Maury Brown: Rangers Sale Could Be Done By Opening Day
by Adam J. Morris on Mar 5, 2010 12:21 PM CST
Email
PrintMaury Brown has a story with an update on the Rangers sale situation, including quotes from a "high-ranking source" about the sale getting done by Opening Day.
139 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
That is an excellent comparison.
If Brad Pitt is playing Beane who do you want playing you?
JD: Eddie Guardado.
by GhettoBear04 on Mar 5, 2010 12:34 PM CST up reply actions
I'm sorry you feel this way
"Big whoop, wanna fight about it?"
by lost in space on Mar 5, 2010 1:03 PM CST up reply actions
I'm just asking.
I’m impartial. I’m just asking what, specifically, you think will change about the Rangers’ performance with the ownership change.
It’s not meant to be a trick question. I personally don’t see any reason to think much will change. And that’s a good thing as what Hicks has put in place currently, after a lot of trial and error, has been working very well lately.
But I’m open to considering what will change. Do you have any specifics?
Well let's see...
- My willingness to spend more $$ on the team (products)
- My willingness to spend more $$ on the team (food)
- My willingness to spend more $$ on the team (tickets)
- My willingness to spend more $$ on the team (parking)
Just to name a few…
"Big whoop, wanna fight about it?"
by lost in space on Mar 5, 2010 3:48 PM CST up reply actions
I was just giving my take, if you want more,
go read WesTxAg06 response below, his seemed much more in depth…
"Big whoop, wanna fight about it?"
by lost in space on Mar 5, 2010 3:53 PM CST up reply actions
You are hardly impartial.
You have decided that not much is going to change and subsequently only believed data and reasoning that back up your a priori belief. You even changed the question to help make your point.
How does new ownership change the outlook of this team? Let me count the ways! First, the previous owner made poor gambles using the Rangers as collateral that resulted in a significant amount of profits to be used for debt payments. Second, judging by AJM’s timeline of the debt burden for this team, it seems reasonable to conclude that these heavy debt ratios were not even made in a poorly planned attempt to help the Rangers, but rather to raise cash on hand for the Liverpool purchase. Third, in fulfilling a position similar to a CEO in being a face of the company to clients and buyers, Hicks was woefully inept to the degree that their were reports from the sales department this year that Tom Hicks was a severe hindrance to selling season tickets. This was due to more than just losing records as Hicks quite regularly made comments that shifted blame for the Rangers fortunes onto the fans for not supporting the team enough. Fourth, despite having one of the lowest payrolls in baseball, the front office has still been forced into making moves that keep the budget at these low levels, involving taking players with much higher risk and dumping useful players just to free up salary. To further stress the ineptitude of one Tom Hicks, he was not even able to meet these reduced payroll requirements.
New ownership changes the outlook of this team because it helps to restore the faith of the buyer in the leadership of the product, helping make it more productive. It reduces the debt load, freeing up profits to be spent on player and ballpark upgrades, thus further adding to the value of the product being sold. Finally, it removes MLB as a Big Brother figure, looming over ever Ranger financial decision.
Changing the question to “How it will change the Rangers’ performance?” is creating a straw man argument. Of course it isn’t going to change how well this group of players perform; it’s going to change the decisions that are made based on these players’ performances.
If Brad Pitt is playing Beane who do you want playing you?
JD: Eddie Guardado.
by GhettoBear04 on Mar 5, 2010 5:08 PM CST via mobile up reply actions
x
You are hardly impartial.
Sure I am. I have no ties to any of them and have no animosity towards any of the owners involved.
You have decided that not much is going to change and subsequently only believed data and reasoning that back up your a priori belief. You even changed the question to help make your point.
Yes, I don’t believe much as far as the payroll will change, but as I already said, that’s understandable. And that there won’t be any major changes elsewhere is a good thing, as thanks to a bold move by Hicks we have one of the best GMs in baseball.
And I didn’t change any question.
