Rangers Mishandling Michael Young Situation

In sports, the word loyalty often falls on deaf ears, drowned out instead by the sound of flapping dollar bills. Player loyalty can sway like the wind, like a Hessian soldier, selling their skills to the highest bidder. Players no longer play for the glory, just the paycheck. But forgotten in our chastising of greedy players is a simple notion.

Loyalty is a street traveled in two directions.

Take for example the curious case of Michael Young and the Texas Rangers. Over the course of 11 seasons, Young has done more than most players when it comes to accommodating the team. When he came into the league, he came up primarily as a second baseman with some occasional spot starts at shortstop. When the Rangers acquired Alfonso Soriano from the Yankees as part of the Alex Rodriguez trade, Young moved over to shortstop, both to accommodate Soriano at second and also to ease Texas's burden when they lost Rodriguez. Young transformed himself from a player with limited range to a gold glove shortstop. Yet, the year after winning the gold glove, Young was again asked to move, this time to third base to allow for stud prospect Elvis Andrus to slide into the line-up. Again he made the move and made the most of it.

Now, just two years have passed and now the Rangers are telling their team-first, six-time all-star that he's being replaced again, this time asking him to become a primary designated hitter/super-utility man. This time however, Young is balking at the move and asking for a trade. You can only be told that someone is better than you so many times and Young decided enough is enough.

And I tell you what; I don't blame him one bit.

I could almost understand the argument if Young was a stopgap player, someone fit into a position in order to get by until a better solution arises. However, as stated above, this is a six-time all-star whose full season averages are .300, 199 hits, 17 HR, and 87 RBI over the course of an 11-year career. In other words, Young is far from a stopgap, he's a guy most teams would love to have in their line-up. I'm sure the Blue Jays would take the trade back when they sent him to Texas for Estaban Loaiza in 2000.

It begs to ask why the Rangers would take this course of action. Yes, I realize that Texas opted for Adrian Beltre as a Plan-B to losing out on Cliff Lee, but why? Beltre doesn't solve the obvious pitching deficit in Texas. Sure, he may get to a few more balls than Young, but he doesn't help keep them on the ground in the thin Arlington air either. So Texas opted to spend money for the sake of doing something, and in the process, destroyed a relationship with their version of Derek Jeter.

In this day of athlete coming and going at the drop of a dime, a player like Michael Young only comes around once in a lifetime. If I can think of one player I would compare Young to, I would compliment him by comparing his to Hall-Of-Famer Robin Yount, another guy who changed positions in order to make his team better and still performed to his peak. Neither made noise or made a mockery of the game, but played it the way it was supposed to be played.

General Managers don't ask a guy like Michael Young to wear the title of "Super-Utility Man." They ask them to wear the title of team ambassador and "Captain."

Instead, the Rangers just took him for granted.