Dec 8, 2010, 7:29 AM EST
UPDATE: It seems that’s over. Multiple sources, including Evan Grant and others who were reporting a possible Michael Young trade, are now saying that it’s not happening. The Rangers have approached young and told him as much.
To the extent the trade was going to be to the Rockies so that Texas could then sign Adrian Beltre, I’d like to think I was partially responsible. When that rumor first started last night I went on Sirius/XM radio with Mike Ferrin and Flash Gordon, who asked me about it. My immediate response: “Why don’t the Rockies just sign Adrian Beltre? Not tons more expensive and, you know, he’s a lot better.” Perchance Colorado heard that and agreed?
Well, no, I suppose not. But if a knucklehead like me can understand that, you figure that a team full of guys paid to think about such matters could.
Tuesday, 11:42 PM: Oh, baby. Multiple sources are telling Evan Grant of the Dallas Morning News that the Rangers are talking to the Rockies about a trade for Michael Young.
This will be no easy task, since Young is owed $48 million over the next three seasons, but Grant writes that if the Rangers are able to deal him, they will pursue free-agent third baseman Adrian Beltre. Now that would be something.
Tuesday, 8:02 PM: Here’s more clarification from Rangers president Nolan Ryan, via Richard Durrett of ESPNDallas.com:
“I wouldn’t say that were shopping him,” Ryan said. “A lot of players come up in discussions and you listen to what’s out there. I think people ask us about all kinds of players and so you see what level of interest some teams have on various things, but it’s all just part of the process. We’re not shopping him.”
Tuesday, 7:58 PM: According to Jeff Wilson of the Fort Worth Star-Telegram, Rangers officials have “debunked” the rumor that they are shopping Michael Young. Again, probably doesn’t matter if they are, because they aren’t going to get that much interest with a contract like his.
Tuesday, 6:19 PM: Ken Rosenthal says that the Rangers are listening to offers for Michael Young.
I suppose if I had Michael Young and his contract that I’d listen to offers too. I just wouldn’t expect any. Besides, Young is really popular in Texas, you’d have to figure that it wouldn’t be the easiest trick in the world to trade him in a salary dump. They’d have to get players, and who wants to give players for a guy who is owed $16 million a year for his age 34, 35 and 36 seasons.
This could be a shot in the dark by the Rangers, hoping that they could maybe unload his contract before his 10-and-5 rights kick in next May.
In other news, there’s a host for an Atlanta sports talk station inexplicably broadcasting from inside the media room here at the Winter Meetings, where people are trying to write. He’s loud, and that would be bad enough. Making it worse: he just referred to Greg Maddux as “The Crime Dog.” That’s a major, major code violation. If you don’t know his nickname at least have the common courtesy to call him “Daddy.”
I’m going to get some dinner. Then some courage. Then I’m going to come back and give that guy a wedgie. If things go sideways, my last tweet of the evening will be a request for someone for to throw my bail.
- Suspending Josh Hamilton for a year would be obscene 56
- Report: MLB panel split on rehab for Josh Hamilton; one-year suspension is in play 23
- Joc Pederson goes 2-for-2 in Cactus League debut 4
- Braves scratch Mike Minor from start with more shoulder problems 3
- Daniel Murphy on Billy Bean: “I do disagree with the fact that Billy is a homosexual” 360
- Blue Jays sign Dayan Viciedo to a minor league deal 8
- Chris Sale will be sidelined for three weeks with foot fracture 11
- Aramis Ramirez says 2015 will be his last year 33
- Daniel Murphy on Billy Bean: “I do disagree with the fact that Billy is a homosexual” (360)
- If addiction is an illness — and it is — Josh Hamilton shouldn’t be suspended (307)
- Curt Schilling lowers the boom on some men tweeting threats against his daughter (137)
- John Baker, Jeremy Brown, coal mines and class (80)
- Billy Bean responds to Daniel Murphy’s comments (76)