Let me count the ways! First, the previous owner made poor gambles using the Rangers as collateral that resulted in a significant amount of profits to be used for debt payments. Second, judging by AJM’s timeline of the debt burden for this team, it seems reasonable to conclude that these heavy debt ratios were not even made in a poorly planned attempt to help the Rangers, but rather to raise cash on hand for the Liverpool purchase.
How much of the debt is being removed by the new owners? What level of debt will the Rangers have now? Do you know?
Third, in fulfilling a position similar to a CEO in being a face of the company to clients and buyers, Hicks was woefully inept to the degree that their were reports from the sales department this year that Tom Hicks was a severe hindrance to selling season tickets. This was due to more than just losing records as Hicks quite regularly made comments that shifted blame for the Rangers fortunes onto the fans for not supporting the team enough.
OK. So it was clear early in this off-season Hicks was not going to be the managing partner anymore. How have ticket sales changed this off-season?
Fourth, despite having one of the lowest payrolls in baseball, the front office has still been forced into making moves that keep the budget at these low levels, involving taking players with much higher risk and dumping useful players just to free up salary. To further stress the ineptitude of one Tom Hicks, he was not even able to meet these reduced payroll requirements.
Yes, the incumbent is evil. I get that part. That doesn’t tell me anything about the new leaders though.
New ownership changes the outlook of this team because it helps to restore the faith of the buyer in the leadership of the product
That’s pretty vague.
It reduces the debt load, freeing up profits to be spent on player and ballpark upgrades, thus further adding to the value of the product being sold.
Definitely a good thing if true. But do you know that to be the case? If so, by how much is the debt load being reduced?
Finally, it removes MLB as a Big Brother figure, looming over ever Ranger financial decision.
That’s a positive development, but given that MLB hasn’t blocked any player-related move the Rangers have wanted to make, it also doesn’t change a whole lot.
Changing the question to "How it will change the Rangers’ performance?" is creating a straw man argument. Of course it isn’t going to change how well this group of players perform; it’s going to change the decisions that are made based on these players’ performances.
That’s all I meant by the question. That’s why I also phrased it as how this changes the “outlook” for the Rangers.
the MLB most likely blocked the Matt Purke signing
for one. And probably some other LA signings, and probably affected how much salary we could have taken on in the trade deadline last year, and probably affected who we could have signed in FA this year (Millwood)
x
the MLB most likely blocked the Matt Purke signing for one
“Most likely?”
And probably some other LA signings, and probably affected how much salary we could have taken on in the trade deadline last year, and probably affected who we could have signed in FA this year (Millwood)
What evidence do you have for these beliefs?
read
http://www.lonestarball.com/2010/2/18/1315949/2010/2/18/1315949/tom-hicks-vs-nolan-ryan-on-matt
(this is really the litmus test).
And given the Purke situation, I think it is fair to infer we were severely hamstrung in FA this year. Also, Millwood trade makes no sense otherwise
x
Yes, I’ve read that.
Hicks was never going to offer Purke more than $4M, as he has said. Nor should he or any owner have done so.
I think it’s pretty understandable why Nolan Ryan is now spinning his involvement with that small town nutbag family he walked the club into. I think Ryan can and will be a good manager of the team, but that was a terrible vetting on his part. Hopefully he learned a good lesson about conflicts of interest.
I think it is fair to infer we were severely hamstrung in FA this year. Also, Millwood trade makes no sense otherwise.
It was clear early on in the post-season that Greenberg’s group would be owners in 2010. Had they wanted Millwood, it would not have been hard for them to arrange that he be kept.
nothing was for certain
you don’t make free agent deals hoping that a sale will go through. In other words, the MLB does not let the Rangers risk millions of their dollars on “probably.” Nothing that has been done this offseason has been with an eye towards the sale going through. You’re assumption otherwise severely puts in to doubt that you know what the fuck you’re talking about
And this was the litmus test – you’re either a dipshit or a Hicks. Either way, blow me fuckface.
ticket sales
those numbers haven’t come out yet. you’re going to deny that there is an effect on ticket sales because the numbers aren’t out, even though there is some evidence to suggest that they were a problem when Hicks was owner? That seems intellectually dishonest.
