The Story That Will Never End
There's little rivaling the feeling of exhilaration that stems from your favorite team not just winning, but winning often -- and yet, writing about a team that has done so many things right over the last four weeks has proven more challenging than I presumed it would be. I don't know. Maybe it's because I personally find it more difficult to write from an interesting angle when there are relatively few sources of aggravation/controversy in the Rangers' midst; case in point, virtually every position on the major league roster -- with the possible exception of the starting rotation -- that was troublesome 1-2 months ago has stabilized. Catcher. First base. Third base. Center field. You name it.
And so it is that I find myself leaning on Maury Brown's latest early-morning update on the most tumultuous business-side story to ever encompass the Rangers, that being the word that the ballclub has reportedly filed an amended version of the "pre-packaged [bankruptcy] plan" that, ostensibly at least, "seems" to meet the conditions necessary to lift impairments -- or the absence of due rights -- of the Rangers' first- and second-class creditors and, by virtue of that, would eliminate their ability to block the sale of the team via vote.
How significant is this? As far as I understand it (and despite the thousands of words I've dispensed on this subject over the last year, my understanding at this stage is not especially advanced), it's significant, but also an action that was expected, and not one that begets any ironclad assurances that the sale will get finished on the timetable necessary to enable pre-July 31st big-ticket acquisitions. Concurrently, however (and provided that the plan does now meet Judge Lynn's standards of comfirmability), I'm not certain what recourse the creditors will have left beyond being able to pursue litigation after the fact against the company which currently owns the Rangers -- that is, Texas Rangers Baseball Partners -- and Hicks Sports Group.
If, however, there is still some sort of hitch in the bankruptcy plan that precludes Judge Lynn's approval, it will probably be time to begin reading into the underlying meaning of this inadvertent remark from one Commissioner's Office attorney: "If [Lynn] doesn’t confirm the plan we’ll just terminate the franchise. We'll take over the g--damn franchise." The implication here appears to be that Bud Selig would finally invoke the "best interests of the game" clause if the Rangers were dealt one more massive setback, but there are two items of intrigue here, those being (a) the evolution of said clause and (b) the ramifications for the rest of American professional sports.
One of the things that seems to get lost whenever the best interests clause is mentioned is that the clause was seemingly never intended to be employed where financial matters are concerned; in 1994, Selig wrote that the powers linked to the clause were "inherently narrow" and stated that "the notion of an almighty commissioner directing the business of baseball is incorrect." Selig's predecessor, Fay Vincent, affirmed that the clause was never intended to be used against lenders. And, of course, even if baseball were to take that ultimate step and seize the franchise, another legal showdown would assuredly ensue between Major League Baseball and the Rangers' creditors, along with the causation of what sources have described as "convulsions" in the sports finance market.
This probably isn't the morning missive you wanted to read, and it's really not the one I wanted to write, but the end game here -- whatever the heck it is -- is unarguably a bigger deal than any single regular-season game the Rangers will play this year. Appreciative as I am of the way Texas has played in recent weeks, this is still one huge fish that requires frying.
24 Comments | in Analysis, The Season
Reader Comments (24)
The way I read Maury Brown's article ... and I only had one cup of coffee at the time, so I could be wrong ... the only "creditor" left that has not had its "impairment" addressed is ... Texas Rangers Baseball Partners Equity Interest. To wit:
"What is unclear is whether these changes will allow the third class, TRBP Equity Interest, to then have its impairment lifted. The latest amended document shows no changes from prior versions and continues to read, “The Debtor submits that [TRBP Equity Interest] is unimpaired by the Prepackaged Plan, each holder of an Allowed TRBP Equity Interest is not entitled to vote to accept or reject the Prepackaged Plan, and should be conclusively deemed to accept the Prepackaged Plan.”"
So ... the deal can still be torpedoed ... theoretically, anyway.
Anybody out there have any insight as to why this was done this way ...
Sick and tired of this crap about the sale of the Rangers (that's no offense to Joey... I'm just tired of hearing about it)...
BTW - through July, the Rangers will play:
19 games against teams .500 or better teams
10 against teams with a losing record
12 games on the road (all against .500 + teams)
17 home games (10 of which vs. under .500 teams)
The schedule is defintely tougher than the last 35 games BUT it's not THAT tough.
The Rangers have a good shot at pretty much burying the Angels for good. If they keep playing well, beating the teams they should beat, splitting those games against playoff caliber teams, and winning say 5 of 9 vs. the Angels, this thing could be sewn up by the 1st week of August.
What does "we'll just terminate the franchise" mean?
