that Michael Young‘s staunchest defender in the press, Evan Grant of the Dallas Morning News, was on WIP in Philly with my friend Angelo Cataldi this morning.

Now that Howard Eskin is mostly gone from airwaves, PRAISE JESUS, Cataldi stands supreme as the chief idiot of Philadelphia radio. He would have been a fine Morning Zoo host.

Wait. Howard Eskin is off the air in Philly? That's fantastic! Please tell me it was some kind scandalous ending ... or better yet, he died.

Even better, eddie, beaten in the ratings!

he’s a leader and is just like Paul Molitor

Did Evan Grant just call Michael Young a cokehead? Seems like he should have some evidence of that.

Snark aside Young as a poor man's Molitor feels like a pretty good comp to me.

why the obsession with "leader" on a team which is veteran? they don't ALREADY have like 20 "leaders"?

actually, the team that could use his juicy veteran goodness is the astros seeing as how wesley wright and bud norris are our veterans. but the phils ARE paying 5 mill and i'm sure that is waaaayyy too high a proce for a "rebuilding" team like the astros.

actually, the team that could use his juicy veteran goodness is the astros seeing as how wesley wright and bud norris are our veterans. but the phils ARE paying 5 mill and i'm sure that is waaaayyy too high a proce for a "rebuilding" team like the astros.

If the Astros had $5M to spend, they should have been in on Tommy Hanson. He might be toast, but a flier makes all kinds of sense for a team like Houston. If he collapses, no damage really, and you're free of him after '13. If he regains some ability, you've also got control for '14-'15.

snapper

i saw tommy hanson when he came up and i have seen him now that he has come down. his shoulder is shredded and i personally wouldn't have spent 5 mill on him. it's not like he's trying a comeback from surgery. he NEEDS surgery.

the other thing is that he came from the braves, who almost NEVER make a mistake when they get rid of a pitcher - jason schmidt and adam wainwright being the only exceptions i can think of. so me, i know better than to take a pitcher from THAT Organization.

now me, being a female, don't have this obsession with GOTTA HAVE A LEADAH!!! that males apparently do, so i don't get the juicy veteran goodness thing. but apparently, it seems to be something that the players themselves want/approve of, so i'd rather have someone who can actually do that, or at least has that reputation.

i saw tommy hanson when he came up and i have seen him now that he has come down. his shoulder is shredded and i personally wouldn't have spent 5 mill on him. it's not like he's trying a comeback from surgery. he NEEDS surgery.

the other thing is that he came from the braves, who almost NEVER make a mistake when they get rid of a pitcher - jason schmidt and adam wainwright being the only exceptions i can think of. so me, i know better than to take a pitcher from THAT Organization.

Sure, but if that wasn't true, you don't get Tommy Hanson at all.

Trade for him, and then, if he needs surgery, let him have it. If the rehab is going well, keep him for '14; no way he gets much of a contract coming off a missed year. If not cut bait.

Maybe his medicals are so bad that it's not worth the risk, but it's a better use of $5M than having Michael Young's remains clog up a roster spot.

Jason Schmidt and Adam Wainwright both went down to injury before being rebuilt as useful starters.

snapper

this might could sound dumb to you, but me being an NL grrl, i have been watching the braves since i was a little grrrl when cox/schuerholz took over - and the ONE constant i have seen, is that they almost never make a mistake about pitchers - if they are traded or non-tendered or DFAd, they are not and will not be any good. i wouldn't take a braves pitcher on a gift platter.

if tommy hanson had come from ANY other team, i would agree with you

At face value, Molitor's career through age 35 is eerily similar to Young's, though as Craig points out, you have to ignore context to see the favor. Molitor, even before his late-career blossoming, was a much-superior player.

More plausible through-35 comps for Young are in this list:



Interesting that Buddy Myer shows up. Myer is somewhat similar to his teammate Cecil Travis, who I've always thought of as a good comp for Young, too. Travis's career is much shorter because of WW2.

How the heck does Pie Traynor end up with -29 RField? DRA has him much, much higher, as did contemporary reputation. (DRA does have Tommy Leach higher than Traynor, though.)

