Of the few -- and I mean very few -- who have made an attempt to defend the way the Rangers handled the Michael Young situation, it's interesting that not one of those columnists/reporters/bloggers actually talked to Young himself.
What that tells me is that they have one side of the story, that is, if they've talked to general manager Jon Daniels. And they're buying into his version, or his side of things.
I repeat, the crux of this situation isn't about Young moving to third, although you could debate that point, too. It's about whether he was paid the proper respect in the process. Clearly, he believes that didn't happen. That's what made him angry and got his back up.
This isn't about the economy -- and trying to put the baseball economy into real life terms just doesn't work -- and it's not about another money-grubbing player. This is Michael Young, for heaven's sake. He's got his money already and will be paid no matter what. It's about how a team handles a special, valuable player -- a player the Rangers chose to make the face of the franchise -- to make something like this palatable and acceptable.
The Rangers failed miserably in that effort and they're taking the PR hit because of it.
-- JIM REEVES