It’s probably not a huge effect – winning probably affects ticket sales the most – but you can’t deny that it has some effect because nobody has given us numbers
x
those numbers haven’t come out yet. you’re going to deny that there is an effect on ticket sales because the numbers aren’t out, even though there is some evidence to suggest that they were a problem when Hicks was owner? That seems intellectually dishonest.
I think you’re projecting there.
I didn’t deny there is an effect on ticket sales. I simply asked how the ticket sales have changed this off-season given new ownership for 2010. If you and GhettoBear don’t know, that’s fine, but GhettoBear seemed to be convinced there is or will be some dramatic change in ticket sales with the new ownership. I haven’t seen any evidence (even anecdotal) that that’s been the case yet.
You ask for some evidence...
Yet ab03 just told you that sales numbers haven’t be released, which is absolutely shocking since your need for evidence normally carries much more weight than things like waiting for the process to finish. I gave you the anecdotal evidence in the form of comments made by the Rangers’ sales office that Tom Hicks role as owner of the team was cited as a reason for people not wanting to purchase ticket packages. I don’t have a link and I’m on my phone, but I’m fairly certain I read it on one of the AJM’s AM Things from the past few months.
If your point is that you won’t believe that things are better until it actually happens, then there’s very little we can say to prove to you otherwise. There’s some evidence based on what Greenberg has said and how he has said it that he will at least be a better face for the organization, but the numbers won’t come out for some time. If this is your stance, then that’s your opinion, though I and others here have been trying to show you that the signs are pointed in the right direction. We understand your point, but think it’s shortsighted. One of the things we do here is trying to get a feel for the direction the organization is headed by obsessively collecting snippets of information from various sources. Though prone to certain types of error, it allows us to get a better picture earlier than the casual fan. If it’s not your cup of tea, feel free to move along or provide contradictory evidence.
If Brad Pitt is playing Beane who do you want playing you?
JD: Eddie Guardado.
by GhettoBear04 on Mar 5, 2010 7:41 PM CST via mobile up reply actions
x
Yet ab03 just told you that sales numbers haven’t be released, which is absolutely shocking since your need for evidence normally carries much more weight than things like waiting for the process to finish. I gave you the anecdotal evidence in the form of comments made by the Rangers’ sales office that Tom Hicks role as owner of the team was cited as a reason for people not wanting to purchase ticket packages. I don’t have a link and I’m on my phone, but I’m fairly certain I read it on one of the AJM’s AM Things from the past few months.
Let’s recap:
1) You listed better ticket sales with new owners as one of your points for a better outlook.
2) I said, “OK,” agreeing that that would be a good thing. But I asked you how you know this will change with the new owners. Yes, 2010 season ticket sales numbers aren’t out, but one would think a dramatic change there would have been reported in the press. No such thing though, so all we have is your anecdotal point involving some employees complaining about their boss. Sorry if I’m unconvinced on that point.
If your point is that you won’t believe that things are better until it actually happens, then there’s very little we can say to prove to you otherwise. There’s some evidence based on what Greenberg has said and how he has said it that he will at least be a better face for the organization, but the numbers won’t come out for some time. If this is your stance, then that’s your opinion, though I and others here have been trying to show you that the signs are pointed in the right direction. We understand your point, but think it’s shortsighted. One of the things we do here is trying to get a feel for the direction the organization is headed by obsessively collecting snippets of information from various sources. Though prone to certain types of error, it allows us to get a better picture earlier than the casual fan. If it’s not your cup of tea, feel free to move along or provide contradictory evidence.
To your general point about things in the future being unprovable and thus both sides here making cases for what are ultimately just predictions, I agree.
On the point about collective “snippets of information” I am fine with that and do the same. But snippets of information can be interpreted very differently, and the interpretations of snippets related to this matter are entirely one-sided here. And that’s fine, still a great site for information and, occasionally, informed and rational discussion. Just not a good characteristic of any group interested in arriving at the reality of a given situation.
