2 comments This Is Not a Hit-Job on Michael Young, It's Just Me Noticing the Difference in Reality and the Perception of Michael Young

Michael Young retired recently. Good for him. He was a very good player while he was in the majors. His reputation as the consummate team player is still intact, kept alive by beat and national writers who worship the ground he walks on. This despite the fact Young has demanded a trade twice in his career. I have detailed two of the idoltastic (yep, that's not a word) columns written on Michael Young here and here. I don't dislike the guy, but the perception of him as a team player seems to be a little bit different from his actions as a team player...at least at certain times this is true. Well, Richard Justice writes a column in memoriam of Young's career and it's just a little bit revisionist for me. The sub-title of the column is "Former Rangers fixture leaves a team-first legacy." As long as you don't include his overall grumpiness at being asked to move positions and his trade demands, then yes, he was a team player. I think that has to be a part of his legacy and not something that gets quickly mentioned and glossed over.

I feel like a lot of my criticism of Michael Young is of the "I'm just saying..." variety where Young says something about moving positions or a beat writer says Young is a team player and I feel obligated to point out there are some non-team player aspects to Young's career. For example, recently Michael Young said this. 

Yes, he really isn't saying very much. He just says he wonders what could have happened if he had played second base his entire career. The problem is I know he was bitter about having to move to third base when Elvis Andrus came along and bitter about moving to DH when Adrian Beltre/Mike Napoli joined the Rangers as their starting third baseman. So I probably read some bitterness into his comment that may or may not be there. It sounds bitter to me though. It sounds like, "If the Rangers had not moved me then I could have done great things," which sounds selfish and doesn't seem to jive with the fact every time the Rangers made Young move positions it improved the team. I don't know if a team-first guy would make comments like this that don't sound incredibly team-first. Every time the Rangers asked Young to move it improved the team, so his comment that could be innocent could come off as a little selfish. Anyway, on to the Richard Justice column.

Michael Young won a Gold Glove playing shortstop for the Texas Rangers in 2008, and even if you didn't know a single other thing about him, the story behind that award gets to the essence of most of what he came to stand for among the teammates, managers and especially the fans who absolutely adored the guy.

Just read the comments on this column. Michael Young is adored. Obviously I feel like I'm an asshole if I bring up the essence of what happened when the Rangers asked Young to move to third base and then later requested he become a primary designated hitter.

Young announced his retirement on Thursday, saying simply that the time had come to get on with the next chapter of his life.

I imagine if Young's wife asks him to move the living room couch to another room in the house then Young will demand they purchase another house.

But a combination of factors -- distance from family, playing time and perhaps changing teams again -- appears to have nudged him toward the door. He leaves as a career .300 hitter and a seven-time All-Star. He won a batting championship in 2005 and is the Rangers' all-time leader in hits with 2,230.

Quit killing time. Let's get to the story about how unselfish Young is so I can be an asshole.

Between 2002 and '13, he averaged 155 games per season and never spent a day on the disabled list.

And Terence Moore says there are no iron men anymore.

He's also the only player in at least 90 years to have started 400 games at second, short and third. Which brings us back to that 2008 Gold Glove Award.

The Rangers traded their shortstop, Alex Rodriguez, to the New York Yankees at the beginning of Spring Training in 2004. In return, they got Alfonso Soriano, who they thought would replace Rodriguez at short.

When Soriano showed up at Spring Training, he made it clear he didn't want to play short. He'd been a full-time second baseman for three seasons with the Yankees and didn't like the idea of moving.

What a selfish immigrant. It's a good thing the border to Mexico is close to Texas because Soriano could just jump the fence back to Mexico if he doesn't like how things are run here in America.

Before the situation had a chance to get ugly, Young showed up one morning, stepped into Rangers manager Buck Showalter's office and closed the door.

"I'll play short," he said.

This was a team-first and unselfish move. I won't bash him for this.

To make that kind of switch would not be the easiest of adjustments.

Soriano had experience playing shortstop and Michael Young really didn't. This was the first of three position changes for Young and also the only position change he accepted without demanding a trade first. Of course, Richard Justice glosses over that in an effort to eulogize Young's career and make him seem like a completely team-first guy.

