On The Hicks Ownership Situation
If your absolute worst baseball-related fear is the prospect of Tom Hicks rising from the dead and retaining majority control of the Texas Rangers after it seemed 80-plus percent certain that he was headed out, then you might have to brace for the realization of that fear, as Hicks has hastily assembled a group of local investors -- comprising both Cowboys legend Roger Staubach and the dual-allegianced Nolan Ryan -- and is preparing to submit his own bid ... to himself. Yeah.
There's the apparent confirmation that the Rangers are operating under league-imposed budgetary guidelines (via the largely reputable Joel Sherman), the hearsay that the owners have pressured the commissioner's office to figuratively clip Hicks' wings after he opened an eight-digit line of credit with the league, and then a hodgepodge of snippets and quotes that lend nothing but confusion to the entire situation. It could be months, years, or never before we get full disclosure on the rise and (very hard) fall of Hicks Sports Group and the accompanying juicy behind-the-scenes happenings from this past summer, but that's beside the point right now.
There are points to be made both for and against Hicks remaining in power, with the former largely being based upon the idiom "better the devil you know than the devil you don't." Supporters of Ryan and general manager Jon Daniels will likely find this to be the best, and perhaps only, bullet point in Hicks' favor; his alignment behind Ryan and insistence that his participation in another ownership group would be contingent upon Ryan's involvement suggests that he does, at some level, comprehend the value of stability.
Elaborating upon that a little bit, I'm going to imagine that latching onto another consortium (led by, say, Jim Crane or Dennis Gilbert), then helplessly watching them depose the current management team and implement wholesale changes throughout the organization probably isn't a very appealing option to Hicks, given that he green-lighted the radical shift from win-now to rebuild mode in 2007 and has witnessed his ballclub move ever closer to potential powerhouse status. He's seen the ugly and now he wants to see the good, and thusly doesn't want to give it up yet. I can sympathize with that.
On the other hand, however, what happens if the bid assembled by Chuck Greenberg and friends doesn't prevail over the other proposals? At that stage, we have no real clue as to whether Ryan and/or the current management regime would earn the endorsement of Crane or Gilbert or the surprise fourth entrant, and as for Hicks' entire proposition to remain in power ... well, any change in ownership will require the unanimous support of baseball's owners, and it would seem at this point that Hicks' helming of a new group probably wouldn't sit very well with the same owners who were alleged to be infuriated with the financial debacle that was mostly Hicks' own doing. They'd probably be unnerved by the possibility of a repeat, and rightly so. He may not get to have any choice in the matter.
As for the "against" side of the Hicks argument, I point to one of his favorite lines of this calendar year: "It's business as usual." Wrong. Assuming that you interpret "business as usual" to mean that the ballclub can competitively pursue opportunities to improve the team within reason, contrast that viewpoint against the media assertions that the Rangers will be fortunate to snag even a single major league player on a low-base, high-incentives deal this off-season, let alone more than one.
If things play out the way we expect them to this winter, reasonably priced opportunities for roster improvement entailing reasonable degrees of risk are going to slip through the Rangers' fingers that wouldn't slip through the team's fingers in a standard operating environment. I don't consider that to be "business as usual," but I can understand the fear that, barring significant change in Hicks' ways, it will become the new norm in Arlington.
Quick Hits: According to MLB.com's T.R. Sullivan, it "doesn't appear likely at this point" that the Rangers will manage to re-sign free agent outfielder Marlon Byrd, and the likelihood of free agent catcher Ivan Rodriguez returning also "appears dim"; regarding the Byrd negotiations, Jon Daniels stated that "based on what they're [Byrd and agent Sam Levinson] looking for ... we're not in a position to do that right now." So much for a hometown discount ... Manager Ron Washington finished fifth in the American League Manager of the Year Award balloting, with the Angels' Mike Scioscia predictably crushing the field ... If you've attended and/or graduated from an accounting program in the state of Texas, I'd appreciate it if you'd drop me a line.
8 Comments | in Analysis, Rumors, The Off-Season
Reader Comments (8)
I have no greater fear for the Rangers right now than of a new ownership group coming into town and cleaning out the old management and throwing out the baby with the bath water.
