Pitching Profile - Final Edition

Just like we did at the end of May, at the end of June , and at the end of August - Here is the Final edition of our look at the Rangers starting rotation. The point of this exercise is to dig a bit deeper than the basic stats for each starting pitcher to see what they are good at - or what they are not good at.

In the final analysis, 10 pitchers started games for the Rangers this season. Kevin Millwood (31), Scott Feldman (31), Derek Holland (21), Tommy Hunter (19), Vicente Padilla (18), Brandon McCarthy (17), Matt Harrison (11), Dustin Nippert (10), Kris Benson (2), and Doug Mathis (2). This study will focus on the eight pitchers who have made at least 10 starts.

There is plenty of good news to report as they worked a significantly higher amount of innings while doing a great job at dropping the rotation's ERA.

Both Kevin Millwood and Scott Feldman made over 30 starts with 18 Quality Starts each. That number may not blow your socks off, but those two seasons can rival pretty much any season we have seen around here by a starting pitcher in an awfully long time.

There were other signs of optimism as well, as the first year of the Nolan Ryan/Mike Maddux program seems like a perfect diving board to 2010.

My Intern loves Stats, too

Working at America's Favorite Radio Station, we have the occasion to experience quite a few interns that come and go through our station on their ways to careers of their own. Well, under normal circumstances, I would never reprint one of their essays that they bounce off me. But, TC Fleming is not a normal intern (in my estimation). He is a young, promising sports dork. And as an older sports dork, I should know.

Anyway, he wrote an essay this week that I wanted to share with you. It is all about the strides the Rangers havemade this season in the defensive department. I am not going to lie to you, this might be a bit deeper than some would like to go - given the enormous amount of Bill James-type statistics he uses, but if you enjoy that sort of data analysis, then you very much might enjoy this.

TC the intern looks at why the Rangers are better in 2009. It is all about the gloves:

Trade Deadline Baseball Chat

Since we are close to the Friday trade deadline, I thought last night was a good chance to pick the brains of Mr. Grant and Mr Hindman during the first hour of last night's game against Detroit. We talked about Rangers pitching and deadline moves, as well as what it might take to get Roy Halladay, and what the Rangers motivation level should be.

One note, both of the chatters have busy lives, so Evan arrived a bit after we started, and Mike had to leave a bit early, but still we got you almost 2,000 words of Rangers talk for you to digest today.

Bill James vs Scott Feldman

On the left, you will see the cover of one of my favorite baseball books of all-time. It is "The New Bill James Historical Baseball Abstract". Printed in 2003, I likely have not read this great thing cover-to-cover, but I reference it all of the time.

I always find it interesting how polarizing Bill James can be to people. The reason I find it curious, is that when he has an opinion that seems controversial, he then demonstrates why he believes what he believes about the great game of baseball. When he demonstrates his cases, it always includes the miles of research that appears to cement his thoughts. Once you have a mountain of evidence that supports his claims, then it no longer is a claim. Based in facts, one's opinions seem to carry much more substance. And that is the way Bill James seems to operate in his book.

The essay that he wrote about studying young pitchers and trying to figure out how to project a pitcher's success rate is called "Bird Thou Never Wert" from pages 289-294 of the book. If you would like to read the entire essay, you should be able to read it here .

Chatting W/ Evan Grant

One thing I want to make sure I try to do is to fill the voids around here. So, in that line of thinking, who is someone that rarely emerges from seclusion to share his thoughts of the Rangers with us?

Evan Grant. Exactly! Last night, while we both watched the Rangers-Boston game, we thought I would fire a few Rangers topics that were on my mind in his general direction for another award-nominated 60-minute chat.

Bob: I want to ask you for your best theories about the hitting around here. Frankly, the numbers are quite staggering for this roster for the better part of the year. .255 as a team? Impossible!

