CHAREAN: All I know, Ray, is trading Michael Young does not make the Rangers a better team. I don't care who they get in return. This sounds like Alfonso Soriano all over again. They asked Soriano to move to the outfield. He balked, and the Rangers traded him to the Nationals. Do you think giving up the All-Star for Brad Wilkerson, Termel Sledge and Armando Galarrago was a good deal?

BUCK: I see Michael Young playing shortstop for the Boston Red Sox next season ... while the Rangers' braintrust scratch another name off its imaginary blueprint for success. MY's artful attempt to get away from Baseball purgatory is just the latest in what should be a book someday: The ROOT of All Evil: Tom Hicks' Money. The $62 million owed to the five-time All-Star shortstop works against him now -- unless, of course, Hicks bellies up to the table and eats a big portion of it. Young is torn between owning up to a contractual commitment through 2013 and owing himself a chance (at age 32) to play for a World Series ring ... even under the guise of not wanting to move to third base. Sorry, I can't blame him.

Which Big 12 wide receiver is likely to have the better NFL career: Texas Tech's Michael Crabtree or Missouri's Jeremy Maclin?

CHAREAN: Scouts I've talked to like Maclin better. They are predicting Crabtree won't test well, whether that comes at the combine or in Lubbock. But for those of us who have watched Crabtree most of his career, he looks like the real deal. You can talk about "system" all you want, but I think Wes Welker -- yes, I realize he's a different kind of receiver -- has proved that Tech receivers can excel in the NFL.

BUCK: Give me Crabtree. At 6-foot-3, 214, he has an NFL body. The scouts who predict he won't "test well" probably are right ... he's not a prototype for the Junior Olympics. But the guy makes plays and comes to play, hurt or not. Both of these Big 12 receivers will be Top 10 picks on April 25 -- Crabtree and Maclin, in that order.

This is the 10th consecutive year that Baseball writers have voted in two or fewer Hall of Famers (Rickey Henderson and Jim Rice). Is Cooperstown too exclusive a club?

CHAREAN: You're a voter for Baseball, Ray. I vote for football. It's a completely different process, isn't it? When we meet the day before the Super Bowl, we'll elect between four and seven. I am one who likes the exclusivity of Baseball. It's kind of like the Cowboys' Ring of Honor. You can debate all you want that Drew Pearson should be in the Ring, but because it is so hard to get in, it might be more meaningful to those who are.

BUCK: The Steroid Era guys are the elephant in the room. With more and more of their names coming due, we should be thankful that it takes 75 percent to vote a guy in. I sure do. There's hope for guys like Bert Blyleven (whom I vote for every year) and Andre Dawson (whom I do not) reaching the steps of Cooperstown one day. Look at Jim Rice ... finally ... on his last year of eligibility ... he gets in. (My vote wasn't needed, but he still got it.) Both Halls of Fame can do a better job, Charean, with their "veterans" or "seniors" committee picks. Too many retired (or deceased) old-timers wrongly forgotten in both sports.

Which No. 6 seed has a better chance of reaching the Super Bowl: Philadelphia Eagles or Baltimore Ravens?

CHAREAN: Wow! That's a hard question. I'm done picking against the Cardinals. They've convinced me they're for real. But you have to like the way the Eagles are playing right now. They sure do remind me of the Giants of last season. I think the Ravens will have a harder time winning in Pittsburgh, but it's certainly not impossible with their defense. I'm not sure I answered the question, so let me clarify: The Eagles have a better chance of advancing. But why are you asking me, Ray? I'm 3-5 picking playoff games this season. That being said, the Ravens probably have the better chance.

BUCK: Reverse psychology, I use it all the time. Except in the case of the Eagles. They just look like a team marching to the Super Bowl. The Cardinals look like a team on a mission ... Mission: Impossible. There's no way they can win three January games in a row. Come on, they're the Cardinals. (And, oh yeah, the Steelers will beat the Ravens.)

Which NFC No. 1 seed over the last two years laid a bigger egg in the playoffs: The '07 Cowboys (13-3 with 13 Pro Bowlers) or '08 Giants (12-4 defending Super Bowl champs)?

CHAREAN: I don't think anyone thought the Cowboys would lose last season. No one should be surprised the Giants lost, even though they were favored. The Giants weren't the same team without Plaxico Burress. The Cowboys had no excuses last year.

BUCK: I hate it when we agree. The Giants (even with Plaxico) surprised us all when they started out 11-1, even as defending Super Bowl champs. That should tell you something right there. The overly hyped Cowboys were expected to win it all once they reached the playoffs in '07, and again for much of '08 ... but not in '09.

Where will Donovan McNabb be playing next season?

CHAREAN: Come on, Ray, this is too easy. I talked to Eagles owner Jeff Lurie on Sunday about Don, as his teammates call him. McNabb will be back in Philly. The only question is: Will they sign him to a new deal? He has two years left on his current one. If the Eagles win the Super Bowl, you can bet McNabb will get a new deal. And if he does, where does that leave Stephenville's Kevin Kolb?

BUCK: Oh ... that's the phone call McNabb took on the Giants sidelines with three minutes left Sunday -- from Jeff Lurie. They were just getting a headstart on contract negotiations.

Jan. 6

What professional advice would you give Jason Garrett right now?