Young told reporters at the time he did it because he liked the challenge of playing short. Yet, what virtually every teammate -- and Showalter -- knew was something else. He did it to make the new guy's transition smoother and the Rangers better.

Making the new guy's transition smoother and the Rangers better is something Young was resistant to the other two times he was asked to change positions. It's not bashing Young, but a simple recitation of a fact. Painting Young as this guy who is always team-first just isn't factually correct. Hell, Young is still reminiscing about his career if he didn't volunteer to play shortstop and had stayed at second base.

Here are some quotes from when Young was asked to move to third base to make room for Elvis Andrus, a move that would make the Rangers a better team:

"My focus is playing for the Rangers, playing for a winning club and playing the best third base that I can," Young said. "Yes, I was adamant about staying at shortstop. But at the end of the day, after looking at everything, the chances of being traded were slim and the team wasn't really pursuing a trade.

"They wanted me to play third base and I didn't want this to drag on. I don't want my focus to be on anything but being ready for Spring Training. I'm focused on having a big year and the last thing I wanted to do was have anything take away from that." 

Young agreed to move because his trade demand wasn't fulfilled or the Rangers weren't actively looking to trade him. Either way, he wants to be ready for the season (which is admirable), but he wanted to be traded rather than switch positions (which is a direct contradiction of Richard Justice's "Team-first" and "He wants the team to be better" point of view as it relates to Young) positions.

"This is the way it was going to turn out. There was no trade in sight so once I thought it over, it was time to get to work."

The decision ends four days of controversy that erupted on Sunday night when Daniels announced that the Rangers had requested Young to move to third base. Young publicly responded that he was being forced to move to third base and wanted to be traded instead. 

I give Young credit for playing rather than continuing to demand a trade, but the fact is Young only stopped demanding a trade because his wish to be trade wasn't being fulfilled, not out of the goodness of his heart.

Here are some quotes from when Young was asked to move to DH to make room for Adrian Beltre and Mike Napoli, a move that would make the Rangers a better team:

Then Texas signed Mike Napoli and announced he would also play as the Rangers designated hitter.

That was the last straw.

Michael Young asked for a trade.

“The suggestion that I had a change of heart and asked for a trade is a manipulation of the truth,” Young said. “I asked for a trade because I’ve been misled and manipulated and I’m sick of it.

Young ended up getting 631 at-bats during the 2011 season, while starting 69 games at DH, 39 games at third base, 36 games at first base, 14 games at second base, and 1 game at shortstop. So he was lied to, in that he wasn't being asked to be a DH for the majority of the games he started.

"This has been a long time coming based on things that occurred off the field,” Young said. “I’m sick of it. It hit a point where I felt it was unfair to me and my family.”

Did Young's $16 million paycheck bounce? It didn't? Well then I'm sure he would get over being lied to and manipulated.

I understand the Rangers asked Young to move positions three times in his career and it is perceived as unfair to him. Part of the reason it is perceived as so unfair is because he made such a big deal out of the last two times he was asked to switch positions. Other baseball players have switched positions and the position switch wasn't a huge deal because it wasn't made a huge deal. Young's trade demands had fans taking positions on whether what the Rangers were asking him to do was fair or not. Chipper Jones moved to left field to make room for Vinny Castilla. He didn't like it, but he didn't make a huge deal out of it to where he demanded a trade. Alex Rodriguez probably would rather have played shortstop with the Yankees, but he knew if he played for them then he would have to play third base. Even Alfonso Soriano eventually moved away from second base to play left field after being traded to the Nationals. It's not an issue unless it is made an issue.

While I respect Young, the idea he is team-first just isn't completely true. He was team-first the initial time he volunteered to move to shortstop, but after being asked to move positions again, he demanded a trade and wasn't team-first. It's possible for Young to be in the right to refuse to move, while also acknowledging this refusal to move doesn't mean he is a team-first player. These aren't mutually exclusive positions. Young was sort of jerked around by the Rangers, but by demanding a trade this meant he wasn't exactly being team-first because his moving positions made the Rangers a stronger team.

"Typical Michael Young," Showalter said. "He's one of those guys who'll do whatever is best for the club. You don't find a lot of guys like that."

But this statement wasn't true for Young's entire career.

Young emerged as the Rangers' most popular and productive player. At a time when the franchise was in a 10-season postseason drought, Young set a tone in the clubhouse for professionalism, work ethic and doing things right.