Evan: My best thinking cap answer is that we are seeing teams have to pitch to the Rangers like runs matter for the first time in a long time and they are actually putting some thought and effort into their pitch sequences. The Rangers have been slow to adjust. Then there are these facts: The bottom of the order was going to be a trouble spot if Chris Davis didn't have the same year as 2008. Josh Hamilton has gotten himself out. And, yes, Kinsler has been a little wild in his approach.

Evan: That said, I'm sitting here at Rangers-Red Sox. And Red Sox are supposed to be so patient. They've swung at more first pitches than Rangers tonight.

Bob: Interesting theory about other pitchers putting more thought into it...Hadn't considered it, but that is non-linear of you.

Pitching Profile - June Edition

Just like we did at the end of May, here is a good, extensive look at the Rangers starting rotation. The point of this exercise is to dig a bit deeper than the basic stats for each starting pitcher to see what they are good at - or what they are not good at.

Through the end of June, the Rangers rotation has taken the ball 76 times. Only 6 pitchers have made more than 2 starts, so we will focus on those guys. Kevin Millwood, Scott Feldman, and Vicente Padilla have taken the most turns, then Matt Harrison and Brandon McCarthy both have 11 starts a piece. Finally, Derek Holland has 6 starts under his belt.

As you might expect, June was not a bed of roses for any part of this team. Let's take a look and see how it worked out for the starting rotation.

Times are Tough

Reports on the first day of NHL Free Agency were wild across much of the National Hockey League, but in Dallas, where we hear about the tough economic times of Hicks Sports Group, all seemed quiet.

Sure, the Stars were able to keep Jere Lehtinen for what was reported as a home-town discount (1-year, $1.5m), but forgive my cynicism when I point out that in order for there to be a discount, that must mean that someone somewhere else was planning on offering him top dollar. He is 36, and has been broken for the last two seasons. There was not going to be an aggressive bid placed on his services this summer, in my estimation.

Otherwise, the early days of the Joe Nieuwendyk/Marc Crawford regime have been dotted with very little discussions (that have leaked out) about improving this team at all cost, but rather the issue that we hear and read about is mostly about the Stars operating under a very tight (by Dallas Stars' standards) budget.

Who is Miguel De Los Santos?

Email of the Day:

Bob,

I am in desperate need of your Sturm-O-Sports Brain. Please help…

I often review minor league baseball stats as I am interested in who could be potential stars for the Rangers. In the 15 years that I have followed baseball I have never seen a stat that stood out as much as this one:

Miguel De Los Santos | Pitcher | Class A DSL Rangers

15.2 Innings Pitched
1 ER
2 Hits
41 SO

That’s not a typo. 2.7 k’s per inning! In 4 Minor league seasons (mostly Dominican League and seemingly injury plagued) he has 151 SO in 92IP.

Do you know anything about this guy? I must learn more. Why is he not at least at the AA level? I know it’s only single A, but still almost a SO for every batter he faced is pretty amazing and not something you see everyday.

Thank you,

Jeremy

I couldn't believe it. But the numbers are absolutely true.

My Field Trip to Fenway

Writing a review of my first trip to Fenway this weekend would be like asking young Bob Sturm to write a review of The Empire Strike Back, or college-age Bob Sturm writing a review of Achtung, Baby.

What, did you think I was going to rip it?

The fact is, this sports weekend, which required no missed days of work, was a perfect 10 of 10. When you are a husband/father you don't have an open calendar to come and go as you please, so therefore you must make these very rare "guy-trip" weekends count. And, to see two games at Fenway Park inside one of the most beautiful weather weekends in a city that I absolutely loved was setting the bar very high for future trips of the type.

Pitching Profile - May Edition

The following exercise is something I am trying to keep on the side for my own personal use, but then I thought that there might be just enough stat-hungry baseball folks to go ahead and post it up here for you to digest (slowly...there is a lot).

