That in itself is not particularly noteworthy, it happens all the time. What was interesting however was the commonly-held feeling that Randolph's high character, rather than his ability, made his position untenable. A month before Randolph was fired, baseball's best writer Peter Gammons had said:

"There's an increasing criticism that Randolph may be too quiet, too dignified, too sensitive to the shrapnel around him and that the team's lack of energy may be a reflection of the manager"

In this case and others the professionalism of sports seems to dictate that competitive efficacy be valued above such supposedly "weak" or undesirable character qualities as dignity, calmness and sensitivity. Thus it was concluded that Randolph, in spite of his obvious baseball knowledge and popularity with the media and fans, was not seen as tough enough in the clubhouse and became a victim of being too decent for his own good.

It would be naïve to think that professional athletes, especially those that under-perform, appear over-paid or that revel in narcissism and petulance, don't require a firm hand and often respond best to the hard-edged approach of an "alpha male" type leader.

Whether Randolph was the right fit or should have been let go is debatable but what is clear is the great divide that exists in those values held to be important at the grassroots of sports and those at its highest levels. Youth sports typically value the teaching of fundamental skills along with escalating degrees of competitiveness based on age and ability. The social, interactive and cooperative aspects of the activities are seen as developmentally beneficial and the foundations of sporting character are often laid. Results are not the exclusive measure of success.

In high school and college there is undoubtedly a more narrowed focus on the importance of results and the "winning isn't everything" mantra begins to dilute as school pride, civic rivalries, potential scholarships and the possibility of making it to the "next level" become more significant.

However, the coaches at most schools, even the most driven ones, will still aspire to cultivate at least some of the interpersonal and social qualities associated with character development such as hard work, team-focused thinking, winning with humility, losing with grace, playing by the rules, developing self-discipline and maintaining perspective.

If results-orientation and character development were two roads they would almost certainly be seen to diverge in the woods of professional sports. Whether somebody is a good person or not is often considerably less important than getting results.

Sports pages and talk shows are rife with stories of superbly talented but reluctant, self-obsessed athletes, some of whom engage in recidivist criminal or anti-social behavior.

They may be lionized when they win and they are often forgiven when they don't regardless of their character flaws and the broader society is left to wonder what values are at play.

Willie Randolph was almost universally valued as a great player, a talented manager and (unlike Carlo Rizzi!) a solid citizen. In the world of "gotta-win-now" he became rapidly devalued and all the positive attributes were good for naught.

His firing was unpopular with Mets fans and led many other objective observers to question whether we have our values and priorities straight.

The jury is still out and may not be back for some time.