Are you tired of Michael Young trade talk?

I sure am. (But it won't stop me from blogging about it.) The Rangers are still entertaining thoughts of trading Michael Young and the three years, $48 million remaining on his contract, according to ESPN.com's Buster Olney. BTW, Troy Renck at The Denver Post says the Rangers haven't revisited talks with the Rockies yet.

On the one hand, I understand it's prudent for the front office to at least see what may be out there for Michael Young right now.

Why? He has three years and $48 million left on his contract and that's expensive for a DH and super-utility infielder. Plus, once May comes around it could become more difficult to trade Young because he'll have 10 years of major league service, including five with the same team.

Even knowing all of that, I wouldn't trade Young. We got into this a few weeks ago and it seems like it's a story that could continue during spring training.

Besides the fact that he has a track record of being a productive hitter, he gives the Rangers an extremely versatile DH that can play the infield positions. I have no worries that he'll pick up first base just fine. He admits his most natural position is second base (Ian Kinsler has been on the DL in each of the last five seasons, so chances are he'll be back on that list at least once in 2011), he won a Gold Glove at shortstop and has worked hard at third base for the past two seasons. So Washington can pencil in Young in the field and feel like there isn't much dropoff. How many managers can say that?

Young is more than that. He's the chemistry key to this club. I'm not saying they don't have leaders that couldn't step up in his absence. But he made a clear difference with the team in 2010. He commands respect as a 34-year-old veteran who has been with Texas his entire major league career. He waited a long time to be on a winning Rangers team and he's on one whose window is just opening. Young wants to be here. As long as that's the case, he should stay here. Don't underestimate the value of the intangibles that Young brings.

I know some of you argue the trade of Mike Napoli means even fewer at-bats for Young. I think it impacts Mitch Moreland a whole lot more than Young and Washington has vowed that Young will get his at-bats and I believe him.

It's going to be tough to get a team to take on the majority of Young's salary. And is it worth trading him and having to pay at least half his remaining salary? I don't think so.

I still think we'll see Young in Arizona in less than two weeks wearing a Rangers uniform. Do you think he'll be there? Are you tired of Young trade talk? What should the Rangers do?