Wow!  This is much longer than I anticipated, so read at your own peril.  There is a point to all of this poopie.

While stumbling my way through a couple Master's Programs, and transitioning into the "real world" of business, I found myself using many sports analogies to make my points.  You deal with all different types of personalities, cultures, motivations, etc., as you attempt to create a vision of what your organization is trying to accomplish.  Just as important, one must accept the fact that those working for/with you have their own plans for their lives/careers, and are motivated by different factors.

Balancing the goals of the organization and the goals and dreams of those working for the organization is a must.  Therefore, you must identify what makes each person tick, and evaluate their value to the "team".  Sometimes "talent" isn't as valuable to the organization as "desire", and vice versa.

When the "talent" is informed of the business plan, they immediately begin thinking about how they can maximize the opportunities within it, and parlay that into something bigger later on.  When the "desire-folks" are informed, they immediately begin thinking about the best ways to make it work.  They need the "talent" to do what they do best, but they need this to maximize their own opportunities.

There is a vast difference in these types of folks, generally speaking.  The "talent" knows they are good enough to go anywhere, and if they aren't appreciated for their talent, they will always find another organization willing to take them on.  They don't always have to worry about the success or failure of the organization, because they will always have that desired "talent".  The "desire" folks are just as valuable, but in a different way.  They may not have all those options available to them, so the organization's success is usually important to them in achieving/earning as much as they can.  It matters to them.

In an attempt to achieve a cohesiveness within the group, I will sometimes use a basketball analogy that plays to everyones ego, and how they can benefit based on the success of the organization.  It goes something like this, and I used to use the Chicago Bulls as an example:

"The Jordan-era Chicago Bulls had a mix of some really good players and some players that were not thought to be more than serviceable.  Obviously, Michael Jordan was a great player.  Scottie Pippen, Horace Grant, Toni Kukoc were pretty good players.  Many others were considered role players.  But what happened when they started playing together and began achieving some success?  After they won a few titles, the way people viewed every player on that roster began to change.  Of course, Michael Jordan began went from a great player, to being arguably considered the greatest player of all time.  Scottie Pippen, who was viewed as a pretty good player, started to become viewed as a superstar, who could possibly carry a franchise himself.  Horace Grant's value shot up and he received recognition as a dominating force inside, and received a nice contract from Orlando to team up with Shaq and Penny Hardaway.  Toni Kukoc became viewed as the best European player to ever play in the NBA.  And what about the folks I didn't mention earlier?  Players like John Paxson, BJ Armstrong, Steve Kerr, and Dennis Rodman became considered really good NBA players.  The likes of Bill Cartwright, Bill Wennington, Luc Longley and a host of others became sought after players.  Why?  Because of what the team accomplished.  Did you ever hear of Bill Wennington after his years with the Bulls?  Probably not, but he was still employed in the NBA for many years after the Chicago hey-day, because of his known affiliation with the franchise.  It was perceived that he was experienced and could help his new team with that experience.  Honestly, all Wennington did for the rest of his career is sit on the bench and wave a towel as his teams' unofficial cheerleader.

The lesson to be learned is that a team of individuals can come together to form a successful organization, and through the teams success, everybody makes out.  For some, like Jordan, he is now a legend that will never be forgotten.  For others, BJ Armstrong and Steve Kerr, they made more money than they could have ever hoped for.  Dennis Rodman received all the notoriety in the world for many years, even though he was primarily a one dimensional player.  He got paid and he found fame.  Many of the others were in the league longer than they ever should have been, since they were merely role players, but the team's success increased their individual value.  Some of the guys never expected to make it in the NBA, but in the team concept, were able to win NBA titles.  Nobody can ever take those accomplishments, those memories, or those moments of pride away from them.  They had "desire" to work hard, but needed the "talent" to help them reach their dreams.  Conversely, the "talent" needed the guys that did a lot of the dirty work, and helped them elevate their game.  Now, Jordan is a legend because he developed "talent" and also possessed the "desire" to perform well.  Remember, he wasn't just the most talented scorer of his time, he was also the leagues top defensive player and among the leaders in assists.  Just like everybody else on his team, he sacrificed a lot, just like all of them, to be the most successful team they could."

Jeepers, I promise its a lot shorter when you are saying it, instead of typing it.  Sorry.