The Purke situation is a great example. You have two people saying two different things. “We never offered over $4M” and “We had a deal to offer $6M.” One side is clearly lying. And there are strong ulterior motives that can be made for both sides to lie. Seems to me like a situation that should produce, among impartial, intelligent people, something close to a 50/50 division of interpretation of this snippet of information. Instead, not one single poster pointed out the obvious ulterior motive Nolan Ryan would have for lying about the matter. Not one. And this among a group where the reaction to Purke rejecting $4M last year was heavily anti-Purke, even to the point of many here strongly defending Hicks and the Rangers for not offering more than $4M.
But now Nolan Ryan is not only to be believed on the matter beyond any shadow of a doubt, but it is also extremely bad of Hicks to not have offered (or not having been able to offer) more than $4M.
You seem like one of the more rational people here, GhettoBear. You’re clearly able to make a more rational and intelligent argument than several of the others that have responded. I would figure you to be a little more skeptical of any situation where agreement on an unproven, future matter is 100%. That’s usually a pretty strong short indicator.
Why should "impartial, intelligent people"
be forced to make a 50/50 division of their trust in Rangers-related statements by Tom Hicks and Nolan Ryan? I don’t believe Ryan’s somehow constrained to telling the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, but given Hicks’ take on his situation vis-á-vis over (at least) the past 6-12 months, I don’t see any reason why an impartial, intelligent person wouldn’t be more inclined to believe Ryan’s version of reality.
This isn’t to say there’s no reason to doubt Ryan, or to consider his ulterior motives. But to claim that any impartial, intelligent person must necessarily deem the choice between the stories Ryan and Hicks are telling as a toss-up seems not at all impartial.
x
But to claim that any impartial, intelligent person must necessarily deem the choice between the stories Ryan and Hicks are telling as a toss-up
And I didn’t claim that.
.
Seems to me like a situation that should produce, among impartial, intelligent people, something close to a 50/50 division of interpretation of this snippet of information.
Right.
Among a group of such people, the breakdown in those believing one and those believing the other should be pretty even. At least a lot more even than 100% agreement without so much as even one person pointing out the most obvious possible ulterior motive of one of the two people in question.
I didn’t say each individual person should be split on the question.
This is what I figured you'd respond.
I’ll rephrase, though I think it amounts to more or less the same thing:
This isn’t to say there’s no reason to doubt Ryan, or to consider his ulterior motives. But to claim that on average, impartial, intelligent person must necessarily deem the choice between the stories Ryan and Hicks are telling as a toss-up seems not at all impartial.
Also, so you're not laboring
under any misapprehension: I, for one, think there’s reason to question Ryan’s version of events. And I thought I remembered others pointing out that Ryan had a good reason for rationalizing his handling of the situation.
But I also think that Hicks’ recent track record in terms of straight-talk about his holdings is very weak, and I have no reason to label Ryan’s record similarly.
x
And I thought I remembered others pointing out that Ryan had a good reason for rationalizing his handling of the situation.
“tklawless” was the only person to suggest Ryan was the one lying. And interestingly he claims to have a good source (oh, the horror) on the Rangers pre-draft discussions.
The rest of the thread is filled with emotional “intangibles” type nonsense. “JBlmakenee”, who also said Hicks was lying, even had to explain that he was “just not jumping to the most extreme conclusion every time I hear his name” simply because he pointed out that the situation might not have been as simple as Adam J. Morris had concluded in his emotion-filled summary of the quotes.
So +1 for “tklawless” at least. He has all of 46 posts in over 2 years of being registered here, so unfortunately his counter-balance on the culture here is probably pretty limited.
Anyway, this is nothing unique on the internet. At FreeRepublic, Obama is the devil and all things he says and does are evil. Vice versa for GWB and any Republican at DemocraticUnderground or DailyKos. And anyone saying otherwise must be shouted down and hopefully banned. Same thing here on this issue.
This is both
an extremely jaundiced review of that thread and non-responsive to the salient points of the discussion.
