SURPRISE, Ariz. -- Far too much noise has been reserved for the Michael Young saga, as if it were baseball's incarnation of the NBA's Melo-drama. For one, as one GM who has inquired about the Rangers third baseman put it, "I never got the sense they are motivated to trade him. It was more window-shopping than anything else." For another, it's not even the most important story in Texas' camp.

The Rangers are serious about looking at Neftali Feliz to replace Cliff Lee as the staff ace. Taking the record holder for most saves by a rookie (40) out of the closer's role has been viewed by some observers as an unnecessary and risky move. It's neither.

In fact, it's an obvious move and Texas would be negligent not to try it.

"We may have a frontline starter right here in our own camp," Texas general manager Jon Daniels said. "It's extremely difficult to acquire a pitcher like that, and if you do, the cost is extreme. We always viewed Neftali as someone with the ability to start. Why wait two, three years to find that out?"

There is nothing more valuable in baseball than a cost-controlled frontline starting pitcher. It's important to remember that Feliz was groomed as a starting pitcher and became a closer only out of the club's necessity last April, not because he lacked the repertoire, body type or pitching intellect to be an ace. In fact, in 27 starts in the minors in 2008, Feliz was 10-6 with a 2.69 ERA, 10.8 strikeouts per nine innings and three strikeouts for every walk.

This is not another Joba Chamberlain, whose medicals coming out of college, temperament and pitchability profiled more to the bullpen or middle of the rotation than to ace. Feliz has a plus-plus fastball, plus-plus breaking ball and a decent changeup that needs rust removal this spring after mostly becoming superfluous in short outings as a closer last year.

Feliz's fastball and breaking ball are so good, and feature enough separation in velocity, that the changeup will not define his success as a starter any more than it does for pitchers such as Clayton Kershaw, Phil Hughes or, if you want to use an extreme example, a young Dwight Gooden.

It seems that manager Ron Washington would be perfectly happy to keep Feliz as a closer, and who could blame him? Managers, who worry about the next game more than player development, like the feeling of security that a closer provides. They cannot be second-guessed for using a "proven" closer. Without Feliz at the back end of his bullpen, Washington would have to make do with Alexi Ogando or Mark Lowe (combined big league saves: four) or whatever reliever Daniels can pick up by way of a trade.

But putting Feliz in the rotation -- and doing so with the possibility of having an ace, not just a rotation-filler -- is all about value assessment, and when one performs that exercise it becomes obvious where Feliz is most valuable. Here are some of the reasons why the Rangers need to try the switch:

1. Closers are important, but not as important as you might think.

This is especially true compared to the value of a starter. It is also true because of the often meaningless save statistic, because managers are slaves to the ridiculously named "save" stat and because the media love the drama, however phony it often may be, of the ninth inning. The Closer Starter Kit includes such prop items as the heavy metal walk-in music, the risible hair (atop the head or on the face), the throwing at maximum velocity and the celebration of finishing games that most of the time could be closed out by just about anybody.

The invention of the specialized closer, the guy who starts the ninth inning with nobody on base, really hasn't changed much about the rate at which teams hold leads. Teams that take a two-run lead into the ninth inning win about 94 percent of the time, and with a three-run lead win about 96 percent of the time.

the texas team is a good team

2.


The NFL is Teflon-coated, right? Bullet proof. America's favorite form of entertainment, a sport without rival.

We'll find out. NFL owners seem set on taking the harshest route possible to prove how untouchable they are.

The looming lockout -- three days away and counting as of Tuesday morning -- would interrupt a period of skyrocketing growth and popularity for the NFL.

"It's the incredible platinum standard of all the leagues," said Andy Dolich, a longtime sports marketing guru who previously worked for the San Francisco 49ers. "Every indicator is an arrow pointing straight up."

But no one really knows what will happen if the owners choose to interrupt that upward trajectory by locking out players and entering a prolonged, uncertain work stoppage. Or if the players' union chooses to decertify and pursue antitrust action against the league, pushing the dispute into federal court.

