Michael Young Gets $80MM Deal

Rangers shortstop Michael Young finalized his five-year, $80MM contract extension today.  The deal runs from 2009-13.

Granted, Young is a huge bargain for 2007-08.  The Rangers basically erased that advantage by overpaying him past his peak.  I will have more thoughts on this later tonight, but I have a feeling that this contract will not be well-received by analysts.

Lone Star Ball has a poll up about the signing; most Rangers fans responding feel that it is an "Okay deal for the Rangers -- they overpaid, but not by enough to make it a bad deal."

Comments

[HoopsSox]

I actually like this deal. The Rangers needed to keep young and direct their focus on improving their rotation. This resigning allows them to spend more time addressing other needs and resigning Teixera.

[quintjs]

The fact its 5 years kicking in after the 2008 seasons is interesting in terms of value.

I guess the Rangers assume the price to sign quality players will keep on rising, otherwise its an interesting/questionable deal.

5 year contract is fine, but the fact it ends in 7 years time.

If they had to make this deal to keep Young, its ok, but you have to wonder if the Rangers could have gotten something better. Then again, structure of the deal is unknown.

[RotoAuthority]

Yeah...as a free agent deal signed right now, I can buy it. But for a guy already under contract for cheap through his age 31 season, I don't like it.

[kevmill21]

fact is we signed him to a ridiculously underpaid deal and he immediately exploded after signing it, so he has been ripped off for years, if we had any hope of him signing in texas he were going to have to pay big time for him

the rangers now have one of the top players in the game for 7 years and 87 million, not unreasonable at all

[integr96]

as a cubs fan that does not get to see much of the rangers, how does he compare to aramis ramirez since they will be getting paid pretty much the same?

[RotoAuthority]

Why not be happy that you got a huge bargain on him, rather than try to compensate him later for past performance? Baseball is a business.

[viewaskewn]

Of course baseball is a business but why do the dynamics within it have to be so black and white? The use of statistics are a fantastic way to evaluate a players performance but I don't feel that they can accurately judge a mans worth on the baseball field. Young has meant alot to the Rangers and instead of coldly looking at the situation as considering it a huge bargain, they're showing appreciation to him for not raising a fit about being underpaid in the first place. This guy is solid on the field and off and 13 mil a year for the next 7 years shouldn't bite them in the ass too hard. It's worth it to recognize who this guy is, business or not.

[RotoAuthority]

It's not 13 per year over the next 7, because they had 07-08 in the bank. It's his age 32-36 seasons at $16 mil annually. If the Rangers can't afford the pitcher they need to put them over the edge in 2011, or there's no room for a great young SS prospect, this is why.

I think this will bite them in the ass really hard.

[viewaskewn]

I'm sure you know more then me on trade value but wouldn't you think that a great young SS prospect could be the centerpiece in a package (if not straight up) to net the pitcher they need?

[Guitar Hero]

After thinking about the notion that signing a high priced contract will be okay because the market will remain high, I have made up my mind that the market is in a serious state of inflation right now. Mainly because, there is so much good young talent coming up in from the minors, even though the FA crop now is thin, in 6 years, tons of great young talent will hit the FA and keep coming up in the minors for cheap, making these huge deals absolutely horrendous. Sucks that we signed Vernon to a similar one! But at least he's not a 30 year old middle infielder!

[Guitar Hero]

BTW I still think Michael YOung is good now.

[RotoAuthority]

Yes, they could trade that young SS for the starter. But the result is less than optimal.

[kevmill21]

and the rangers can't develop talent at ALL, arias is the only one in our system and he can't hit more of a STAR defensive player that can't hit a lick that may be converted to center to start when he matures or to become a super-sub type player

yet i guess if they drafted an out of college ready guy they would have a problem...maybe they shouldn't do that for a while now?

if the rangers are a pitcher away yes, i'll be upset if they can't afford one, but he's the only contract we have locked in for 2011, so i think they could work around it

its not like the cubs who will get to 09 and 2010 look at their 10 man roster and realize they already have 80-90 million committed

he's the face of our franchise, the best person on the team and if we were to lose him if he produced over the next two years the rangers would be a faceless franchise

[DunkinDonuts]

Count me in the camp who thinks having a steady flux of valuable players signed at under-market prices is a business achievement for which teams shouldn't apologize ... or try to overcompensate.

I also think Young looks fantastic if you use his traditional lines - BA, R, RBI, etc. But his OPS doesn't blow me away. If his 2005 OPS were a consistent indicator, I'd say he's closer to the price of his extension, but last year he posted an .815, which put him 7th among MLB regulars at SS, behind Jose Reyes and Hanley Ramirez.

I just don't see why there's any reason to believe he'll even maintain that level, let alone improve, as he reaches his mid-30s. I'm not saying that everything can be reduced to stats and predictions, but when the pricetag is $80M at $16M per, I think it's wise to use a justification beyond "we like the guy."