Joey,
Maury Brown has repeatedly been way off on this story, so read any of his updates with some skepticism. He's clearly heavily biased towards one side of what is a much more complicated proceeding than his folks at MLB have duped him into thinking.
About the schedule: The team has 4 games upcoming at Boston, certainly formidable...but certainly less formidable now that they've lost their 2B and catcher.
Good point Rockwall Tim.
Rangers100: have you read Brown's work on the amended filing? I don't really read any bias in there. Maury Brown (and virtually every other writer not writing for BBTiA) rushed to be the first to post about Judge Lynn's memo last week. Maury and Craig Calcaterra retracted their first stories and put out posts the next day that were researched more thoroughly.
What is there in Brown's most recent report to doubt? He included the changes directly from the amendment and told us the one part that still may fail to satisfy the requirements of Judge Lynn. His whole point seems to be that it's unclear whether or not Judge Lynn will be satisfied with the amendment and that MLB is going to be pissed if this continues to drag on indefinitely.
Pryor: Baseball, like hockey (the only other sport to go through this question in a bankruptcy proceeding), has the ability to choose its own members. The Major League Baseball Constitution says that the Commissioner has the ability to act in the "best interests of baseball" when determining who has a franchise, or right to field a team as part of the Major League Baseball association*. When the attorney for the Commissioner said that they "would terminate the ... franchise," he meant that the existing right to field a team in professional baseball currently owned by Texas Rangers Baseball Partners (Tom Hicks) would be taken back by Major League Baseball and could then, presumably, be sold to any entity of the Commissioner's choosing (i.e. Chuck Greenberg).
* These franchises used to be granted by the National League of Professional Baseball Clubs and the American League of Professional Baseball Clubs. As of 2000, those two entities have ceased to exist and all franchises are held and granted by the Office of the Commissioner of Baseball as part of Major League Baseball.
What is there in Brown's most recent report to doubt?
I don't know that there necessarily is anything to doubt. I haven't even read it as Maury Brown, after repeated errors and outright shilling for one side in the issue, has lost pretty much all credibility on this subject.
Just saying that there is plenty of evidence at this point to be very skeptical about anything Maury Brown reports on the topic.
@rockwall Tim - that's right... I forgot about Pedroia and Martinez being hurt.
Apart from the all of the series' vs. Angels, I think there are 2 stretches of games that are going to be pivotal 7/15 - 7-25 and 8/10 - 8/18.
I've read and heard alot of things about the Ranger's easy June schedule but the the Angels also played a soft June schedule too:
Angels June =
9 games vs. .500 + teams
16 games vs. sub .500 teams
I've also heard/read about the Ranger's (brutal) upcoming schedule... but the Angels July and August schedules are no cake walk either:
Angels July =
13 games vs. .500 + teams, 10 of which are on the road
13 games vs. sub .500, 7 of which are home games
Rangers July =
17 games vs. .500 + teams, 10 of which are on the road
10 games vs. sub .500 teams, ALL of which are home games
Angels August =
16 games vs .500 + teams, 9 of which are on the road
11 vs. sub .500 teams, only 5 of which are home games
Rangers August =
13 games vs. 500 + teams, 9 of which are home games
15 games vs. sub .500 teams, 12 of which are on the road
July favors the Angels, however the Rangers play a bunch of games at home, against sub .500 teams.
The August schedule for the Rangers is much softer that that of the Angels.
Add everything up... and if the Rangers play good baseball and take care of business both at home and vs. losing clubs, and then split their games against the Angels and .500+ teams, they should win the division with relative ease.
September is too far out to say which teams are .500 and which ones are not... so we'll cross that bridge later.
The Rangers and Angels have 15 head-to-head games left to play... it's imperative the Rangers don't choke against a veteran, talented, well coached team like the Angels. Time will tell...
Rangers100: read the latest report. It's worth a look, and I think he's taken this a little more seriously since Garoon railed on the irresponsible reporting from Brown (and damn near every other source) concerning Lynn's memo last week.
I don't know that I want to read any of the reports anymore. I hear different things on the radio and internet. The latest I heard was that the Rangers amended their deal and it should make it so the lenders cannot veto any deal. If that's the case, the ruling could come down on the July 9th meeting.
With that being said, I probably know the least about this stuff out of any of you guys. Just wanted to throw that out there.
I've read pretty much everything Brown has written, and outside of the rush to judgment by all, including Brown, last week, he's been pretty straightforward and balanced in his reporting.
It's a stretch, and hyperbole to say "he's clearly heavily biased towards one side". Or is it agenda driven? I don't know.
