I Suppose Michael Young Could Rob a Bank and Immediately Be Forgiven For It

Some of you may remember Murray Chass's ode to Michael Young earlier this year. Murray found the trade-demand machine, otherwise known as Michael Young, to be a great player who was an even better teammate, despite constantly demanding a trade when a superior player is brought in to take his position. It appears Jen Engel has joined the chorus to praise the consummate professional who bitched about his playing time in the offseason after Mike Napoli and Adrian Beltre joined the Rangers team. I think Michael Young is a great player, but I can't believe how bulletproof he is. A disgruntled player is usually looked upon by the media as a problem, but Young received an MVP vote from Engel for being disgruntled.

I realize Young had a great year, but how the hell is he a consummate professional by constantly bitching about players being brought in to supplement the Rangers team? How is this professional? He still got 689 plate appearances this year and he played very well in those plate appearances. The Rangers clearly aren't looking to take him out of the everyday lineup and they told him this during the offseason. So Jen Engel has decided she thinks Young should come in second in the AL MVP race. Why? Because he is a professional who doesn't let things get to him and still performs well and leads the Rangers team, which doesn't explain how complaining to management publicly about your playing time is being professional.

I'm convinced at this point Young could rob a bank or commit a triple homicide and everyone would immediately forgive his actions. He can do no wrong.

If I had an American League MVP ballot and voting privileges, my vote would be easy.

1. Justin Verlander

2. Michael Young

3. Ellsbury, Bautista, blah, blah, blah.

Yes, "blah, blah, blah..." let's throw in the players who have great statistics right behind Michael Young. Suppose we switch Jose Bautista with Michael Young this year and each would play for the other's current team. Think the Rangers would be a better team and the Blue Jays would be a worse team? I would think so.

Why I would have the Rangers’ super utility infielder as runner-up, when so many consider him not a worthy candidate at all, is because of what Mike Napoli did Saturday.

Naturally. Nothing proves Young's value to the team than the on-the-field exploits of another player on Young's team.

"You see that home run Nelson Cruz hit? Michael Young inspired him to hit that home run."

We love stories like that, tales of tribulation and redemption. However, the truth is there was nothing easy about the Rangers, at least not in the beginning of the season. Just ask Young.

I know! I am sure none of these tribulations were caused by Young's offseason behavior. How dare the Rangers go out and get Adrian Beltre? Didn't they see how acquiring a guy who can hit .296/.331/.561 with 32 home runs would reflect on Michael Young? This is why Young demanded a trade at the beginning of the season for the second or third time in his career. He's so unselfish he doesn't want the team to succeed if it means he has to switch positions.

But Napoli was the final straw in a simmering feud that quickly snowballed into an ugly offseason word brawl between Young and the Texas team he has been the face of for years.

The ugly offseason brawl went like this. The Rangers signed a good third baseman in free agency and Michael Young didn't want to switch positions. Then the Rangers traded for Mike Napoli and Young was afraid Napoli would take away his at-bats the DH spot in the lineup. Incidentally, Young complained he didn't want to be the DH when the Rangers signed Beltre, but then when the Rangers traded for Napoli he complained this would take away at-bats at the DH spot he didn't want to play anyway. He is a consummate professional. The moral to this story is that Michael Young enjoys demanding a trade and being difficult when he can be. He became difficult when he was moved to third base for Elvis Andrus and I know he is a great leader, but I'm not sure he is the best team player when what is best for the team hurts him personally.

This could have gotten toxic, and fast.

But it didn't get toxic because Young was able to demand a trade and whine about his playing time in a professional manner. I'm assuming he didn't stomp his feet or sit Indian-style on the carpet and refuse to move until he was guaranteed playing time and that is what makes him a consummate professional.

Why it did not is because Young did what he always does: play good ball and be a better teammate.

Unless you think a player demanding a trade when a superior player is signed to play his position is not being a good teammate.

Look, I get Michael Young’s position. It sucks to get replaced and a little bit of whining or complaining is to be expected. Privately this can happen. What’s irritating is the Rangers moves that involve Young moving positions have consistently made the team better and Young made his demands public. That’s even fine to make your trade demands public, but how the hell do you get lauded for this behavior? Jen Engel thinks Young should be MVP because he didn’t cause a huge ruckus when the Rangers replaced him with Adrian Beltre and took away some of his time (though it didn’t take away his time) at first base by trading for Mike Napoli. He is getting credit for accepting with only some complaining what other players accept with no public complaining.