See? I'm not bashing him. Young played the game the right way, with grit, hustle and a team-first attitude as long as being team-first fit his needs and wants. He was the face of the Rangers franchise and should be remembered that way. Attributes that Young possessed don't need to be fictionalized for him to have a rich legacy as a Texas Ranger.

When the Rangers finally emerged from the darkness to win the first of two straight American League pennants in 2010, Young did a pretty good imitation of the happiest man on earth.

Of course, if Michael Young had his way then he would not have been on the team that won the first of two straight American League pennants nor on the team that won the second straight American League pennant. He would have been traded to a team that would allow him to play shortstop.

By then, he'd been asked to change positions a couple more times. He moved from short to third in 2009 to make room for Elvis Andrus and then agreed to move here, there and everywhere when third baseman Adrian Beltre was signed before the 2011 season.

And there we go. The gloss-over has occurred. To leave out two trade demands in an article where Richard Justice is putting Young out there as a team-first guy is simply bad writing. If it's not bad writing then it is a fictionalized version of real events. It's impossible for me to fathom how an article about Young being a team-first guy could be written while completely ignoring his two trade demands and the fact he wouldn't have been on the 2010 and 2011 Texas Rangers team if it weren't for the fact his demand request wasn't accepted and executed.

By then, he'd long since established himself in the hearts and minds of Rangers fans. They'll forever remember him as a guy who was both a tremendous player and a tremendous person, someone who thought being a Major League Baseball player was about more than simply playing.

Sorry, I"m choking on cliches and sentiment right now. Again, I think it's possible to remember Michael Young as a great baseball player who was jerked around by the Rangers in a way, while also acknowledging Young's trade demand wasn't team-first.

But he was there when they turned the corner,

Even though it was initially against his will.

and his fingerprints are all over everything they've accomplished.

Which was partially accomplished because of the players the Rangers acquired which caused Young to demand a trade twice.

In the end, that's a legacy with which he can take pride.

Young should absolutely take pride in his career. Richard Justice should not take pride in writing an article that whitewashes part of Michael Young's history with the Rangers. It's clear from Young's quote about playing second base for his whole career that he hasn't forgotten he was asked to move positions and anyone writing about Young being a team-first player shouldn't forget either.

1 comments Too Much Varitek Is Barely Enough

Hello all. I have been invited to post here by Ben, so I guess a few particulars are customary.

First, I'm an Australian but please, if you are going to comment about the fact that I live in Australia and ergo don't know anything about American sports, at least do me the service of avoiding the word "kangaroo". I worked as a bookie for two years, specialising in MLB and NFL, essentially as an advisor. The agency was small so it was more like a betting team, we didn't have the clientel to do much bookmaking so to speak. I'm 24 and may even post the occasional rant about cricket or rugby if I find the content general enough to appeal to everyone and the offense to logic particulary egregious. One example that comes to mind is that I once was watching a rugby game where the announcer (Ben Ikin) said "they were out there left, right and centre out on the right". This has since become something of a mantra for public and sporting related displays of stupidity between me and my friends.

Anyway, any other details are probably unnecessary - I don't really follow teams, I kind of adopt them here and there, but when that team gets good I feel guilty for being a bandwagon rider and immediately trade down to a lower version. Currently these teams are the Atlanta Hawks, Milwaukee Brewers (might have to jet on them soon) and Washington Redskins. My favourite American sport is baseball, I love the crazy setup of 162 games and the races coming down to September, following a baseball season is such a unique experience. I have no time and general contempt for, college sports.

Discussions with Ben suggest that there may be times of debate and discussion of various issues and points of view between him and I, hopefully providing entertainment and provoking thought. We shall see. I wasn't actually going to post today but Richard Justice, in all his arrogant, belligerent, megalomaniacal glory, practically insisted with the following colum, available at the Sporting News.

No offense, but Boston needs Jason Varitek

very witty

Can you imagine Jason Varitek wearing any other uniform? Can't do it, can you?

"That would be hard," Derek Jeter said.

How about you, Mariano Rivera?

"He's their captain," he said. "That tells you what he means to them."

