Latest Forum Topics
Search
Sponsors

Featured Article

MJH on accountability

Sponsors

Sponsors

« Ask Professor Parks: Julius Sumner Miller Edition | Main | The Rise Of Jim Crane, The Fall Of Tom Hicks And Some Perspective »
Wednesday
Dec162009

NEWSFLASH: Tom Hicks Selects Greenberg/Ryan Ownership Group

Fireworks light up the sky over Rangers Ballpark in Arlington on Friday, June 26th.It appears that our long-standing regional sports crisis is finally blasting along at full speed towards the resolution many have been longing for, as Tom Hicks formally announced his selection of the ownership consortium headed by Chuck Greenberg and Nolan Ryan on Tuesday evening and will reportedly request that Major League Baseball approve his decision to grant exclusive negotiating rights to the apparent winning bidders.

While Hicks' selection of Greenberg/Ryan is not tantamount to an iron-clad assurance that they will ultimately purchase the financially embattled franchise, it's probably the single biggest hurdle that needed to be cleared in a process which will entail (a) acting on the plan to nourish Hicks Sports Group with the necessary capital to begin satisfying Hicks' creditors, (b) finalizing the agreement between the two entities during a 45-day negotiating window and (c) obtaining the approval of 75 percent of the league's owners. All three conditions appear likely to be fulfilled.

Interestingly, Jeff Wilson of the Fort Worth Star-Telegram reports that the Greenberg/Ryan group did not enhance its bid until sometime Tuesday afternoon, at which point it seemed apparent that Jim Crane was poised to emerge victorious by virtue of his far financially superior offer; in that sense, it almost seems as though Hicks permitted Crane to re-submit his bid after the original December 7th deadline in an effort to create leverage and push Greenberg/Ryan -- with whom he had already aligned -- to find more money to put into the pot. If that was indeed Hicks' intention all along, it worked to perfection, and more power to him for pulling it off.

Candidly, this whole story is a little bit anticlimactic for me -- we've been talking about the ownership situation for so long now that I find myself feeling somewhat numb to these latest developments, and we still don't know how well the Greenberg/Ryan group will actually fare once the transfer of power is complete, but the early indications are good: heavy financial support from local investors, the retention of Ryan in his current capacity, the probable stability in the baseball operations department and so forth.

I'd be a fool if I said that it didn't all look very appealing and neat and tidy on paper, but until the sale is finalized, the new ownership regime is in place and some stuff actually starts going down (such as aggressive movement in next winter's market, where bountiful pitching riches await and the promise of being able to write off new contracts looms large), the bulk of the celebration should be directed towards Hicks' ouster more so than the entrance of Greenberg and company. The extrication of that damaging element of fiscal irresponsibility is the single biggest thing that we should be excited about.

If electing to reserve judgment on Greenberg/Ryan until a later date while maintaining an air of cautious optimism makes me a killjoy, then I apologize ... but then again, not really, because after what this team and its fans have been through in the last six months, I don't think anybody is going to begrudge a little hard-earned cynicism on anybody else's part.

Site-Related Announcement: After a prolonged hiatus, Jason Parks will be returning to Baseball Time in Arlington tomorrow for a special all-day "Ask Professor Parks" Q&A session. Get all of your burning questions answered on baseball, music, fine art and the meaning of life in general.

Reader Comments (19)

Needless to say, I for one am EXTREMELY stoked about this.

December 15, 2009 at 9:55 PM | Registered CommenterJon Page

I'm also SO happy about this. The stuff coming out about Gilbert wanting to basically run the team scared the crap out of me. So glad Nolan will still be involved - I don't think it's a coincidence that the team has gotten better at pitching since he's been around.

December 15, 2009 at 11:51 PM | Unregistered CommenterJim

Greenberg is awesome. He's chatting with any and all on facebook.

December 16, 2009 at 1:13 AM | Unregistered CommenterOr

Good news.

December 16, 2009 at 4:45 AM | Unregistered CommenterCliff Phelps

Unlike the others, I am not excited about this. Relieved would probably be a better word, and its not because Greenberg won, rather it is because someone, anyone won. I am ready to move on and looking forward to Tom Hicks not holding the franchise hostage anymore. I'll be excited when the new ownership enables moves that make the team better and the fan experience better (which I think Mr. Greenberg has shown a history of doing). Until then - meh.

December 16, 2009 at 6:50 AM | Unregistered CommenterAndrew in Boston

JM, Seriously, how can you bury the real headline here? A Professor JP cameo overshadowed by some financial whingy dingy? What, did I venture onto an IBD blog by mistake? I, for one am looking forward to the wit and wisdom of the Professor holding court tomorrow. I hear he's quite the handsome lad as well.
:)

December 16, 2009 at 7:08 AM | Unregistered CommenterA Stephens

Hear hear!
I'm happiest of all for what looks like continuity in the Pres/GM/Scouting staff, regardless of how long the actual sale takes. And if we need a million here (at C) or 3 million there (lefty-mashing CF platoon guy) or there (on a lefty-masher who can play all 4 corners... named Tatis), I imagine somehow that will be made safely available this winter.

Questions here, Joey?