These are all good players, and Young, despite being bad at every infield position, has also had a very good career overall. He's Derek Jeter Lite in terms of staying in infields despite a minus glove, and if he plays a full season at 3B for Philadelphia the legend will live on :)

this might could sound dumb to you, but me being an NL grrl, i have been watching the braves since i was a little grrrl when cox/schuerholz took over - and the ONE constant i have seen, is that they almost never make a mistake about pitchers - if they are traded or non-tendered or DFAd, they are not and will not be any good. i wouldn't take a braves pitcher on a gift platter.

if tommy hanson had come from ANY other team, i would agree with you

Nobody's perfect.

sam is right, i'd forgotten that

but STILL, they are still the only 2 guys that the braves were wrong about - my understanding is that they got rid of jason marquis because of his personality, not because they didn't think he was gonna continue to be any good.

i had forgotten that young actually won a Derek Jeter/Rafe Palmeiro Glove. good grief

snapper

no, but the odds are really really REALLY against you in this case. offering hanson a NRI is one thing. paying 5 mill to him INSTEAD OF to basically anyone else including michael young - no effing way

Wow, he's a leader AND he knows how to play baseball?? How was this guy still single??

How was this guy still single??

He and Wash can't get married in Texas.

Michael Young, the Rangers all time leader in hits.

Can't even crack their top 20 in OPS+.

10th in career WAR, behind A-Rod, LOL.

10th in career WAR, behind A-Rod, LOL.

Wow, -13 defensive WAR. (-86 runs by UZR.)

The DMN writers are woeful on any sort of advanced analytics, in my view. I once had a futile exchange with Gerry Fraley where I tried to explain to him that Moneyball was about undervalued assets, not OBP. Rick Gosselin, however, is pretty great on the NFL.

i am surprised that anyone in this community would even entertain comparing michael young to paul molitor. they are not remotely comparable players.

molitor could play defense. he just kept getting hurt playing defense

molitor was an outstanding baserunner. michael young..........is not.

molitor had tremendous control of the strike zone as evidenced by his walk to strikeout numbers. young isn't close

molitor was tremendous in the postseason. michael young not so much

it's just a silly comparison. why it isn't getting crushed like so many other inane writer articles is what surprises me

Everyone talks about how much of a "leader" Michael Young is, so for the sake of argument let's assume that it's true.

My question is (as BBC touches on above): How much value does "leadership" have in baseball?

This is an honest question, not a rhetorical one. I have only played team sports at a very low level, but I can understand how leadership would help in football, basketball or soccer -- sports where effort (particularly on defense) and team coordination are required. An inspirational guy who can get everyone to work together can lead to results. But baseball is mostly about head-to-head competition between the pitcher and the batter, and baseball defense is much more about reaction than effort.

For anyone out there who has played high-level baseball (college or pro) or spent a lot of time around a major-league team, do you see any significant benefit from "leadership," in terms of results?

Interesting choice of video. Couldn't find a motivational speech on leadership by Jerry Sandusky?

How much value does "leadership" have in baseball?

Not a great source (only a little college ball), but I think baseball players live a lot of life together, and it's a daily grind to get up for each and every game. Certain guys lead by example on how to "grind" (a favorite Bagwell/Biggio word) and give a good effort every day. I think Young has that reputation. Others are more vocal motivators, but that can get under people's skin as often as it helps.

There could be value in having a guy who can demonstrate how not to get too high or low on a team with guys just figuring it out. It could be that Young was helpful in that regard to guys like Kinsler and Andrus as they came up. I don't know how that really helps a veteran team like the Phillies. But sometimes a group of vets whose chances are running out can gel together for a "last hurrah."

I think Young is a better player than people here give him credit for, but he's obviously not as good as Evan Grant thinks he is. He is still one of the best 30 3B in baseball, I think, so he's worthy to start somewhere. If he plays closer to 2011 - with an injection of youth from switching to the NL - than 2012, he's got a decent chance to be above average.

The Phillies didn't give up much for him. He's a big name and he's going to start, so they are going to crow like they made a big acquisition, but I bet they aren;t expecting anything more than that he will be a solid starter (maybe hit .290 with a little pop with below average defense) with a hope that he can recapture some contract-year magic and get back to hitting .320 and driving in 100 runs.

and the ONE constant i have seen, is that they almost never make a mistake about pitchers - if they are traded or non-tendered or DFAd, they are not and will not be any good. i wouldn't take a braves pitcher on a gift platter.

The Rangers are probably pretty happy with Matt Harrison and Neftali Feliz...and with everything else they got while cleaning the Braves out back in 2007.