It is basic splits for the 5 starters who have filled out the Rangers rotation for 2009. There have been 50 starts, and to date, Millwood, McCarthy, Harrison, Feldman, and Padilla have made 45 of them. Benson, Holland, and Hunter have made the last 5, but there is not enough data to make it worth running their monthly trends.

But, as we embark upon the month of June, here is a perfect time to show you how the 5 are performing, and perhaps this is something I will update and rerun each and every time we turn the calendar here in the baseball season.

Ask Sports Sturm: All of Nothing

After Chris Davis' Tuesday performance of the 2-HR, 2-K variety, I was sent this email by Tim in Bedford:

Sturm-

Is Chris Davis the biggest All-or-Nothing guy in Major League Baseball? It seems like it either a HR or a strikeout with this guy, and while I enjoy the good...I do wonder about that bad.

Tim

Thanks, Tim. This is a topic I have become interested in with the plight of Chris Davis this season. He is someone I certainly root for, because I enjoy watching him play.

But, the amazing All-or-Nothing discussion is one worth looking at.

Saving the Bullpen

I am thoroughly amazed at some of the things we are seeing in Arlington this summer, and while my calendar reminds me that we are merely passing the "20% of the season" pole today, it is worth noting our sample size is growing by the week.

With that in mind, the stat that has always been front and center for me is the distribution of innings between your starters (generally, guys you have invested most of your resources into between dollars and assets) and your bullpen (guys you have determined are not great candidates to be starters at this time). Really good pitching staffs actually approach 70% work load being shouldered by the starters, which then leads to a number of good results in many categories. The Rangers in 2008 were at about 60%. While that 10% may not seem like much, perhaps it better explains why people like Nolan Ryan discuss "one more inning" or "one more out" from the starters. Because that 10% is the difference between the best staffs in baseball and the worst.

This morning, the Rangers starting rotation work load percentage stands at 68.5%. Phenomenal on so many levels for this staff to be able to shoulder that much work. Scott Feldman last night kept the beat going, and the bullpen remains rested and ready (Francisco news pending, of course). Their quality will be tested as the summer goes on, but the fact that there are things this far into the season that we are not sure about regarding the bullpen speaks to the improvements. In past summers in recent memory, we knew way TOO much about the Rangers' bullpen by now.

Does the Spring Training Record Matter?

Today’s Feature Email goes a little something like this:

Dear Sports Sturm,

I Noticed the Rangers are currently playing .600 ball in spring training. If they were to win at that pace that would mean a 97 win season. I was curious how previous Rangers spring trainings have translated to the regular season.

James Gilliam

At 18-13, the Rangers are now sitting at .581 baseball since James wrote me, but you get the idea. So, is there a correlation between the spring training records and the regular season accomplishments?

Without looking, I would say absolutely not. But, let’s take a look:

Ask Sports Sturm: Baseball America Rankings

I am very interested in the Baseball America rankings that have just been released that show that the Texas Rangers have the #1 ranked farm system in all of baseball. This would seem to indicate that the following 10 players will soon be the framework of a very powerful, young baseball team for years to come:

Rank	Name	Pos
1.	Neftali Feliz	RHP
2.	Derek Holland	LHP
3.	Justin Smoak	1B
4.	Elvis Andrus	SS
5.	Martin Perez	LHP
6.	Taylor Teagarden	C
7.	Engle Beltre	OF
8.	Michael Main	RHP
9.	Julio Borbon	OF
10.	Max Ramirez	C/1B

Table Tutorial

We can only hope that this is the long-term case. Baseball excellence is on the horizon. For a franchise that boasts just 1 finish higher than 3rd in a 4 team division in the last 9 years, and just 1 season of over 80 wins in the last 9 years, it is badly needed.

