Oakland is reportedly out on Adrian Beltre. This leaves the Rangers and the Angels as the most publicly discussed landing spots. Texas is said to have interest but Nolan commented yesterday about there being no clear cut role for Beltre. Is Texas serious about signing him or are they just posturing to drive up the price on Beltre? Someone posted the potential free agent third basemen for next year and they are very unimpressive. I wonder just how serious the Rangers are?

according to this article: http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2010/12/athletics-out-on-adrian-beltre.html

"Rosenthal says the Rangers maintain interest but "remain uncomfortable with both the price and fit" for Beltre given incumbent third baseman Michael Young.

Unless a surprise team jumps in, the Angels remain the favorite despite pulling their offer. It does not appear that their situation has changed since these reports eight days ago."

That is the article that makes me continue to question exactly what is going on. Are we " interested" just so the Angels at least have to bid, or are we serious about getting him?

I think the Angels sign him as soon as he backs off of 5 guaranteed years.

If Young went to Nolan or JD and said, "I will be your DH and UT infielder - go and get Beltre to play 3b" - they would probably do it. But Young's not going to do that. And if Young is at 3B, it's ludicrous to sign Beltre, a superior defensive 3B, to just DH for you.

Warning: epic rant fueled by scotch forthcoming. Remember, though, that what is said while drunk has been thought out beforehand.

It's somehow appropriately frustrating for Rangers fans that Michael Young is not the truly great player he deserves to be.

Young is easily one of the best people to ever inhabit the Arlington clubhouse. He is a very hard worker who made the most of his talent; he is a solid citizen who really wants to remain a Ranger for life; he and his wife give back to the community in spades through charity efforts (and, I might add -- well shit, no might about it -- being a shining example of how all people with wealth should behave); he is a leader in the clubhouse and a model for every young player coming up through the system, the type of player you want your best prospects watching and talking to; and he was that way BEFORE he signed a huge contract.

As I've said before, we hate do not hate Young, we hate his contract. Therefore, we are annoyed immensely that the front office felt that Young deserved to be overpaid for his personality. This is a player who has been a tremendous asset to his team and his community. Unfortunately, he lacks defensive skills to be an all around player, and that fact combined with an ill-advised contract mean he is also a detriment to his team's success in some ways. If he was cheaper no fan would have a problem with leaving him at 3B while you shore up other areas of the team. If his defense was even a little better the contract wouldn't matter.

If there was any justice in the world, Michael Young would be as good a player as Hamilton. The same qualities that make Young awesome are the same intangible ones that make it difficult to just sign Beltre and move him as you might on your computer. I'm fine with the Rangers keeping Young at 3B, even though I'd applaud the signing of Beltre. The team can win both ways, but keeping Young at 3B sends a message to the young players watching Young that we, as computer-wielding fans, might underestimate.

Drink some more scotch and get back to me :)

God damn you, you Lennon-loving superman.

I left out one sentence in the penultimate paragraph. Insert just after the part about him being cheaper and fans not minding having him at 3B so much:

Of course, if he was cheaper, he'd also be easier to move to a DH/utility role since you wouldn't be paying $30M for Beltre/Young in those positions, or to move in trade.