As soon as Joe Christensen published his piece about the possibility of a Francisco Liriano trade, somebody ignorant enough to take Michael Young's stats at face value was bound to say: Hey, the Twins don't want Liriano; Young wants out of Texas and likes the Twins; swap them.
So far as I know, the winner of the booby prize as first to suggest that misbegotten notion is Howard Sinker, who must have turned his brain off when writing his Thursday post. (Sinker has joined Jim Souhan and Sid Hartman on my list of the Strib's unreadables. Life's too short to spend with the inane.)
That was bad enough, but then comes this piece from the Fort Worth Star Telegram. The good news is that the writer says the Rangers aren't finding a taker for Young. The bad news ... he says the Twins are indeed interested, and drags Liriano into it :
Colorado and Minnesota, two of the clubs that aren't blocked by Young's limited no-trade clause, have interest in him, but only if the Rangers pick up a significant portion of the $48 million remaining on Young's contract over the next three years. ... Minnesota is willing to deal away left-hander Francisco Liriano -- who would fill a hole in the Rangers' rotation after they missed out on signing Cliff Lee and trading for Matt Garza or Zack Greinke this off-season. Twins manager Ron Gardenhire is a big fan of Young, who could become their third baseman.
Methinks the key phrase there is the last. Third base? Look, I'm not convinced that Danny Valencia is the player he appeared to be in 2010, but there is no way at this point that the Twins can justify pushing him out of the lineup, and no way the front office is going to displace his low salary for the overpaid Young.
There are good reasons for the Twins to consider trading Liriano. Michael Young is about five years past the point of being one of them.
Again, the good news is that there's no real reason to believe that anybody with any actual responsibility is inclined to make such a trade.