CHAREAN: If Detroit offers the job, take it. He should not have turned down Baltimore last year. You can't turn down head-coaching jobs unless it's Oakland. In that case, run for your life. The unemployment line is better.

BUCK: I'd probably send Garrett a copy of the Forrest Gump DVD. There, he would be reminded that "life is like a box chocolates ... you never know what you're going to get," i.e., turning down jobs last year with the Ravens and Falcons. Both teams just made the playoffs. Of course, the movie would also remind Garrett: "Run, Jason, run." The Cowboys' job comes with a lot of 53-man roster baggage.

Does Mike Shanahan have Valley Ranch in his future? Is Mike Shanahan a sane man?

CHAREAN: If Mike Shanahan is a sane man, he does not have Valley Ranch in his future. I have to believe Jerry is intrigued: Next year, Shanahan, Mike Holmgren, Tony Dungy and Bill Cowher all could be available. The problem is, as it has always been: Jerry is bigger than the head coach. He went into the background for a few years with Parcells. But Parcells didn't win a Super Bowl, or even a playoff game for that matter, so Jerry might be reluctant to go with a proven, big-name head coach who will want some personnel authority. But Shanahan or Holmgren is what this team needs. The Cowboys have no discipline and no chemistry. Nothing is going to change in 2009, because the coach isn't going to change.

BUCK: See, I think it's the locker room that needs hosed down, Charean. Because Shanahan is a sane man, he has every reason to wait a year and see what happens 1.) around the league and 2.) in Dallas in particular. Only Jerry Jones can make this job appealing again ... and it starts with getting rid of Pacman, Tank, T.O., Flozell. P.S. -- It's time Jerry stops trying to save the world.

Now that the Longhorns have disposed of Ohio State, does Texas deserve consideration for the national title?

CHAREAN: Sure, but then so does Utah and USC. Unless you're Mack Brown or Colt McCoy, how can you say Texas is better than either one of those schools? They haven't played. Hey, but they have a nice, new, shiny Fiesta Bowl trophy to put in the trophy case. Somehow, I believe UT fans would rather have a playoff instead.

BUCK: Texas is the second-best team in the country. Florida will put an end to that discussion Thursday night when the Gators put a chomp on the Sooners. Until a playoff is in place (don't hold your breath), we have only our caustic opinions.

Does Milton Bradley's free-agent signing with the Cubs (three-year, $30-million deal) just signal same-old-Rangers?

CHAREAN: Ray, other than Josh Hamilton, give me one reason why I should be excited about the 2009 Rangers. They look so much like the 2008 Rangers, and the 2007 Rangers, and the ... I love Baseball, but with what the Yankees have done, it's hard to get excited about the sport. The rich just keep getting richer.

BUCK: Hey, you're forgetting Nolan Ryan. He's what gives this organization a fresh coat of paint. Unfortunately, the color isn't green. Tom Hicks will never give Nolan enough bankroll to carry out a plan. Rangers fans are accustomed to seeing pieces of the puzzle flew out the door. It should matter to the Rangers front office that they care -- but I don't think it does.

Should the NFL change its overtime rules to allow both teams to get the ball at least once in OT?

CHAREAN: Wouldn't you have liked to have seen Peyton Manning with the ball one more time, Ray? That game was so good, I would have paid to have seen another full quarter. Think about overtime in other sports, they play time (or innings), not the first one to score. Imagine if Baseball had the sudden-death rule, or basketball, and they had a coin flip to decide who got the ball first, or got to bat first. It's no different.

BUCK: Uh, I think Peyton Manning had a chance to win that game -- in regulation. Frequently overlooked fact: Only about 30 percent of the time does the coin-toss winner score without the other team getting the ball. The NFL doesn't need any knee-jerk rule changes. What's next? The four-point field goal (50 yards or more) to avoid ties?

What's your take on the NFL moving the Pro Bowl to the week before the Super Bowl?

CHAREAN: Do you know I've covered the NFL for 15 years, and the Pro Bowl is the only all-star game of any sport I haven't been to? For some reason, Ray, I've never been able to get a paid trip (vacation?) to Hawaii for the Pro Bowl. I assume I will see the game next year in Miami. But as I had a reader e-mail me, moving the game two weeks earlier isn't going to change the fact that it's not a real entertaining game. For players, the main goal of the Pro Bowl is to not get hurt. Next year, too, we're going to have even fewer "all-stars." The Super Bowl teams will not be represented, and I can see a lot more players bailing on the game than already do, because it's not in Hawaii.

BUCK: Most readers probably think covering the NFL means getting to sit poolside, sipping umbrella drinks, on Waikiki Beach. Don't we wish? I've been sent to a Pro Bowl only once in my career -- and that was because I happened to be on my way to Nagano for the '98 Olympics. Changing the game site from Hawaii to the mainland, and holding it before the Super Bowl, changes only one dynamic, really. Pro Bowlers will now have the media there to hassle them.

To see more of the Fort Worth Star-Telegram, or to subscribe to the newspaper, go to http://www.dfw.com. Copyright (c) 2009, Fort Worth Star-Telegram, Texas Distributed by McClatchy-Tribune Information Services. For reprints, email tmsreprints@permissionsgroup.com, call 800-374-7985 or 847-635-6550, send a fax to 847-635-6968, or write to The Permissions Group Inc., 1247 Milwaukee Ave., Suite 303, Glenview, IL 60025, USA.