The Rangers Payroll Dichotomy
Ian Kinsler expresses his frustration with the Rangers' payroll issues. Well, not really.Texas Rangers team president Nolan Ryan reassuring a rightly skeptical audience during the ballclub's season-ending press conference on Tuesday, October 6th: "I feel our budget will be close to, if not the same as, what it was last year [$68 million]."
It's absolutely the storyline that just about everyone is sick of hearing, reading and thinking about (myself included), but it's the storyline that has sadly metamorphosed into the overarching problem of the off-season for a ballclub that established its proximity to legitimate post-season contendership in 2009 -- a ballclub that appears so close, and yet seems so inexplicably far away. And it's beginning to get underneath my skin. Badly.
Since Ryan's payroll-related declaration nearly two months ago, assorted media sources have cast bits and pieces of revelatory light on the actual seriousness of the Rangers' financial situation, and now, most recently, Evan Grant of the Dallas Morning News has characterized Texas as a franchise with "no money to do anything." To what extent this apparent worsening of the financial situation falls at the feet of Hicks Sports Group's debt-ridden corpse isn't immediately clear, but even now it doesn't make a damn bit of sense to me, and here's why:
[Four things of varying degrees of importance worth noting: first, since contract buyouts aren't officially listed as components of the payroll, the combined $3.75 million owed to ex-Rangers Frank Catalanotto and Vicente Padilla isn't included here. Second, right-hander Dustin Nippert has evidently attained arbitration eligibility as a "Super Two" player (by two days of service time, no less), which should earn him a pay raise from the league minimum ($400,000) into high six-digit territory; after perusing the final salaries of last season's "Super Two" class, I'd honestly be more than a little shocked if he landed anything marginally beyond the $1 million mark.
Third, I strongly suspect that the difference between the salaries listed at the ever-reliable Cot's Baseball Contracts and those found at the USA Today payroll database is ascribable to how deferred money is handled; for example, Michael Young's 2009 base salary was $11 million, but was officially listed at $13,054,526. I haven't included the deferred money still owed to Young or Kevin Millwood here, nor that of Alex Rodriguez; tack on another $5 million if you're so inclined, I guess. And finally, note the generosity on the salary arbitration projections -- it almost feels as though I'm firing high on several players in particular, but we'll roll with it.]
Even if you elect to get really conservative and factor an $8 million allowance for contract buyouts/deferred money into the equation, you should -- based on what we know to date, anyway -- still be looking at having $10-plus million available for roster-strengthening purposes ... and that's where this really bizarre discrepancy between the company line and the media line comes into play. Sure, you probably can't sign an elite free agent or trade for a premiumly-priced talent with that sum of money, but there are a lot of other things you can do. Conversely, there isn't much you can do with nothing.
If these chilling reports are indeed accurate and the Rangers seriously cannot afford to even marginally upgrade their payroll, then there's a very simple question to be asked: what on earth transpired in the last two months that warranted snatching $10-plus million out of management's hands and effectively crippling the ballclub's limited, but still-existing market maneuverability? Did it mysteriously vanish into the ether or something? If the answer is actually "nothing," then why did Ryan say what he said in front of the Ballpark media contingent on October 6th? And if all of the reports are erroneous, is there some compelling reason why the ballclub hasn't made an effort to set the record straight?
It's certainly not my intention to descend into the realm of conspiracy theorizing, but it would seem that there are questions to be asked here -- questions that the Rangers obviously can't respond to with the luxury of full disclosure, but questions that should, if nothing else, remain within our sphere of consciousness. It's highly agitating to envision a scenario where any and all enticing offers and opportunities for roster improvement communicated to the general manager are sadly rejected due to something so inexcusable as a cash shortage. With all due respect to Tom Hicks, that is not "business as usual." That's a fool's game.
Again, the quibble here does not concern Hicks' once-upon-a-time proclamation that Texas could field a championship-caliber team with a payroll between $70-80 million. Forget payroll expansion altogether for a moment. If the Rangers' financial situation has actually achieved critical mass, the concern progresses from not being able to improve the roster to not being able to sustain the roster. At that point, you have to begin worrying about whether a payroll reduction might be on the horizon before the ownership situation becomes settled, and what sort of long-term ramifications could stem from such drastic actions ... and even if you're only thinking about that possibility, you have justifiable cause to be alarmed.
This whole thing makes me absolutely sick.
14 Comments | in Analysis, Rumors, The Off-Season
Reader Comments (14)
It is time that Tom Hick bowed out of the Rangers! He clearly has lost finanicial control HSG and the Rangers to the point that his continued involvement and his attempt to stay in control (buy his own team) will result in a regression of everything that the club has achieved the past couple of years. Let's get a fresh start finanicially with the Greenberg Group with Nolan Ryan remaining not only as President of the club but as part owner within this group and get on with the continued building of a "championship club"! Tom Hicks needs to think of the well-being of the franchise and of the fans and not himself for a change!! Goddbye Tom........it's but real, or should I say unreal!!
