Randy Galloway has a new column up at the S-T about this drama in Arlington, and while you should read the whole thing, here are the highlights:
Galloway says that Simpson, Davis and the rest of ownership offered Jon Daniels the title of CEO and President -- not of baseball operations, but the whole organization -- in November, and he declined.
If that's true, well...as Galloway points out, that's Nolan Ryan's job. And if that was offered to Daniels, where would that have left Ryan?
Galloway also points out -- as many of us have -- that Ryan could have stopped all this drama almost a week ago by speaking out. He hasn't. And by not speaking, that speaks volumes.
Galloway also has this to say about the front office divide, which I think is the biggest issue:
Bad blood has been spilled at the ballpark for years. There are two camps: Nolan’s camp and Daniels’ camp. The bad blood on baseball decisions is probably more intense within those camps as opposed to Nolan vs. Daniels, but that tainted blood is there, period.
There is absolutely nothing cozy about the relationship.
But I’ve liked it that way. Ryan and Daniels hammer it out, eventually get things done for the most part and the team’s success over the last four years shows us it’s been a good, although interesting, way of doing business.
This way was working. Why in the name of common sense do the owners want to change it?
The Daniels people also deeply resent the fact that Nolan receives ample credit for the team’s success. Of course, Nolan has openly said, “I get too much credit.” Simpson told me Monday that Nolan tells the owners, “I get too much credit.”
But it’s been a heavy sticking point for some of Daniels’ assistants.
So yeah, this is about Tim Purpura vs. Jayce Tingler, and probably any number of other decisions, great and small, that have to be made among two groups of people, each of whom has a very different way of working and looking at the baseball world.
Galloway goes on to say Ryan "went beyond front office protocol" by unilaterally hiring Jackie Moore and Mike Maddux, dismissing those in the local media who have been writing that Ryan never "big-footed" (in Galloway's word) Daniels.
What was the breaking point on all this? Here's what Galloway says:
The above is true. At some point in November there was a deep divide between Ryan and Daniels over the off-season direction of the club. (I’d love to know what that argument was about, but no one is talking.)
When no agreement could be reached, Ryan asked that question of Simpson and Davis. His title said he had the final say, but did he? A week or so later, at the end of November, there was an answer he didn’t want to hear.
While Galloway gets ripped as being anti-Daniels, this column isn't. It is a complex situation, with lots of people involved, lots of egos, and no easy answer.
In any case...read it. It is probably the most detailed breakdown of the problems with the inner-workings of the organization there's been thusfar.