This is a team that is close. They don't need someone who must put his stamp on the team.
If that makes me pro Hicks then so be it. However I have said for a long time that Tom Hicks should sell the team because he'd lost the support of the fans. That is a shame. He is a better owner than Jerry Jones. He has grown and gotten better at the roll but Jerry is still Jerry. I'm not even going to touch Mark Cuban
Hicks ownership has become a circus side show. Seems that in addition to $ he's looking to enhance his own tattered image by attaching himself to highly regarded names in his push to remain in control. Not the worst strategy if you're Hicks, but I wonder how much good will he's got left with the other owners, and more importantly with his creditors. Too much drama.
I circus side show maybe, but pretty much only to us I would presume. I doubt very seriously that even 5 percent of MLB fans out there know there is anything going on with the ownership at all. As far as other owners and Commissioner Bowl Cut, I dont really care what they think and have sneaking suspision that Thomas O does not either. That, I like about him. He has come upon hard times with some of his investments. Who of us investors in anything has not the last couple of years. (I still own GM stock). However, he did not become an investment idiot. I look for him to rise from the ashes financially soon enough. I just do not want ANY out of state person owning majority share of my Rangers. I am pulling for Hicks to pull this one out in the 9th inning and stay the course.
Totally agree with Cliff. My biggest fear is a house cleaning with a new ownership group. While I would love to see a new owner come in here in 45 days and say "go get Lackey and a RH bat" (I can dream) that is not going to happen. A much more plausible scenario is a new owner comes in andimmediately or in very short order brings a new President and a new GM. (A new manager also, but I wouldn't be devastated by that).
Cliff is right. Hicks said in the article that he wants it to keep it local investors so that they could continue going in the right direction. The Rangers are close, and I think that Hicks staying is how they will get there.
And also... look at A-Rod in NY. They hated him until he delivered this postseason. Why not give Hicks another chance to prove himself?
The only way I would be OK with Hicks retaining any sort of control of the Rangers is if he can wiggle his way out of Liverpool. To be honest, I'd kinda enjoy it if they got a couple of other investers in their and took a chunk out of Hicks' responsibility to the Stars. Heck, what if Hicks, Jones, and Cuban combined forces with Nolan Ryan and Roger Staubach to form one giant ownership group that owned all of Dallas sports? Forget I said that.
All that I really care about is keeping Jon Daniels and Nolan Ryan in place and giving them a little more money with which to work. I don't care who owns the team as long as there's some financial flexibility to extend our young players and make an impact trade or free agent signing. I think the fan approval for Hicks retaining control will be less of a problem with the inclusion of Ryan and Staubach.
I think the biggest obstacle to Hicks retaining control in the franchise will be his fellow owners. I don't think they'll take a chance at having to bail him out again.
I do not understand how Hicks Sports Group is set up .I do not understand the ownership of the Rangers for the last 10 years or so. I do not understand who owns Hicks Sports Group.
If Hicks Sports Group owned the Rangers, what was/is Tom Hicks’ ownership interest in Hicks Sports Group? Did Tom Hicks ever sign a personal guarantee for the loans made to Hicks Sports Group? Did Tom Hicks ever write a check for his ownership share? Or was it just a loan to a corporation?
Did Tom Hicks ever endorse a check made to himself from the Texas Rangers? Did any of his family members?
If Tom Hicks or Hicks Sports Group could not cover interest payments last spring, were they not insolvent? If they wanted to redo the loans and interest rates, why not pull money out of their own pocket or get outside investment to bring the loans up to date at that time?
How much are the Texas Rangers worth? How much is owed on the Texas Rangers? Is it possible that more is owed than the team is worth? Maybe the team is not worth what Bud Selig and the owners want to see the Rangers bring on the open market.
I do not know the answers to the questions above. But I do believe any prudent business person would know the answers to all the questions before any money changes hands.
MLB owners fear that the value of their teams will drop significantly; the code of silence regarding the financial straits of several current owners is tight. Hick will retain ownership and the inflated, perceived value of the Rangers franchise will continue to be safe......for now.