The truth: There is no easy redemption of Napoli without the consummate professionalism of Young.

First, Napoli didn’t need to be redeemed. He should have gotten more playing time in Anaheim. He never hit like he did in Anaheim like he has for Texas, but he deserved 500 at-bats per year in Anaheim, not to split time with Jeff Mathis. So couching what Young “did” in terms of Napoli’s necessary redemption is already a contrived narrative.

The fit Young threw, and he did throw a fit, when Napoli was traded for is not the sign of a consummate professional. Frankly, Young is lucky this didn’t affect the team more than it did. He went public with this demand and felt the Rangers misled him about his role with the team.

And yet just watch, everybody will skip Young's role because, frankly, it involves intangibles,

It also involves Young no longer being a baby and realizing having Napoli and Beltre on the team makes the Rangers a better team and he would get the at-bats he requires to keep his ego happy. I wouldn’t say Young accepting the Rangers have improved with the addition of these two players is a positive intangible necessarily. He didn’t continue to throw a fit throughout the year and that's great. A consummate professional would not have thrown one in the first place.

and what cannot be measured no longer matters in baseball, or so we have been told.

This article would not be complete without a shot at “Moneyball.”

“It could have been a huge distraction. He could have been a pain in the …” Washington acknowledged Saturday. “But Michael Young is not that kind of guy.

Except Young was a pain in the ass when he first learned about the acquisitions of Beltre and Napoli. It just happened he learned about these acquisitions during the offseason so everyone had time to cool down before the season began. I give credit to Young for finally getting over it, but he doesn’t deserve a second-place MVP vote nor any other form of excessive credit.

he is teaching so many guys how to be a baseball player, and so I knew he wouldn’t let it get in the way of his teammates.”

Mike Napoli’s great season can easily be considered a by-product of Michael Young teaching him how to be a baseball player. For years, Napoli just considered himself as a guy who hit a baseball with a wooden bat, but this year with the help of Michael Young he learned to be a baseball player.

Young being a pro’s pro. Because when the Rangers first traded for Napoli, so closely on the heels of third baseman Adrian Beltre being signed to a big contract to play Young's position, the face of the franchise became apoplectic,

Let’s think. Is this something a pro’s pro would do? Did Kevin Youkilis shit a brick and demand a trade when the Red Sox signed Adrian Beltre or traded for Adrian Gonzalez or Victor Martinez? Did he cry when Mike Lowell got time over him at third base? No, he didn’t. That’s being a pro’s pro. Becoming apoplectic for the second or third time in your career and then eventually getting over it is not being a pro’s pro.

kind of at the team and most definitely at GM Jon Daniels for what he felt were broken promises and poorly handled communication.

Part of what makes Young so valuable is his versatility. These moves made by the Rangers made the Rangers a better team and took advantage of Young’s versatility. He got angry and now he is getting credit for not ruining the season. I don’t get it.

Sides were taken. Angry words were exchanged through reporters. A trade was demanded.

A pro’s pro. Getting angry and demanding a trade through the media if you are Michael Young not only causes the media to defend you, but also give you MVP votes. It’s crazy. It is like he can do no wrong and be forgiven for demanding a trade, when if quite a few other players did this they would get crucified.

And when none materialized, questions surfaced about whether Young would report for spring training and what mental state he’d arrive in if he did.

Pro’s pro. You ask what that means? That means a person who demands a trade and then leaves a question out there as to whether he will report to spring training or be pissed off and cause problems if he does report.

What Young did instead was establish himself as the Rangers’ MVP and a dark horse AL MVP candidate, by virtue of numbers everybody can see — career highs with a .338 average and 106 RBI —

He had a fantastic year. He should be considered an MVP candidate for those reasons, not because he didn’t ruin the Rangers season as may have been expected of him based on his actions and statements during the winter.

And sure enough Young’s fingerprints were everywhere on Saturday’s season-saving victory —on a Rangers offense that finally came to life, on young winning pitcher Derek Holland,

Young has hit .133/.188/.133 in the ALDS. It is a small sample size but I thought this should be mentioned when determining his effect on the Rangers 2011 postseason outside of his performance in one game.

and even on Napoli, who never once felt any of Young’s frustration.