Philly: the latest word is that they have amended their deal. Most of the issues were addressed, but it isn't clear that they addressed everything they needed to adjust. Lynn will make some sort of a ruling on the 9th, and we'll see what happens.
The Texas Rangers Baseball Partners (TRBP Equity Interest) is the party that has not been addressed. The amendment contends that TRBP is unimpaired. If Lynn agrees, it appears the sale can push through. If he doesn't agree.....oh crap.
Rangers100: read the latest report. It's worth a look, and I think he's taken this a little more seriously since Garoon railed on the irresponsible reporting from Brown (and damn near every other source) concerning Lynn's memo last week.
Will do, Dave H. I usually read his updates just to know how MLB and Greenberg are spinning things to him. (His sources come entirely from those two groups.)
And the problems with Maury Brown on this story go back to long before last week's errors. He pretends to be an unbiased journalist, but he constantly spins the story towards one side.
I don't care who ends up with the team, but I've known for awhile the issue was much more complicated than Brown was pretending back in March and April (when he was saying the deal would be closed very shortly in favor of Greenberg/Ryan). I told Brown this in early April, and he flippantly dismissed it. Why? Because MLB/Greenberg were telling him it was a soon to be done deal. But he was being spun. And Brown in turn spun Adam Morris and other local media whom he was telling what they wanted to hear.
Buchholtz and Victor Martinez also hurt.
Brown's latest report says Lynn might be leaning towards reopening the bidding process....if Brown's sources are all MLB and Greenberg, why on earth are they "spinning" the story like that? Doesn't make much sense.
I dont want to think about this stuff again until July 9. Much more interested in how our starters will respond to pitching to good lineup for the first time since the Brewers series.
Brown's latest report says Lynn might be leaning towards reopening the bidding process....if Brown's sources are all MLB and Greenberg, why on earth are they "spinning" the story like that? Doesn't make much sense.
Various possibilities, one of which being that they believe it to be true and don't see much to be gained from denying it.
Anyway, this didn't all start today. Brown's been posting on this topic for month. You can go back and read his posts and see pretty clearly where his sources are. And you can also see pretty clearly he's repeatedly been wrong on this story so far.
To be honest I wouldn't be surprised if the judge forced the bidding process to restart. I called it a long time ago that the creditors, while knowing there was a higher bidder, would not allow the sale to go forward so long as they could get more money that was owed to them. Unless Greenberg wants to offer more money, he will not be an owner of the team.
Pryor: Brown updated his earlier post indicating that reopening the bid is a strong possibility.
http://blogs.forbes.com/sportsmoney/2010/06/is-a-decision-pre-ordained-in-the-texas-rangers-bankruptcy-case/
That's what I said the other day and someone on here told me re-opening the bidding was not allowed... or something like that... but it is a very real possibility? If so, then tell me why a guy like Chuck Greenberg would even want to go through this whole rotten process? I feel bad for the guy... here you have someone that's actually anxious to own a team that, let's face it, hasn't exactly been a perennial power house or a legacy of greatness... and he's had to deal with Hick's incompetent posse of spin doctors and liars... and now he's told that his earlier/winning bid may not get the job done, after being told that he was the winning bidder? I don't know man, I would take that as a sign from above that it ain't meant to happen.
Does anyone know what Nolan Ryan is worth? I know he's an important piece to a larger puzzle of owners but at the end of the day, how much is he forking out here?
Somebody on here nailed this prediction the other day...
From the Newbrg Report:
The Rangers have announced that righthander Omar Beltre will be recalled to make Wednesday night’s start in Anaheim. The move pushes C.J. Wilson back to Thursday’s start, and Colby Lewis to Friday’s series opener at home against the White Sox.
Beltre, who along with Alexi Ogando had been unable to reenter the United States for five years until that situation was resolved this off-season, has a 2.39 ERA for Oklahoma City this season. Shifted from the RedHawks’ bullpen to the club’s rotation a month ago, his ERA in five starts is 1.25 and he’s held opponents to a .203 batting average over that span, fanning 24 in 21.2 innings. In 37.2 innings altogether this season, the 28-year-old has allowed just one home run and induced twice as many groundouts as flyouts.
James Mason was the one that predicted /suggested Beltre would be the call up... here's what he wrote:
"I have an idea and I wonder if the Rangers have thought of it: bring up Omar Beltre to be a starter.
As a starter, the batting average against him is .203 (as a reliever it's .300.) Although he's only worked a little over 21 innings as a starter, he's been very good..."
there's no picture in this post so it was harder than usual for me to focus on your content