Once again, off-the-field drama trumps what is going on on-the-field for the Rangers.
Two years ago, we had drama in the spring over Michael Young's trade request (subsequently rescinded) over his move to third base from shortstop.
Last year, we had the double-drug-drama of Ron Washington's positive cocaine test and Josh Hamilton's relapse, along with the issue of the sale of the team.
And this year, just as the waves surrounding Michael Young Trade Request 2: Electric Boogaloo were dying down, we have the departure of the most public and visible member of the Rangers' ownership group*, the guy who was the point man with MLB and with the fans during the bankruptcy drama and subsequent ownership regime.
* Yes, Nolan Ryan is more famous, but Ryan also wasn't out gladhandling and making the rounds like Greenberg was. That's not his thing. And as Chuck Cooperstein pointed out, with Greenberg out, someone else is going to have to take over that role.
Jeff Wilson has a piece in the S-T about the change at the top. So does T.R. Sullivan. Evan Grant says this won't effect the Rangers on the field.
Jim Reeves offers his thoughts on the drama, and seems skeptical of those who are now saying they knew this was coming.
In the S-T's notes, Alexi Ogando says he'd like to be a starter, if he could. Sullivan's notes also talk about Ogando as a starter, and how Zach Jackson has impressed.
Colby Lewis says he feels good about his outing yesterday, despite giving up 3 runs in four innings.
My further thoughts on the Greenberg drama are after the jump...
Last night, in the comments of another post, I was asked what my thoughts on Greenberg ouster were, now that I've had a chance for it to sink in. I thought I'd re-post my response this morning:
I only met Chuck Greenberg twice, but I came away impressed by him both times — someone said he was a salesman, and I wouldn’t disagree with that, but I also wouldn’t say that is a negative. I think the role he was going to take — as the face of the business side of the franchise, a guy who would market the team and generate confidence and enthuasiasm from that side of things.
I contrast him with Mike Cramer, who had a similar role under Hicks when he was here. I never met Cramer, but he always appeared on a video before home games, saying, if you have any problems or issues or questions, email me and I’ll respond. I emailed him multiple times, but never heard from him, and never heard anyone really have anything much good to say about his work with the fanbase.
Chuck talked convincingly about the Rangers having a "historic opportunity" to build something special here, and made me believe he was passionate about building up this franchise, expanding the fan base, generating enthusiasm, and creating something here like the Cardinals have in St. Louis, a perennial contender whose fans have a special bond with the team. I believed he was as passionate about I was about seeing this franchise be something special, and was committed to making that happen, and that’s a lot of what makes it so disheartening to me to see him go.
Hey, maybe it was all an act. Maybe he didn’t really care, this was just a bit he was doing and got called on by Ryan, et al. I don't think that’s the case, but I know that a few people, at least, probably think it is. Nothing I say is going to change those folks minds.
But reading what Chuck Morgan said way back when about how excited he was to work with someone who cared as much as he did about taking care of the fans, and thinking that we had something really good in place in the front office that would last for a while…it makes it especially jarring for this arrangement to fall apart just months in.