After the All Star game, I'm beginning to think those who went after and brought A-Rod to the Rangers in the first place were smarter than we give them credit for. If A-Rod worked out, they'd have a great team. If he didn't work out, he'd be prime meat for a trade. Now, the Rangers have arguably the best infield in the majors and it's at least partially thanks to what we got in trade for A-Rod.

While I definately agree with the sentiment, aren't the only differences between the IF they have and what they would have had without trading ARod that Soriano replaces Rodriguez and Michael Young switches positions? While I like what they could have had (keeping ARod) a good bit more, they do have one of the top 2 IF in the majors this year (Pujols, Rolen, Renteria is my #1).

But on his own, A-Rod did work out. He played extremely well. The rest of the team was subpar (especially the pitching) and they didn't win. They traded him and upgraded the rest of the talent. Had they upgraded the talent while he was with them, they could've done just as well as they are doing now.

There is some indication from the clubhouse that there was no way of integrating him into any unit the Rangers could put together. He simply didn't want to be a leader. In New York, he's surrounded by vetran leaders who can take that pressure off of him, but here he was being paid far too much money not to be available to the younger players. The pitching issue is separate from the A-Rod issue. It took a year for Hersheiser to get the staff into shape and would have happened with or without A-Rod's presence. But what we're hearing from the Rangers organization is that Soriano is a much better presence in the clubhouse than A-Rod was.

And my original point was that local pundits were wrong when they blasted the Rangers for accquiring A-Rod in the first place, which it sounds like you're agreeing with.

They shouldn't have obtained him at the price they paid, if they otherwise wouldn't have money to spend on better pitchers.