Are the Rangers done with Michael Young?

And, question No. 2, should they be done with Michael Young?

Ken Rosenthal of Fox Sports, who's been swinging the hottest columnist bat in the Hot Stove League this year, says the trade for Mike Napoli is a "yes" to the first question, and the fact that he's got a high contract and will be a 5-and-10 guy in May says yes to no. 2.

His talking points:
1. Napoli plays 1B and DH, the two spots the Rangers were going to put Young after signing Adrian Beltre.
2. They reportedly tried to sign both Manny Ramirez and Jim Thome before making the Napoli deal.
3. The $16 mil a year for a "super utility" guy, with some DH-ing on the side, is indeed pricey.

As for how good Young is or not, he's only had two years with an OPS+ of 110 or better, and only one of those was in the last five. So, if the Rangers do want to trade him, they'll probably have to eat about $5 million, at least, of that contract's annual value for each of the three years left on it.

And, where? He's an average fielder at any position besides 1B. He doesn't have that much of a power stick for someone who would be a 1B.

Better bet would be a corner OF position, in my opinion. He's still got OK gap power, and if you put him in a smaller park, he wouldn't have too difficult a learning curve.

What's ironic is that his contract is less pricey than that of Vernon Wells. He well could have fit the Angels' needs, if the Rangers would have traded him within the division, for ... Napoli.

I'm thinking National League. Maybe the Reds?