Jason,
1) Can Moreland be slightly less than Garko for a couple years, but with higher upside offensively/defensively)?
2) Is Max back? (Not just back from his get-away in Boston, but a high-OBP-vs. lefties-guy/back-up C who could help us at DH?)
3) Which of our prospects add up to a deal for KC's Alberto Callaspo?
4) Did the Marcus Lemmon experiment (in the OF) work?

December 16, 2009 at 8:38 AM | Unregistered CommenterMichael Gleason

Sort of a shame we couldn't have gotten involved in the Jays/Phillies blockbuster and lured Lee here... but I'm guessing that would have required dealing both Millwood and Young (beforehand) and absorbing almost no salary in return.

December 16, 2009 at 9:04 AM | Unregistered CommenterRob

Jason,
Would the amount of high draft picks the Rangers will receive next season (their first, the first for not signing Purke as well as the comp. picks for Pudge and Byrd) almost force the Rangers to continue to be aggressive this offseason - allowing them to begin dealing those players who could very well end up being available in the rule V draft next season anyway since they'll be able to restock their minors in one good draft?

December 16, 2009 at 9:20 AM | Unregistered CommenterRob

This is without doubt the best Christmas present ever!!

December 16, 2009 at 9:24 AM | Unregistered CommenterStephen

Jason,
to follow up Rob's question, other than at pitching (which needs to be most plentiful) where do you see us stacked, and where thin; and which valuable surplus would you trade up, for even more valuable essentials (eg in 2-for-1 deals like Pina & Murphy for Gutierrez)?

December 16, 2009 at 11:05 AM | Unregistered CommenterMichael Gleason

Guys: Please save the questions for tomorrow. I will answer anything you ask (assuming I am able), and I will be doing so all-day long. I'm looking forward to a good 12 hour, non-stop Q&A. Bring it!

December 16, 2009 at 11:31 AM | Unregistered CommenterJason Parks

Sorry 'bout that... Forgot you don't need 'em in advance.

December 16, 2009 at 11:52 AM | Unregistered CommenterMichael Gleason

I hope it is true. Nolan and Greenberg sound to be 100 times better than any of the other proposed ownership groups. This is a nice Christmas present.

December 16, 2009 at 1:24 PM | Unregistered CommenterSpanky68

By the way, it seems as though sufficient controversy has been created by this Twitter remark from Maury Brown:

Think Hicks staying on could save Daniels' from getting canned. Personality differences with Ryan, more than anything.

I really have no idea what the hell this is supposed to mean -- I wouldn't expect two people coming from very different backgrounds to NOT have personality differences to some degree, and most indications have pointed towards Ryan/Daniels having a productive relationship predicated on mutual respect (although when Galloway referred to "one small pocket of [organizational] resistance" to Ryan, one had to wonder which facet of the baseball operations department that was referencing).

In any event, if Hicks is Daniels' safeguard and Hicks' say in baseball matters has effectively been done away with, then I'm not sure how Hicks staying around is going to save Daniels' job if there really is some sort of existing riff between Ryan and Daniels. I'm far more inclined to not think anything of that remark at all, however.

December 16, 2009 at 5:12 PM | Registered CommenterJoey Matschulat

Saw that earlier, and my instinct was that it's baseless. There's been nothing at all in 2 years to indicate the slightest variance in philosophy between Ryan and Daniels. Obviously I'm not there but the view from here is that Ryan is pretty respectful of Daniels ability to build while working with what he's got, and that Daniels has both a healthy ego and a deferential respect, regarding Ryan being a tremendous resource for him.

December 16, 2009 at 6:35 PM | Unregistered CommenterA Stephens

Good take, AS -- and while I'm at it, one more thing that's been bugging me. We've been inundated with columns talking about how Hicks "did the right thing" by picking Greenberg/Ryan and so on and so forth, and perhaps that's true to some extent ... but how much choice did he really still have in the matter?

When I say that, I mean that if he had picked Crane knowing full well that he wouldn't garner approval from the owners (as a time-buying mechanism of sorts), there probably wasn't much of anything left to buy time for anyway. He had his own ownership group cooking, certainly, but as evidenced by the abortive attempt to monetize future television revenues, he still didn't have enough capital locked up. The owners are reportedly reluctant enough for Hicks to be involved at all in the Greenberg/Ryan group ... in that sense, would he have even stood much of a chance of being approved even if he had secured the requisite funds to pay down HSG's debt? What I'm saying is that we should be careful not to mistake nobility for desperation.

One more random thought: Given the inordinately high proportion of local investors in the Greenberg/Ryan group, I'm wondering if Hicks didn't end up taking some of the investors that had previously allied with him (including Roger Staubach) with him over to the winning group. That would have enabled the apparently big final-day spike in the Greenberg/Ryan bid ... and looking at it from another perspective, once Hicks had severed ties with Dennis Gilbert, he probably didn't stand much of a chance, since the Greenberg/Ryan group's willingness to include Hicks was a fairly significant factor in their selection.

December 17, 2009 at 4:35 AM | Registered CommenterJoey Matschulat

So what is the earliest we can see the purse strings loosen up for JD to be able to do anything???

December 17, 2009 at 5:19 AM | Unregistered Commenterjwtyler

So what is the earliest we can see the purse strings loosen up for JD to be able to do anything???

Probably around the trade deadline.

December 17, 2009 at 1:06 PM | Registered CommenterJoey Matschulat
Editor Permission Required
You must have editing permission for this entry in order to post comments.