Indeed.

this is some vapid fucking sportswriting here people. I dunno, maybe I give Derek Jeter and Mariano Rivera too much credit, but I would love to see the looks on their faces when Richard Justice sidled on up to them and asked them "can you imagine Jason Varitek in another uniform?". Surely there must be better questions you can ask. I mean, think about it, the abuse of position this entails. Put yourself in Richard Justice's shoes, here they are, Derek Jeter and Mariano Rivera, you get a precious few minutes with them to pick their brain on a topic of your choosing, and this is what he comes up with. Breathtaking.

"When you think of the Red Sox, he's one of the people that comes to mind," Joe Torre said.

probably because he plays for them, thank you for that Joe.

Wait, there's more.

I would certainly hope so Richard, this has been...less than impressive so far.

For a decade, Varitek has represented the Red Sox with grace and grit. He might be the poster boy for some of the best years the franchise has ever had -- six playoff appearances, including two championships, in 10 seasons.

grit alert.

He has helped changed the way people perceive the Red Sox. Once lovable losers, they're now widely respected both for winning and for doing it the right way.

I dunno man. Like, if "the right way" means the cunning trades and savvy positioning in the market, surely that's Theo Epstein right? Even if you mean the emphasis on defense and stuff, that was basically put in motion by the Nomar trade, that's my understanding. Seems Epstein pretty much coincided with this period of success in Red Sox history. He would seem to be the "poster boy" if you're asking me, and quite frankly, I think he was more responsible for whats happened to this team than Varitek. I know I'm in dangerous GM vs guys who actually play territory here, but I'm just saying, if it's about the appearance and attitude of the Red Sox, maybe we're overstating the case of Varitek.

I also dispute this "lovable losers" tag. I mean, they were pretty damn good, they had like the best pitcher on the planet, a scary offense, sold out every game and were involved in some of the best playoff series of all time. To suggest they were "cute" or "quaint" is not only disrespectful to a very successful franchise with a storied history but also a gross misrepresentation.

That "C" on Varitek's jersey speaks volumes. He's the Red Sox captain in every sense of the word.

Recently, when he briefly snapped out of a terrible slump with a hit, the Red Sox celebrated as if they'd won another championship.

oh come on! Come on! I mean why go so ridiculously over the top like this? They were happy for him, awesome. Again, maybe I am giving baseball players too much credit, but I'd like to think they have enough perspective to act proportionately when a player gets a fucking base hit. Also, how would that make Varitek feel if they actually did celebrate like this? Like he was a nine year old who was there because of the "Make a Wish Foundation", that's how. I'm sure Jason Varitek doesn't want to be condescended to, and to be honest, I think he was probably a little embarrassed to be at the all-star game with a line of .216/.297/.351.

My God that's bad.

Varitek's future with the Red Sox has become a hot topic on Boston sports radio at a time when he's hitting .218 and sometimes looking overmatched at the plate.

sometimes? I'd suggest most of the time. Maybe even all of the time. And Varitek has hit .240/.331/.396 over the past three years. This season is indicative of a trend. Some may say a typical, easily identifiable trend that correlates strongly with the end of a career. He's also 36. He also plays catcher. He is also off contract at the end of this season so the Red Sox will have to address these very issues head on. These discussions seem warranted.

Because he is 36 years old, because he is unsigned after this season and because the Red Sox have had acquiring a catcher on their to-do list for more than a year, the previously unthinkable has become thinkable.

right.

Money could become an issue. Varitek is represented by Scott Boras, and rumors have Boras seeking a four-year contract for Varitek.

I think the bigger issue is that .218, no wait .216 average right? I mean, if the Red Sox don't sign him, exactly who will? He probably will get offers precisely because of people like Richard Justice but I don't think Jason Varitek is bargaining from a position of strength here, and I think unless Theo Epstein is replaced by an evil twin, that four year contract Scott Boras is supposedly coveting exists only in his dreams.

Varitek's value could change depending on how the second half of the season goes, who the Red Sox acquire and how the season plays out.

but most important, he has to hit right? I mean this is patently unacceptable. And I mean, short of him inventing a time machine, the liklihood is, as unfortunate as it may be, that that will not happen.

To anyone Red Sox fan ready to throw Varitek off the bus: Be careful what you wish for.

the case in favour for reckless wishing in this instance does indeed appear to be a strong one, even for "anyone Red Sox fan", let's see what you have.

