NYPost on Hicks / Zito

by LukeR on Dec 21, 2006 6:16 AM CST

http://www.nypost.com/seven/12212006/sports/mets/mets_might_make_pitch_for_suppan_mets_michael_morri ssey.htm

For Mets fans, the most distressing news might be this: a source told The Post yesterday that Rangers owner Tom Hicks is helming the charge to sign Zito in no uncertain terms.

Earlier this month, the source said, Hicks walked into a meeting and told his front-office people something to the effect of, "I'm taking over this negotiation now."

Although Texas privately shot down reports it had already offered six years and $100 million to Zito, don't bet against it happening by the end of the Zito negotiations.

Tweet Comment 11 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

I dont doubt this at all

from a purely baseball perspective, I dont see signing Zito as making all that much sense. From a PR and owner flexing his muscles standpoint, the pursuit of Zito makes much more sense.

"Strippers dude, I tell you, I really respect the cunts now. . . I'm not gonna lie to ya." - Voice of Her Generation, Lindsay Lohan.

by DJCahill on Dec 21, 2006 6:17 AM CST reply actions

No!

This is the worst thing that could happen. Hicks is an idiot, he does not deserve to be making this kind of decisions. A know-it-all owner is harbinger of sucktitude.*

*Please refer to Baltimore

by Excel Hearts Choi on Dec 21, 2006 7:11 AM CST up reply actions

Hicks has pretty much been in the middle of every big dollar decision since he has owned the team as far as I know. Id really be stunned if he wasnt running point on the Zito bid. If Hicks is involved, and we win the bid, it pretty much guarantees it will be a pyrrhic victory.

"Strippers dude, I tell you, I really respect the cunts now. . . I'm not gonna lie to ya." - Voice of Her Generation, Lindsay Lohan.

by DJCahill on Dec 21, 2006 7:15 AM CST up reply actions

Yeah, but...

I thought that Daniels and Washington signified a change in Hicks. Before, he was obsessed with making the splashy, big name deals. Daniels and Washington are neither of those. I guess I was just overly optimistic about how the organization is run.

by Excel Hearts Choi on Dec 21, 2006 7:19 AM CST up reply actions

Hicks isn't Angelos

Hicks learned his lesson after the Caminitti, Galarraga, van Poppel, Jay Howell year. Those signings were classic Baltimore-esque signings (old guys with limited to no upside, lots of downside and expensive - think Ryan Klesko).

Have the Rangers done that since? No. The Rangers have resisted that urge this year and in recent years.

When you are spending 100 million dollars, you expect the teams owner to play a big part in it. The fact that he is involved means that he is committed to the signing, not "going along" and prepared to bow out if things get intense.

by JBImaknee on Dec 21, 2006 11:32 AM CST up reply actions

Makes me feel better about the situation...

at least. We may/may not sign the guy, but at least it sends a message to everyone else that the organization is not going to take crap from the big-market team.

When all else fails, there's always delusion. - Conan O'Brien

by mtex on Dec 21, 2006 12:15 PM CST up reply actions

Hicks = Idiot

Well, his comments last year about Michael Young certainly prove that he thinks himself quite the baseball expert. Most of all, Hicks has to be at the center of it all. While that can do some good, he does not belong there. Just because he is good at real estate or whatever else he does, does not make him qualified for important baseball decisions.

by Excel Hearts Choi on Dec 21, 2006 12:30 PM CST up reply actions

decision

The decision to acquire Zito may very well have been made by Daniels and the rest of the front office. It could be that Hicks is just spearheading the effort to get him here. If that's the case I don't see how anyone could have a problem with it. Hicks has handled high-profile player negotiations before with some success.

At the very least, I think the baseball guys are concurring on Zito. The problem I have with Hicks isn't so much his "hands on" style; it's his proclivity to change directions on a whim. If he's learned his lesson with that there's no reason for me to believe he'll hold the Rangers back.

by debaser on Dec 21, 2006 12:16 PM CST up reply actions

By the way,

one absolute dealbreaker for me.

I absolutely would not give out a no trade clause to any of the pitchers being talked about.

On the off chance that Danks and Hurley actually develop into reliable innings eaters or better, I want the flexibility to move one of Zito/Padilla/Millwood.

So if we get Zito for 6/100, thats fine, because I honestly think that will be the high bid. However, the cost of doing business is we retain rights to trade.

"Strippers dude, I tell you, I really respect the cunts now. . . I'm not gonna lie to ya." - Voice of Her Generation, Lindsay Lohan.

by DJCahill on Dec 21, 2006 7:08 AM CST reply actions

Agreed

Although you'd have to think given recent history that any of these guys would waive a no trade to go to a playoff contender. In fact, as easy as it has been for players (other than Kenny Rogers) to waive their no trade clause, it is probably less onerous to have a no trade clause in the contract than to have a $x million dollar kicker in the contract if they are traded.

by Brandon Wilson on Dec 21, 2006 8:44 AM CST reply actions

The Rangers

have had nothing but trouble with no trade clauses. Juan, Raffy, Kenny. These guys all decided it was better to hang out on a go nowhere team than get traded to a contender.

Im sick of seeing our roster held hostage, and I certainly don't want to see it on a 6 year contract.

"Strippers dude, I tell you, I really respect the cunts now. . . I'm not gonna lie to ya." - Voice of Her Generation, Lindsay Lohan.

by DJCahill on Dec 21, 2006 8:47 AM CST up reply actions