I thought that my post from the other day about Michael Young and why he’s not a fit for the Dodgers would have been all that needed to be said about the situation, but no: the rumor mill keeps churning. If it’s not fans coming up with crazy trade ideas to get Young, it’s fans coming up with crazier ideas to get Young. All this, for an expensive and aging lousy defender who can’t hit away from Texas.

Today, Ken Rosenthal, after saying the Dodgers had “engaged in serious discussions’ with Texas, pours some more fuel on the fire:

The Rangers would need to pay the majority of Young’s salary for a deal to occur, and one source said the Dodgers asked the Rangers to assume as much as 75 percent of his contract — or $36 million of $48 million.

At first glance, that seems great – Michael Young at $12m over the next three years sounds a whole hell of a lot better than $48m over three years. But think about that for a second. The Rangers aren’t going to just dump Young for nothing, and they’re certainly not going to do so if they’re not saving a good deal of money.

So if the Dodgers really did propose that deal, what kind of talent were they willing to give up in return? Because let me tell you, you might be able to get away with mediocre talent if you’re telling the Rangers they can relieve themselves of a headache and save a bunch of money. But that’s certainly not the case if Texas doesn’t realize savings, so the talent in discussion must have been noteworthy – and that’s terrifying. If it really is true that the McCourt situation has prevented Ned Colletti from being able to afford Young, then this is one case where we should all be thankful that we’re stuck with such awful ownership.

Granted, the title of the Rosenthal piece about Young-to-Dodgers is “Ain’t happening”, so there’s still hope that we’ll make it through this, but good lord will I feel better when this finally gets resolved, and he ends up somewhere that isn’t Los Angeles.

For the record, Casey Blake vs Young in terms of WAR:

That’s from best season to worst, and that looks like two nearly identical players, no? Blake’s best season was actually better than Young’s best.

Now look at it in terms of cumulative WAR by age…

With the exception that Young got started a few years earlier, those lines are nearly identical. Blake’s past his prime, but so is Young. So why are people so interested in trading talent for a guy who’s eight times as expensive?