Well it is fine then. Since Napoli didn’t feel any of Young’s frustration maybe Michael Young deserves the AL MVP and Cy Young Award.

Young was not booted, not in that way, yet he basically was being told that at age 34 his best days were behind him and his numbers were statistically likely to keep declining,

Not at all. What Young was being told is the Rangers had a chance to improve the team by trading for Mike Napoli and signing Adrian Beltre. There are injuries to players throughout the season and Young would still get playing time, just not at one particular position. It wasn’t a knock on Young any more than it was a vote of confidence for his versatility, while attempting to improve the team’s roster.

and that he had switched from second base to shortstop to third base did not really matter.

It doesn’t matter. Young gets paid the same no matter what position he plays, so the Rangers shouldn't shy away from improving their team because Young doesn't want to change positions again or is worried about his playing time. He's proven he deserves the playing time he undoubtedly will continue to receive.

This is the danger of judging athletes only by attributes you can assign a number to, like a few in the Moneyball crew do.

This whole “Michael Young should be the second-place finisher in the MVP vote” thing has nothing to do with “Moneyball.” This is the fallback excuse for sportswriters when there is no factual backing for the position they are taking. This fallback excuse is to say Young deserves second-place MVP votes based on intangibles and then will blame statistics or “Moneyball” for the people who disagree with this position. It is the sportswriting equivalent of a teenager screaming his parents will never understand him/her and then running out of the room.

But there is also value in a guy who can stand up in the clubhouse and say “I am behind our manager. He’s my guy”

Maybe this decribes Michael Young. So where is the value in a guy who can stand up in the clubhouse and say “I don’t want this team to improve if it involves me having to change positions again, I am not happy with how I am being treated and I want to demand a trade…yet again”? Because that guy is Michael Young too. Granted, he didn't do this in the clubhouse. I will assume the other Texas Rangers are literate and heard or read about Young's anger with the Rangers team over the last offseason. So undoubtedly his teammates were aware of the situation.

Moneyballers hate Young, mostly because they do not value batting average, do not feel he walks enough and place less value on intangibles.

Most likely this is because by the very definition of the word intangibles have no value or their value is very hard to determine. That’s why it is so easy to just fallback on saying a player like David Eckstein or Darin Erstad have intangibles, because it is nearly impossible to prove incorrect because as is stated time and again, we aren't in the locker room to know about these intangibles firsthand.

Young was one of the guys calling him all offseason, helping him build back his confidence and teaching him by example how to be a pro. There is no number for this. There is no replacement for it either.

I’m not denying Michael Young is a good leader for his teammates. He just happens to be a leader who also demands a trade whenever he is unhappy. I need it explained to me why he constantly gets a free pass for this.

“I am a big Michael Young man,” Rays manager Joe Maddon said… Every team would love to have one of those.”

Who wouldn’t want a versatile player who is perpetually unhappy when asked to play a different position in order to take advantage of his versatility?

Everybody, it seemed, except the Rangers. Or at least this is how it felt to Young when Beltre and Napoli were acquired.

Oh ok, so I get it. Michael Young was justified to feel the way he did because the Rangers dared to improve their team and because Young's feelings were hurt. I forgot that team’s leaders let their personal feelings overrule what is good for the team.

They were genius moves for which JD and his crew deserve credit. But they were made smarter by Young, by how he handled himself since the day he arrived at spring training, and by how he has played every day since.

So I guess we just conveniently gloss over his trade demands prior to spring training as if this isn’t a part of Michael Young’s personality? So Young gets credit for how he has handled himself since spring training, but deserves no criticism for the Rangers wondering if he would show up at all for spring training or show up with a bad attitude? I don’t get this.

It is not fully accounted for on any stat sheet, but its influence was all over Saturday's outcome and it made everything easier. And in my mind, that is the very definition of what is most valuable when trying to win baseball games.

No one is denying Young’s great year. The big mystery is why Michael Young gets a pass for his behavior in the offseason. He should not be the MVP or get any MVP votes simply because he stopped demanding a trade long enough to not have it affect the team. Quoting Young's positive intangibles isn't the reason he should get MVP votes, especially when the negative intangibles are conveniently dismissed.