The Rangers were last ranked #1 in 1990. Here is what that group looked like:

Rank	Name	Pos
1.	Juan Gonzalez	OF
2.	Rob Nen	RHP
3.	Donald Harris	OF
4.	Dean Palmer	3B
5.	Brian Bohanon	LHP
6.	Kevin Belcher	OF
7.	Dan Peltier	OF
8.	Scott Coolbaugh	3B
9.	Monty Fariss	SS
10.	Eric McCray	LHP

Table Tutorial

That team did not win in the next 5 years, but in year 6, Juan and Dean Palmer were pretty large parts of the first Rangers team to ever win a division. 6 years from today is January 2015.

Which leads us to this episode of Ask Sports Sturm:

I am a big Rangers fan, and a bigger fan of the truth. Is this ranking a big deal? Is this the equivalent of national signing day in college football? Is there a strict correlation between being ranked highly here and performing well on the diamond? I know this is a lot of questions, Bob, but the bottom line is: Can the Rangers screw this up?

Brent, Ft Worth

Well, Brent. There is only one way to figure this out, and that is to spend days, weeks, and months tracing every ranking Baseball America has ever done, and seeing if we can find any correlation between ranking and winning in the big scheme of things.

Sadly, I don’t have that much time. I have a few hours on this Thursday night to see if I can see any connections.

At the outset, I see some initial issues to sort through. For instance, Is there any accepted time span between the time the list comes out, and the time we expect the big league performance to be affected? I would suggest 3 years is about right, but that is hardly an exact science. For instance, in the 2006 rankings, the Atlanta Braves were ranked #7 – partly because this young kid that was ranked #3 on their list. His name? Elvis Andrus. 36 months later, we are still wondering if the Rangers might be rushing him to the big leagues. In fact, the Braves list in the 2006 list is very interesting. Ranked #7 in baseball, here is their top 7 prospects:

Rank	Name	Pos
1.	Andy Marte	3B
2.	Jarrod Saltalamacchia	C
3.	Elvis Andrus	SS
4.	Yunel Escobar	SS
5.	Anthony Lerew	RHP
6.	Joey Devine	RHP
7.	Chuck James	LHP

Table Tutorial

Now, here are the 2006 Rangers, ranked #16:

Rank	Name	Pos
1.	Edison Volquez	RHP
2.	John Danks	LHP
3.	Thomas Diamond	RHP
4.	Joaquin Arias	SS
5.	Eric Hurley	RHP
6.	Ian Kinsler	2B
7.	Armando Galarraga	RHP

Table Tutorial

And then, ranked #1 36 months ago, here are the Arizona Diamondbacks:

Rank	Name	Pos
1.	Stephen Drew	SS
2.	Conor Jackson	1B
3.	Carlos Quentin	OF
4.	Carlos Gonzales	OF
5.	Dustin Nippert	RHP
6.	Miguel Montero	C
7.	Garrett Mock	RHP

Table Tutorial

Interesting, eh? 36 months later, which of these 3 lists would you rather have? #7 Atlanta looks the weakest of the 3, and the #16 Rangers are somewhat comparable to the #1 Diamondbacks. Arizona with the bats, the Rangers with 3/5ths of a rotation. So, if 3 years isn’t enough to judge these lists, is it 4 years? Should the ’04 list have told us who the best teams in 2008 would be?

2008 Final Four teams? Philadelphia, Los Angeles, Tampa Bay, Boston

2004 Baseball America Rankings for these teams?

Philadelphia 21st (Howard, Hamels)
Los Angeles 2nd (Martin, Loney, Billingsley)
Tampa Bay 9th (Delmon Young, Kazmir)
Boston 23rd (Hanley Ramirez, Papelbon, Pedroia)

Is there a correlation? I know it is fun to put payroll rankings and show no connection between success and money. Isn’t it fairly easy to do the same thing here?

Here is another way I tried to look at it; the final column takes the team’s ability to make the playoffs in the 3rd, 4th, and 5th year after the #1 ranking. So, in 2003, if Cleveland was ranked #1, we check to see if they made the playoffs in 2006, 2007, and 2008. No-Yes-No. Of course, the "*" means the World Series Title was won - which appears twice, for the 2003 Florida Marlins, and the 2005 Chicago White Sox.