Some signs point toward a potentially long labor dispute. There is talk of a shortened season, or even a canceled 2011. Rating agency Standard & Poor's released a note on Monday saying that many teams could survive two years without playing games.

Though that kind of nuclear winter development seems risky and unlikely, once the process starts no one can be sure how it will be resolved. And any interruption of a season puts the NFL's popularity at risk.

The NFL thinks it stands apart from Major League Baseball, which took years to recover from its ugly labor dispute in 1994, which abbreviated the season led to the cancellation of the World Series.

But how the public reacts remains to be seen.

"The downside of a debate between rich people and very, very rich people, one that leaves the fan saying 'What about me?' is not to be underestimated," said Dolich, who works as a consultant in the San Francisco Bay Area.

There are some indicators that should make NFL owners pause before they assume all will be right with the world.

• The public is not stupid. When the owners start crying poor, the fans know that NFL television ratings broke all records last season and that money floods into the owners' pockets.

• The public tends to be sympathetic to the players. Most fans are well aware that football players -- unlike many other well-paid athletes -- put their health and safety at risk every time they step on the field. They know that NFL careers are short. That the contracts are, for the most part, not guaranteed. If the public chooses sides, it will likely be with the players.

• The public is increasingly priced out. Last season, the NFL was blacked out more than at any time since 2004 and attendance figures dropped. So while the game has never been more popular, the canary in the coal mine could be actual butts in the seats.

And the NFL heads into this lockout with a P.R. issue. As the league steamed toward the March 3 deadline, a number of incidents have added up to an image problem.

• The league has paid lip service to concern over player injury while negotiating for a longer season. The league appears to be dragging its feet on concussion safety: a standardized concussion test was just instituted last week.

• During what should have been the league's finest moment, the Super Bowl, greed seemed to rule the day. Tickets were sold for seats that couldn't be used -- even though the league had advance warning. The displaced fans are suing and their plight resonates with the average NFL fan.

• Some of the owners are idiots. Reports that Carolina owner Jerry Richardson spoke disparagingly to two of the league's icons -- Peyton Manning and Drew Brees -- doesn't do much for owner popularity. If you were to take a poll by fans in each market on how much they like their local owner, the results would be underwhelming at best, save for a handful of markets.

Of course, none of these red flags mean the fans won't come flooding back as soon as the next NFL season gets under way. Football is wildly popular and nothing comes close to replacing it. The owners surely believe that they can take a hard stance and suffer no adverse long-term consequences.

thath the nfl is in dangerus

3.


All Cam, all the time. A lot of thoughts today about the ability, future and football focus of Auburn quarterback Cam Newton, a big part of Monday's column and who could end up being the first quarterback taken in April's draft.

A DOUBLE TWEET QUESTIONING MY 'CONTEXT.' From @marcusmyers: "Context definitely impacted that quote as you initially presented it in a more questionable light than it ended up being ... Agree he could've used better words but you also could've been more forthcoming w/the context. You wanted buzz. You got it.''

Originally, I presented it in no light. Simply the quote, followed by the thought that it would make quarterback-needy teams blanch, which it did.

HAL THINKS I'M WRONG. "Respectfully, I think you are off base about the issue of context as relates to Cam Newton's comment. As you state, the interview was arranged by Under Armour. While in the middle of the most multifaceted prep he has ever been a part of in his life, a 21-year-old kid answered the question in the context of his Under Armour commitments. He was probably sitting in their suite surrounded by PR and marketing people building up his salesmanship for the brand and essentially answered as an endorser.

That is forgivable given the circumstance, context and his age. I doubt he has figured out how to shift smoothly from player to endorser to private citizen in his short time on this earth. He'll get better, but an entertainer and icon statement in the middle of marketing/PR training and sponsored media availabilities makes sense. I think he made an honest mistake that additional training and rest will ensure never happens again.

I don't see this as ANY deal, let alone a big one. Let's remember that no matter how hyped or accomplished a young athlete is, that accomplishment and polish does not always or completely translate to other parts of their lives, particularly off-field. In most cases, 21 is 21, still trying to figure things out and make sense of all the change around you.''

that the teams are verry good teams