When the Red Sox trailed the Cleveland Indians 3-1 in the American League Championship Series last fall, Varitek was one of the guys who set a relentless one-game-at-a-time tone in the clubhouse.

Had you walked into the Boston clubhouse before Game 5, you might have thought the Red Sox were preparing for a June game with the Mariners. That's because they play the game one way -- and Varitek is partly responsible for that.

what did he expect? Looting, molotov cocktails and violent sobbing? They play the game to win. They want to win. They plan and prepare to win. That is the extent of "playing the game one way" and every team does it. These are professional baseball players. They are here because they have played in a lot of big games, at every level, and know how to handle it. I'm not really sure what the alternative would be...these people are professionals.

Richard...I just have no idea what you are trying to say.

There's no debating his offensive season. It has been terrible. Varitek's .218 batting average is 46 points below his career average.

but only 22 points below his average the past three years.

He's hitting just .184 on the road and .192 with runners in scoring position. He has put together back-to-back tough months -- a .122 average in June, a .188 average in July.

well yeah, he's been bad. I think ".218" is sufficient, I don't need the situationals. ".218" isn't nuanced like that, it's what is called absolutely terrible. We're not splitting hairs here.

And yet at this point in his career, considering the makeup of this club, offense isn't his primary responsibility.

yeah, and if he was hitting like .250/.330/.390 this might be a good argument. But he's not. Jason Varitek has wet dreams about hitting .250 right now. Primary responsibility is one thing, destructive agent of hitting death is quite another. Again, there's no room to look "deeper" here, it's .218 (.216 at the time of writing). Terrible. Indefensible. It's that simple.

Even with Varitek not hitting, the Red Sox are second in the American League in runs, first in on-base percentage and third in home runs.

With J.D.Drew having a career year, with Dustin Pedroia becoming an impact player and with David Ortiz due back from the disabled list next weekend, Boston's concerns are mostly with middle relief and the back of the rotation.

I hope this isn't the pitch Boras is taking to the Red Sox for his bid for a fanciful contract - "you need better pitchers". I don't particulary think it should be your argument either, considering you're strongly implying he helps the pitching staff so much, and that that pitching staff is actually a pronounced weakness. Logic dictates then, that Jason Varitek has not been particulary benificial to said staff.

Also, Pedroia is basically as good as last year, not getting on base as much, more power, much of a muchness. I don't think he's "become" anything this year, he's still a pretty awesome second basemen (I'm not particulary informed on the prowess of his defense, seems adequate) but yeah, let's not pretend there are all these extra toys to a team that won the World Series here. Finally, the Red Sox aren't in first place, unlike last year, and haven't been for most of the year, I don't think they are in a position to easily carry a .216 hitter.

As for Varitek, it might be impossible for an outsider to understand his impact in the clubhouse.

He keeps charts on every Red Sox pitcher and studies scouting reports and video before each game. He picks the brains of scouts, coaches and anyone he thinks can help with that day's game.

isn't the stuff about scouting reports, video and charts pretty standard for catchers? I don't know maybe not. But .218...that is my response to this statement, a number that Richard Justice cannot rationalise his way out of, as difficult as it may be to understand the famed "Varitek aura".

Whether I'm hitting or not, I can influence other parts of the game," he said.

you're missing the point Jason, it's not that you can't influence other parts of the game, it's that you're fucking disgraceful at one very important part. Even if it isn't your "primary responsibility". Your ability to influence other parts of the game isn't in dispute...except by Richard Justice because the bullpen and half of the rotation are bad, apparently.

But what about the offensive struggles? He continues his workaholic ways, hoping to find a way out.

you paint a sad and tragic picture Justice, because it's almost definately not going to happen. There will be no happy ending to this story, as desperately as Varitek practises.

What Varitek mainly does is set a tone for everyone else. When his peers voted him onto the American League All-Star team, he was asked over and over if he felt bad about going when he's hitting so little.

"No," he said. "That's a pretty good honor, to be sent by the players."

oh. I guess I was wrong, you weren't embarrassed as much as oblivious.

Sometimes Francona seems to know the questions are coming before they're asked.

"That is from the players around the league," he said. "That's how they feel about him."

As Pedroia told the Boston Globe, "He's all about us. He'll sacrifice himself for the team every time."

.216/.297/.351