I can only conclude that you’re anything but impartial.
Certainly
an impressive use of your thesaurus. But it doesn’t really cover the fact that you posted nothing specific to refute the points.
You are definitely good at pointless semantics in place of well-developed arguments though. I’m beginning to see why you are so quick to want dissenters on this issue purged from the community.
Are you really this stupid?
Do you not realize that refuting your logic or argumentative processes is a well-developed argument? You don’t get to discount it just because you want to argue about something else.
I can tell you don’t have much rhetorical skill, so I’m willing to cut some slack.
What blather.
First of all, I don’t want anyone “purged.” And I write the way I write.
I could’ve pointed out that you’ve already had to admit that your assertion that “not one single poster pointed out the obvious ulterior motive Nolan Ryan would have for lying about the matter” was simply wrong. I could’ve also gone into more detail, noting that your skewed read of the thread to which you linked included posts from bigsteve, hightowersmith, and JBlmakenee (your selective citation of his comments notwithstanding) that question Ryan’s decision-making and the story he gave about it. I could’ve pointed out that these views are not incompatible with the conclusion that Hicks’ version of events also seems self-serving, at best, especially given the evidence and Hicks’ prior track record.
But why would I bother? In our previous exchange, you complained about the speed and number of specific questions I posed to you, and then ~ rather than answer them ~ you ducked and ran. And in this thread, you’ve failed to respond to my other substantive points and questions above and below.
And now you’re complaining that I’m not posting more specific points? That’s simply laughable. Along with others, I’ve repeatedly pointed to the holes in your arguments. I’m not surprised that you don’t like it. But to pretend that it’s not happening is just delusional.
Talk about delusional.
I haven’t ducked and run from anything you have posted. I’m just fine with letting you have the last word. When someone is repeatedly posting multiple posts in response to each post of mine to other people, it’s pretty clear he needs it. Badly. And that’s fine with me.
And no, you haven’t poked any “hole” in any of my arguments. The Greenberg discussion started with people completely dismissing the possibility that he was only contributing $3M in cash to the deal, and it ended with everyone involved acknowledging that was definitely a possibility.
Anyway, you can have your 4-5 posts in response now. Please note that as with the Greenberg thread, my exiting the thread isn’t me “ducking and running” from you, but simply letting you assuage your OCD with the final word.
Your words, not mine:
I’ll let you post your next 20 questions and duck out here.
As for the rest of it: Meh. You appear incapable of having an extended exchange without eventually spewing the sort of garbage that litters your post above, so I’ll leave you to it.
Good luck with all that.
I don't know philkid3's answer,
but I’d point out that if I had a group of impartial, intelligent people, and I gave them a scenario in which two parties told contradictory narratives backed by roughly equivalent evidence, I would not expect 50 percent of the group to unequivocally support the one party’s version, and the other half to fully support the other’s.
Instead, I’d expect the people in the group to note that they had a difficult time deciding which side was telling the truth, and to have a discussion about the evidence behind and believability of each story.
Hicks is the only person saying he offered 4M
There are actually several sources hinting that the club offered more.
And whether Purke was worth that much is moot. We drafted Purke based on the idea that we could sign him. We wouldn’t have wasted a pick had we not been able to. I don’t see why it makes any sense for Ryan not to throw Purke under the bus if they were the ones that reneged on initial draft conversations.
Your “other story” is stupid. If Hicks was only going to pay 4M and Ryan never figured that out, then that is as much Hicks’ fault as it is that he bankrupted HSG.
x
There are actually several sources hinting that the club offered more.
“Hinted?”
And do you have a link to these sources?
We drafted Purke based on the idea that we could sign him.
Of course. Because we had a team president vouching for the family’s character. Oops.
I don’t see why it makes any sense for Ryan not to throw Purke under the bus if they were the ones that reneged on initial draft conversations.
Because he was the one most responsible for the Rangers drafting Purke. It would have said a lot about his judgement as well. Easier to blame Hicks and the financial situation.
