frankly", but couldn't bring myself to do it :), I'm not sure if that's better or not.

[Steve Fjeldsted]

Author Night with Dodgers Historiam Mark Langill on 2/17 at 7 p.m. at the South Pasadena Library

A free Author Night program for all ages with Mark Langill, the Team Historian and Publications Editor of the Los Angeles Dodgers, will be presented in the Community Room on Thursday, February 17 at 7:00 p.m.

Langill, a native of South Pasadena, is the author of 4 baseball-related books: "Dodgertown," "Dodger Stadium," "Los Angeles Dodgers," and "Game of My Life, Dodgers.” Prior to joining the Dodger front office in 1994, Langill covered the team for five seasons as the beat reporter for the San Gabriel Valley Newspaper Group, which includes the Pasadena Star-News and San Gabriel Valley Tribune. Langill has appeared on both radio and television to discuss Dodger history, including the MLB Network production of “Cathedrals of the Game: Dodger Stadium” and most recently on ESPN’s “30-for-30” documentary “Fernando Nation.”

The program for all ages will outline how a light-hitting, bench-riding Little Leaguer eventually parlayed his passion for baseball into a professional career, along the way discovering how the history of a sports franchise can unite communities and generations.

The Library Community Room is located at 1115 El Centro Street. Doors will open at 6:30 p.m. and no tickets or reservations are needed. Refreshments will be provided as well as a drawing for door prizes, including autographed memorabilia. The Author Night is presented by the South Pasadena Public Library and the Friends of the South Pasadena Public Library. Special thanks to the Baseball Reliquary and South Pasadena Little League.

[Steve G]

Young gives the Dodgers a legitimate right handed hitter who can play second well, 1st adequaltely and third so so, at least at this stage in his career. Uribe could play 3rd if need be. He would be an awesome clubhouse presence and potential leader. He wants to produce to justify another multi-year contract after this ones over. It is a portential win win situation. Hec could easily bat second, setting up Ethier, Kemp and whoever is left. Only Ethier, Kemp, Kershaw and Bills are not tradeable (maybe the whole starting five actually). But this makes the Dodgers a real contender.

[alanw19]

he's going to be somewhere other than Texas in less than a couple of weeks...just sayin'

[jim mateer]

If Texas does eat a portion of his salary than we'd be getting him for about the same money that we gave Uribe. I'd rather have Young for my dollar.

As far as the prospects we'd have to give up, I don't think we have much, at least blue chip prospects. Nolan Ryan likes to stock pile pitching so maybe we give up Broxton and a stiff from New Mexico (elbert??). We can move Jansen into the set up roll and have Kuo close.

This would also give us some flexibility between Carrol and Young at shortstop once Frucal's back\hamstring goes out in June.

McCourt can go back to his parents at FOX and advance his allowance another couple million to cover it.

[DB]

Now this is an impact guy that could help the Dodgers contend right away. That's why it won't happen. The Rangers would take on some of that 48 million (probably 10 at most) so the Dodgers should look at this. Young is a legit #2 or #3 hole hitter which is what this team lacks (Ethier is a 4 or 5 hole hitter not a 3). Young and Uribe provide instant offense for a team in need of such. Imagine a lineup like this:

1. Furcal
2. Young
3. Ethier
4. Kemp
5. Uribe
6. Loney
7. Blake/Gibbons
8. Catcher
9. Pitcher

[m]

wait! You would tell Biel you had a wife? (and we don't need another old infielder)

[Barry Golden]

I doubt any major deal until our ownership is settled. Although this might not be considered a major deal. Put this one with the others, another 34 years plus ball player ! We don't need and can't afford him. Too much money for another player past there prime. I think Aaron Miles is the best no. 2 hitter we got now. Ownership is a zoo and it looks like the ballfield will be a zoo also. Way to many players to look at.

[Hollywood Dodger Mark]

We have Aaron Miles!