And I thought it was the over-indulgence of Thanksgiving that had me nauseated this morning. I like many others spend way too much time looking for ways to turn-over our roster so to speak, btw trades/ FA that could shorten the gap on "Wait until 201???" If in fact Hicks and Co. are looking to shed payroll....oh man... where are the Rolaids???
Assuming the Rangers are within a month or two of transferring owenreship, then the front office might have chosen to forego in-depth discussions with free agents pending finalization of the team's player salary budget for 2010. The front office would be foolish to commit ~$10M to a right-handed bat, utility infielder, and pitcher now if the new owner wants to make a splash and raise the player salary budget for 2010. Given the pace of free agent signings, it would appear to be wise to wait for the new ownership group to be put in place so that the team can accurately guage the level of free agents that they can target.
One other point, if the team's primary offseason target is Ben Sheets, then they are likely limited in what they can do with other free agents pending a determination of Sheets status for 2010 from their scouts and medical staff. With that said, their have been a couple of minor league free agent signings and waiver wire pickups (Mike McCoy - SS; Ramon Ramirez - RP; Juan Abreu - RP) that seemingly offered ways for the Rangers to build their major league-ready depth without committing significant funds.
Joey, thank you: it helps to see all the cards and keep all the chips before us, on the table. [And just for the record, I think bringing up Moreland, trading Murphy for CRoss (and his 3million) and adding merely Tatis, not Sheets, would cost less and do more to make us contenders, but...]
you make a good point, David:
it's probably easier to sell a $49-million salaried team with roster flexibility for 2 or 3 new players than to sell a $67-million-dollar team with no roster-room in which the new owner might make his mark (without coming in and having to shed players & payroll to create the room to do what he wants within the $70-millionish benchmark). The new owner'(s are) going to want to come in looking less like the Terminator and more like the (collective) Lone Ranger.
Ironic, isn't it, that just a few years ago we were complaining about how much players were making!
Anyone still hoping Tom Hicks & Co put in the accepted bid?
This economic depression will endure for many more years. Owners and players must ratchet down expectations. Welcome to an unprecedented deflationary environment in professional sports.
http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20091126&content_id=7721378&vkey=news_mlb&fext=.jsp&c_id=mlb
At the beginning of this sell the team stuff, I was really so scared of a new owner coming in and firing JD and Nolan that I didn't want Tom to sell. But I am so sick of Hicks, more specifically HSG, and their inability to pull their heads out that while I still have that fear I want Hicks gone.
Recently at WDW I had a most delightful conversation with a cast member at the England exhibit.
Where else but at WDW Florida could a Texan and an Enlgish lad both agree about what a sack of , well you know, Tom Hicks is.
Now in all honesty we did disagree on one small detail. I just wanted him to go far, far away while the English football fan really wanted him dead.
Our first indication of a storm brewing was the Rangers' failure to sign their first round pick, Matt Purke. We heard "rumors" that MLB wouldn't let the Rangers go above slot ($2.3M) to meet or come close to the player's demand ($6M). We heard the offer was $4M. Was it? If so, Mr. Hicks probably sealed his fate with MLB owners. Little did we know at the time, just how bad the financial situation was for our Rangers. I understand why Mr. Hicks wants to retain majority control. He wants to see a long rebuilding effort result in a championship, under his watch. Understandable, but not realistic considering his defiance pertaining to the draft slot incident.
It's time to move on. Let's get it done, for the good of the franchise.
Every Liverpool FC fan wants the same. Tom Hicks to leave. He treats the club (and yours by the sounds of it) in the same way - a business to make money no matter what the pain to fans, the team, the club, the history. He made promises for a new stadium which we desparately need, new signings to keep up with our competitors, and then after 3 years no stadium, no money for new players and we are slipping right down the league table. It's a nightmare.
Meanwhile he still talks of a long term plan as if results now don't matter - why - because he has no money andnever has done. Mr leverage himself. Forgetting that without investment, results will get worse, the club's value will drop and we won't be able to sell it for the price he wants. He's a fantasist - whilst honest fans like you and me live in a nightmare.
To say that Liverpool fans want him out is such an understatement...
Hick's is a parasite sucking the lifeblood out of two well supported and very respected teams while treating all with feelings for the clubs with disdain. He doesn't see us as footaball/baseball fans, he just sees us as sports customers. His death would cause very little concern on this side of the Atlantic.
I'm not really concerned about what Mr. Hicks does with a backwater team from a province of the EU
Cliff, you my friend are of the same ignorant cloth as thicks. Yes thicks!