Year Ranked	Team #1	Playoffs 3-5 years
1994	Atlanta	Y-Y-Y
1995	Atlanta	Y-Y-Y
1996	LA Dodgers	N-N-N
1997	Pittsburgh	N-N-N
1998	Florida	N-N-Y*
1999	Atlanta	Y-Y-Y
2000	NY Yankees	Y-Y-Y
2001	Chi Sox	N-Y*-N
2002	Chi Cubs	N-N-Y
2003	Cleveland	N-Y-N

Table Tutorial

So, you see we have 10 teams and 3 years for each teams. In the 3rd year after being ranked #1 by Baseball America, these teams made the playoffs 4 times (40%). In the 4th year, they made the playoffs 6 times (60%) and 1 World Series Title, and in the 5th year, they made the playoffs 6 times (60%). The overall playoff rate was 16 for 30 or 53%. But, in fact, if you take Atlanta out of the mix, the mark drops to 7 for 21 or 33%.

For grins, I thought I would cross reference those numbers against the teams that are ranked dead last each year in Baseball America (and yes, I realize that until 1998, last meant #28):

Year Ranked	Team #30	Playoffs 3-5 years
1994	Colorado	N-N-N
1995	Milwaukee	N-N-N
1996	Texas	Y-N-N
1997	Baltimore	N-N-N
1998	Seattle	Y-N-N
1999	Anaheim	Y*-Y-N
2000	Milwaukee	N-N-N
2001	Milwaukee	N-N-N
2002	St Louis	Y-Y*-N
2003	Baltimore	N-N-N

Table Tutorial

The Good News: The teams ranked last only made it to the playoffs 6 out of 30 times (20%). In the 3rd year, 4 times (40%). In the 4th year, twice (20%). and then maybe the best piece of evidence, in the 5th year after being ranked last, the ten teams in our sample size made it to the playoffs 0 times (0%).

The Bad News: The teams ranked 30th have JUST as many World Series Championships as the teams ranked #1 in the focus years. The 2002 Angels and the 2005 Cardinals were both teams overcoming the last place spot.

And what role does money play? What does it profit a team to grow a bunch of prospects but not keep them around when they become stars? Should the Rangers have either a) avoided Mark Teixeira on draft day or b) paid to make him a career Ranger? Or did they flip him perfectly?

The Yankees raised Jeter, Bernie, Mariano, and Posada - and then paid hundreds of millions to keep them. Over $440 million to be exact to just those 4 players.

Those Braves were also a team that grew their own, and then paid to keep them until they deemed them no longer useful. The two consistent winners in the sample appear to be the Yankees and Braves. Two teams that over the last 15 years have drafted very well, and paid very well. Perhaps we should note both as traits of winners, rather than which ever one supports our agenda.

To answer the questions of Brent, It is hard to say I see a direct correlation between the ranking and a World Title. But, it surely is a significant note. There is no doubt the Rangers are now stocked with quality. Baseball America is not a Rangers publication, nor does it have any reason in my estimation to do the Rangers a P.R. favor.

To many of us, including me, the proof will always have to be found in the major league pudding. For some of these teams, I feel that the rankings were reflected on the field. The Atlanta Braves are a top notch organization that did it all. They grew talent, they acquired talent, and they paid talent. I think you must do all 3.

In a short answer, "yes" it means plenty. But, "no" it does not mean everything. I certainly hope to have a more definitive answer for questions like these, but honestly, too much goes into building a franchise to just fall back on a list in a magazine.

Building a winner requires plenty of things; Smarts, Luck, and Health are all on that list. I think JD and the cast of the Rangers are on the right track, but I believe evidence shows that Baseball America and the Rangers did not realize what the Rangers had in 2006.

Time will tell if they have learned from their experience.

