Because everyone is beginning to lose it, I think a step back from the "I can't believe we have to trade my favorite player Laird for financial reasons" pouting of certain people...

There are two possibilities here: Hicks (and thus the team) are in financial trouble, or Hicks (and thus the team) are in okay financial shape.  In case you haven't noticed, the economy is in bad shape, and investors - guys like Tom Hicks - have taken huge hits the last few months.  So we really don't know what is going on.   Lets start with the Hicks has money and is just trying to make us miserable option:

1 - Tom Hicks has money.  This is a possibility, since he has supposedly left the "business."  Lets assume that is true for a minute, and he survived this fall well.  But is propping up a less-than-profitable Rangers team for the next coupld of years a smart business decision?  Cash is very valuable right now - a savvy investor, like Tom Hicks, may be better off investing that money in something else.  Remember, this is a guy who made a career out of taking over companies who are hamstrung by circumstances on their books.  There are a lot of those firms right now.   If Hicks has cash, isn't it a better move for him to put it into some of these better opportunities?

You could argue that the Rangers themselves present a reasonable investment opportunity - but there are three reasons why it may be smart to wait.  Lets assume that the team needs to be a solid playoff contender to make money.  First, barring a big investment on Hicks' part, the Rangers are not going to seriously compete next year regardless (the A's made a one-year move for 2009, and the Angels aren't rebuilding).  Second, there is reason to believe that the Rangers will be competitive in the near future - why put money up now for 2010-2012 when the team should be competitive then anyway?

Finally, there is reason to believe salaries will continue to drop and be more affordable.  Baseball players are assets, and like any falling asset prices, you want to wait until the bottom to buy.  I don't think this last point can be overstated.  Heck, even the Yankees didn't offer arbitration to guys just to avoid paying extra salary.  Think they're maybe worried about not having rich Lehman Brothers and Citigroup expense accounts to fill their big new stadium?   If 75% of clubs are going to be wary of spending, you'll possibly see a lot of 1 year deals by guys like Sheets and Dunn hoping things get better.  These guys are still going to be asking for huge contracts this year to sign long-term (like the people still trying to sell their houses at pre-collapse prices).  A year from now, the salary bubble may have popped, and the Rangers would be in an excellent position to step in.

2 - Tom Hicks doesn't have money.  This too is a strong possibility.  This guy was an big-time investor - do you really think he was sitting on tons of cash?  Even if he was conservative and had it all in something like Berkshire Hathaway, he's hurting for money right now if he was at all leveraged.  So Hicks doesn't have money?  Why doesn't he sell the team?  Who is going to buy it?  The same applies to his soccer club (sorry, football club), and the Stars.

And if he has been taking losses, do you really expect him to dump what little cash he has into risky player contracts?  MLB still has good tv contracts, and the Rangers are payroll light, so there is a chance they can turn a decent profit, especially within 2-3 years with the young players they have.  It makes sense if you are cash poor to hold the reigns back a bit and wait for those years.

Anyway, I know this all sounds like I'm a Hicks apologist, but I don't think he's being treated fairly here.  Basically, I think that every team in baseball is facing similar questions (most teams are owned by the type of people who have taken hits - check out Nintendo stock, for example).  It makes sense regardless of ones personal situation to become more conservative in spending in this environment.