We have the facts and we're voting… um, no.
So, my email indicates that there’s something of a groundswell among the fan base that the Cardinals should acquire Michael Young. Perhaps even if it means giving up a player of real value, somebody like Brett Wallace.
So, I ask you: why? I ask not rhetorically, but sincerely. Because I don’t see it at all. If you’re on board with trading for Young, please tell me why you see it differently from me.
Here’s what I see:
I see a player who’s 32 years old, and signed for five more years — until he’s 37 years old. That’s known as the decline phase. I see a contract that not only runs for five years, but guarantees $16 million a year.
And what do you get for that? A player whose performance is already declining significantly. Young was legitimately outstanding in 2005, when he hit 331/385/513. That’s a championship-caliber player. He was excellent in 2006, but already heading in the wrong direction: 314/356/459. In 2007, more decline: 315/366/418. A little bump in OBP, but still plummeting power. And in 08? Yikes. 284/339/402, while hitting in one of baseball’s best ballparks for hitters.
So that’s what I see. A player in clear offensive decline, with an onerous contract, signed for five more years. Honestly, my belief is that if the Rangers put Young on waivers, the Cardinals would be unwise to claim him and pick up the whole contract. Never mind giving up talent for the privilege. If the Rangers picked up a large portion of the deal, the equation changes. But that’s very difficult to envision.
What do you see?
-M, narrowing down his best-of-08 music list.