Thoughts on MY

This Michael Young imbroglio is really on my mind. I have come to terms with the Rangers spending the last several years “regrouping” and “rebuilding” and doing the annual dance of:

1) Signing guys to 1 year deals who have little or no place in the big scheme of things, so that,

2) In July, we can trade those same guys for another Baseball America-ranked prospect, so that,

3) Sometime in the next 36 months, we can honestly and realistically compete for a Division Crown.

The problem, for me, has always been complicated. First, I don’t like how the 36 month window actually never begins. Trust me, I can find documentation that will prove that in 2004 this team was projecting to compete in 2007. And each subsequent year, the window moves. Therefore, in 2008, we were hearing of 2010. And you wait, in 2009….

Second, there has been very little reason to watch Rangers games once they run out of contention. I know some of you watch the perpetual Mark DeRosa, David Dellucci, Frank Catalanotto, Ramon Vazquez show. You may enjoy watching journeymen play out the string, but I need a little something more to sink my teeth into. I need hope. I need, in the words of the great Brett Michaels, something to believe in.

Enter, the men worthy of your belief. Now, it is Ian Kinsler, Josh Hamilton, and Michael Young. Guys who we all know will be a part of the next winner in Texas, right? Well, back to 2005, weren't we told that the infield of Hank Blalock, Mark Teixeira, and Mike Young will be a big part of the next winner?

And, slowly, those players who are your nucleus disappear. Some, play their way out of their role (Blalock), whereas others play so well, for so long, that they become too expensive and play their way out of your payroll (Teixeira). The sad truth is, there seems to be no middle ground. No Dirk of the franchise, if you will.

And this is where the disconnect begins for many of the fans. Sure, Jamey Newberg is unwavering in his faith as the faces change at a rapid pace, and there are many others like him…I cannot cope with a franchise that sells the next guy and seldom tells me about the guys who are here now.

But, they did tell me about Michael Young. They sold me long ago. And now, it appears like a break-up may be around the corner. My favorite Ranger, one of my very few choices because they can’t keep anyone in a Rangers uniform for 4 years anymore, has said he wants out.

The Rangers renewed their vows to Young just 22 months ago, and it was one of those rare commitments from this team that seemed to say to the fans that it is ok to feel safe - that while names are going to change elsewhere - go ahead and buy your #10 jersey, because he is staying.

So, is this mess their fault? Isn’t it fair to ask him to move for the team? And, if asked, have we ever heard one word about Mike being unreasonable and selfish and sorry?

What the heck is going on here? Why does it look like the face of the franchise is now going the same way as A-Rod, Tex, Rogers, and others who on the way out the door, the public had been swayed against them?

Nolan: Fix this. It is clear that Jon Daniels and Tom Hicks do not have an easy way with words to articulate difficult messages properly. But, this team cannot afford to look silly again.

Michael Young needs to be a part of 2009 and beyond. 3B? Fine with me. SS? Maybe. DH? Why not. The position is the details that these rich men need to settle like men. Not through talk radio and message boards. Figure it out.
To me, another trade for another kid that we will all be assured will be awesome in 2012 is NOT an option.

JD tries to settle everyone down …

General manager Jon Daniels is quite aware of the situation but still believes it can be resolved and Michael Young will be with the Rangers in 2009.

"I still believe there is a likelihood that we can come together on this and put it
behind us," Daniels said Monday morning. "We want to have further discussions with Mike and talk to him about it. We're all preparing for Michael to be an integral part of our team going forward. That's how we're preparing and that's my expectations."

But Daniels is also clear about where he wants Young to play in 2009.
"We're preparing for him to play third base," Daniels said. "We'll have further discussions with Michael, but we feel this is in the best interests of the club."
Young, a five-time All-Star at shortstop, is adamantly opposed to the move and has asked the Rangers to trade him. Texas has had some discussions with other teams, but there is nothing imminent or close enough to lead them to believe a trade can be made.