Now there are times in the organization, that individual employees begin to feel they are more valuable than another employee.  Although both employees are equally valuable in relation to their respective roles, the perception among employees is sometimes hard to reconcile when discussing their opinions.  Hey, people believe what they believe, so trying to convince them otherwise is most times a futile endeavour.  This happens a lot in a small business, because everybody has to try to help out in all areas of responsiblity.  In a business that requires some physical ability, there are usually guys that can't lift something without assistance, but are pretty good at math.  The big strong guy isn't happy that the wimpy guy needs help moving things, because he can do it by himself.  The wimpy guy isn't happy because the big strong guy can't count very well, and feels he always has to double check his math.  You get the picture.

In this scenario, when speaking with members of the organization, I will often use the example of a baseball lineup:

"In the proto-typical baseball line-up, you want some diversity, in order to maximize the amount of runs you may be able to score at a given time in the game.  With the 9 batters, you want to have the following:

1)  Lead off hitter as someone who gets on base a lot

2)  Someone who is a good hitter, but adept at moving the runner to 2nd

3) Usually you're top hitter with a good OBP, increasing number of players on base

4) Your power hitter, who can generate several runs with one swing of the bat

5) A pretty dangerous hitter who can "protect" #4, so that teams can't just pitch around him

6) good hitter, that can also provide a little protection

7-8) best hitters left

9) Worst hitter, so he's ninth to minimize the number of times he's at the plate, but possibly a defensive wizard in the field.

You can't just rely on a bunch of guys who hit singles or get on base via the walk, because normally, nobody is going to be able to walk that many times in a game, in consecutive order.  You can't just rely on a bunch of power guys, who are usually more prone to striking out.  It would be a feast or famine type of situation, and a lack of consistency offensively can be a recipe for disaster in winning your division or championship.

It takes several different types to build the most successful type of sustainable offense.  Just as much as we need the big strong guy to move things more quickly, with less man-power, we also need the wimpy math guy to ensure that only the right amount of those things are being moved.  Moving the wrong amount is not efficient for the organization either.  They both provide a specific role beneficial to the success of the team/organization.

When selling the business plan to those who execute it, especially in a large organization, you need to be able to identify the key "leaders" from within the group, to help sell the organization strategy.  As well know, you can have the best plan, but without the right people executing it, it is doomed to failure.  At the same time, you can have the best people, but without an effective plan, the failure of the organization is also at risk.  Therefore, getting buy-in from the workforce and garnering a feeling of partnership and ownership in the plan is an important key to its success.

Look, not many people like to talk to Management, and it's understandable.  So, trying to "always" have management trying to implement these ideas/plans might be viewed as less than ideal by the workforce.  Additionally, it is rare in a large organization for two important things to happen when communicating the plan to the workforce: 1)  talking to each employee, so that they feel a part of things, and 2) that the message isn't altered/distorted when being communicated down through the ranks.

Therefore, identifying the "key leaders" among the employee ranks is vital to the "higher-ups", and discussing these ideas with them, is of the utmost importance.  When they feel that there is real communication and their ideas are being heard, and that they are a part of what is going to take place, it is much easier to get their buy-in.  This in turn, allows them to discuss some things with their "work group", so the seed is being planted for the change/plan that will probably occur.  Additionally, if they are discussing it with someone who gets to talk to the "higher ups", they begin to feel that their input may be listened to also.  If the plan contains something already that they had happened to mention, they begin to feel that "Hey, that was my idea", and they are more willing to ensure it works.

When you get these people of influence out their among the peer group, it is so valuable in keeping everybody focused and calm regarding any change in policy, process, or procedure.  You can't put a dollar amount on that kind of value to the organization.

The reason I even wrote this was to perhaps point out a few things about some of the invisible value certain players may have to the Rangers.  Yes, it was inspired by the MY trade talk.  Some of his true value to this franchise has nothing to do with what happens on the field, but rather in the clubhouse or lockerroom.  He might be the best person for the young guys to talk to about issues, or to help set the example for others to follow.  People do learn by exposure, even if they don't realize they are learning anything at all.

Not saying Young shouldn't be traded, if the right deal is there, but dismissing his value due to lack of range or a .016 drop in BA last season does not always tell the whole story.

This is not defending anybody, believe me!  But you take two pretty consistent bats out of this lineup, then its not only pitching we need to worry about.  All players have a role, but sometimes that role isn't on TV or on the field.  We read other teams' blogs, so you know they read ours.  Sometimes, we all get carried away by reducing the value of some of our own players....value to the team, that is....by what we post.

I love the ideas and talking about them, so keep that going.  Some folks are more difficult to replace than others.  When a new guy takes the place of an old guy, it's sometimes because we feel he fills a need on the ballclub, but by filling those certain needs, other needs that had been filled by the old player are now exposed.

Just some food for thought...