The Rangers want to move Young to third because they believe Elvis Andrus is their shortstop of the future. Young is unhappy because he felt there was no choice in the matter.

"I know how it was presented to me and I felt I was never given the opportunity to keep my job," Young said. "Maybe we could work this out if it was a two-way street, but I haven't seen that yet."

Andrus is considered a premium defensive shortstop even though he has yet to play above Double-A and committed 32 errors in 118 games at Frisco. There are some within the organization who feel he could use more time at Triple-A Oklahoma, but there is no doubt he is considered to be the Rangers' shortstop of the future. Texas doesn't have a third baseman of the future.

Daniels said he didn't think the Rangers were being too forceful in presenting the situation to Young.

"Obviously, Michael took issue with the word choice that I used, but I also wanted to put it honestly," Daniels said. "Clearly this was the direction we felt we needed to go. Rather than sugarcoat it, I thought it was the best course of action to be honest and lay it out the way we wanted it to happen.

"I completely understand his sentiments, but I don't agree with the term that we're tearing his job away from him. If anything, we're asking him to take on a more prominent role. Not necessarily moving from short to third -- you can argue that either way. We're asking him not only to play third base but also help a 20-year-old shortstop who could benefit from his experience and knowledge of the game. That's a big reason why we think it will work."

Adam Morris says everything I am thinking better than I could say it …

Now...taking a step back, looking at this from an unemotional, purely left-brain standpoint, is dumping Young and his contract good for the Rangers, long-term? Particularly if he's going to refuse to switch positions?

Quite possibly.

But from the softer standpoint, in terms of p.r., in terms of fan goodwill, in terms
of the impact on the players in the locker room and selling the team to free agents that you are trying to get to come here for less than what they think is fair, is this a good thing?

No. It is a disaster. Try selling Ben Sheets on the notion that he should come and try to rehabilitate his marketability in Texas after you've just given away one of the most respected players in the game after an ugly public breakup.

And from Young's standpoint, I have to think that part of the frustration is that he doesn't understand why now, all of the sudden, after everything that's gone on historically with this franchise, he's the one they draw the line in the sand with.

I'm sure he remembers when he first was coming up, and had to move from shortstop to second base because of the Alex Rodriguez signing. He remembers when Mark Teixeira came up, and had to DH because Rafael Palmeiro was here and wanted to be the first baseman. He remembers how the Rangers wooed Carlos Delgado, promising that if he'd sign with Texas, the organization would make Teixeira go back to DHing again. He remembers how Alfonso Soriano threw a fit over moving to shortstop, and how he defused the Soriano situation by volunteering instead. And how the organization went ahead and simply traded Soriano two years later, rather than force the situation by making him change positions. And how the organization seemingly decided that, since Jarrod Saltalamacchia didn't like playing first base, they weren't going to make him play first base anymore, but would just let him catch.

I'm sure he looks at this past season, and sees Milton Bradley, who played when he felt like it, didn't play when he didn't feel physically up to it, but refused to go on the d.l. and forced the team to play short-handed, sees a guy who was here only one season that the manager catered to. I'm sure he looks at Vicente Padilla, and sees a guy who couldn't be counted on to go take the mound every fifth day, whose neck was hurting or who had a twinge or who otherwise couldn't be counted on, but who again was catered to and not put on the d.l.

I'm sure he sees this organization as historically, during the time he's been here, bending over backwards to cater to and coddle players, particularly (but not always) veterans. And I'm sure he's now wondering why it is that, all of the sudden, they decide to take a hard-line position with him, the guy who has sacrificed and done all the right things and played hurt and played hard and done everything the team wanted.

And I think he saw how the organization caved and moved Alex Rodriguez when he
caused a fuss, and caved and moved Mark Teixeira when he made it clear he didn't want to be here, and figured, it worked for them...no reason why it shouldn't work for me.

This is just one more chapter in the embarrassing history of this organization. And as I said at the beginning, there's no way for this to be resolved without besmirching everyone involved. The organization looks bad. Michael Young looks bad.

And really, management looks even more incompetent for handing out that huge contract extension before the 2007 season. It was widely criticized for being too much for a guy who simply wasn't that good, but was justified from a p.r./marketing/soft factor standpoint. But if you are going to give out a huge contract because you don't want to take the p.r. hit that would result from letting the guy go, if you are going to make him the Face of the Franchise and the center of what you are trying to do...

You can't do that and then, less than two years later, before the contract has even kicked in, decide you made a huge mistake and try to dump him on whomever will take him, even if it means picking up a good chunk of his contract. That is, quite simply, utter incompetence, and it makes you wonder what happened, what the thought process was, that went from thinking 5 years, $80 million being a good idea in early 2007, to thinking it is a totally unpalatable, unmitigated disaster that is going to require subsidizing to get off the books less than two years later, the baseball equivalent of mortgage backed securities.

I hope everyone involved in this thing is embarrassed. Because really, watching all this unfold, and really thinking about it, it makes it embarrassing to be a Ranger fan.

But then, that's a feeling I guess we are all used to by now.

Although I seldom agree with him, I always like Mike Hindman’s viewpoints including this one …

In the first year of his five-year, $80 million contract, Michael Young has been asked to move from shortstop to third base to help the Rangers move forward with their rebuilding plan. He won't be working on learning how to defend the new position. He's already punted the glove and talked himself into believing that the Rangers are paying him all of that money to fill out the lineup card.

But, it turns out that the $16 million AAV contract Young signed didn't include a guarantee that he would be allowed to pick his position or place in the batting order and it's unlikely that Nolan Ryan will cede such power to good player whose best days are probably behind him.

In spite of winning a Gold Glove last year, according to fielding bible creator John Dewan "Young claims last place in three-year plus/minus, three-year zone ratings, team hits allowed near the shortstop position...and he's second to last in Bill James' new relative range plus/minus. Not good."

At the plate, Young can no longer be considered -- by objective data -- to be an elite hitter at his position and his value seems to be rapidly diminishing. His OPS has slid from .898 in 2005, to .815 in 2006, .784 in 2007 and a woeful .741 last year (11th among 17 qualifying MLB shortstops).

With his bat and glove both in decline, it's pretty clear that if Michael Young is going to deliver anywhere near $16 million of annual value to the Rangers -- or anybody else -- a large part of it is going to have to be in terms of intangibles. Being around, taking in the kids and showing them the way a big leaguer handles things, standing as an example of supreme professionalism.

Young has, in most ways, been an exemplary player and person for several years around here, as I'm pretty sure young stars like Ian Kinsler and Josh Hamilton would attest. Last season, he sucked it up and played through a broken finger. Kudos for that. He's demonstrated virtually every admirable quality one could want in a representative of a franchise, but now even that element of Young's game seems to be in decline.

As I wrote last fall, Young's contract would eventually turn out to be an albatross for the Rangers franchise. I had assumed that it would turn out to be in the form of his failure to deliver anywhere near $16 million of value to the club over the course of his contract. Now, it seems, it will be in terms of making the unpleasant decision between holding on to a disgruntled, declining veteran or attempting to trade an untradable contract.

Durrett points out the contract is not as bad as it looks …

There's been talk about Michael Young's $80 million extension and that it's $16 million over the next five seasons. But that doesn't account for signing bonus money that Young already has or the deferred money he's owed starting in 2016.

Here's the breakdown of Young's salary:

He's owed $59 million in salary the next five seasons. That's $11 million in 2009 and 2010, $12 million in 2011 and 2012 and $13 million in 2013.

A total of $9.24 million is deferred. That's $870,000 in 2009 and 2010 and $2.5 million in 2011-2013.

So while this is still not a favorable contract by which to trade Young, it is possible the Rangers could trade him and agree to pay the deferred amount. So $59 million is a lot less than $80 million. Just a thought.