If Hicks was only going to pay 4M and Ryan never figured that out, then that is as much Hicks’ fault as it is that he bankrupted HSG.
Ha. Funny how this works.
Umm, everything
"Dying ain't hard. It’s living in the wake of a thorough public humiliation that’s hard.--JDT217
It largely revolves around the fact that we'll no longer have an owner borrowing money from MLB to make payroll
So in addition to, you know, actually being able to make payroll and stay solvent:
1) We’ll have a better shot of signing the guys we draft (and won’t have to ask MLB permission before offering a contract dollar figure).
2) We can add impact players with higher salaries at the deadline
3) We can increase payroll going forward
That last one is, I think, an underrated difficulty that was going to plague this team as Andrus, Feliz, etc. reached arbitration eligibility and were rewarded with large salary increases. If Hicks was the owner for multiple years going forward and was unable to increase payroll even for arbitration-eligible guys already on the rosters, we’d have had to start shedding young players like the Marlins. That wouldn’t have been good.
"Dying ain't hard. It’s living in the wake of a thorough public humiliation that’s hard.--JDT217
Thanks for being the first to finally make a serious attempt at answering the question.
I was told in a post here recently that this place is really big into quantifiable data and “facts” over emotion and “intangibles.” Hard to see how that applies, even remotely, to several of the regulars I’ve seen responding here.
That said, on to your points:
1) We’ll have a better shot of signing the guys we draft (and won’t have to ask MLB permission before offering a contract dollar figure).
The Rangers were never going to offer Purke more than $4 million. Nor should they have. Nor should any owner have.
You don’t have to believe what Tom Hicks tells the press about the matter, but you might want to be a little more skeptical about what Nolan Ryan tells them about it as well. He is the one that drove the Rangers all the way into dealing with that kooky family.
2) We can add impact players with higher salaries at the deadline.
3) We can increase payroll going forward
“Can” is a long way from “will.”
How do you know this will happen?
Sounds a whole lot like "Change!" to me.
I’m usually skeptical when that’s the only selling point.
And how do you know “can” applies here anyway? Maybe the new owners can’t substantially increase the payroll.
Maybe the new owners can’t substantially increase the payroll.
Then I highly doubt they would have been approved by MLB, who has repeatedly stated that they se the Rangers as a “sleeping giant” (their words, not mine). Add into that fact that the two local majority partners are very wealthy, along with the youth and talent level of said youth, and it is not too difficult to see payroll rising. Be that incrementally through arb raises, or via big splash type trade, it is going up, no doubt about that.
"Back on the scene, with a gangsta lean" RW
"When you have a weapon on your shoulder like he has, you can be cool." RW on Perez
And the little bastard threw it for a swinging strike three in a 3-2 count. He’s blessed. And ballsy.
Yup, and re the "can is a long way from will", it's better to be capable of it than being incapable, which seems to be where HSG was for the latter part of its ownership
"Dying ain't hard. It’s living in the wake of a thorough public humiliation that’s hard.--JDT217
x
+7.6% 2006-2009 CAGR for player expenses (according to Forbes):
Not sure what you think it should have been.
OK. Fair points. (Thanks.)
Then I highly doubt they would have been approved by MLB
The alternative was leaving Hicks as sole (basically) owner and the team loaded with HSG’s debt. Why would they not approve new owners bringing in new lenders that could cash out those whose loans were being defaulted on by HSG (even with no payroll hike promises)?
Add into that fact that the two local majority partners are very wealthy
Tom Hicks is very wealthy as well. Just because someone is wealthy doesn’t mean they are willing to plow more money into a losing venture. And sports franchises are notoriously bad investments.
along with the youth and talent level of said youth, and it is not too difficult to see payroll rising
Sure, but by how much? Forbes showed Rangers payroll (including all benefits and bonuses) rising from $73M to $91M from 2006-2009. That’s a pretty healthy +7.6% CAGR, even through a bad economic recession. Will the new owners continue at that rate?
Be that incrementally through arb raises, or via big splash type trade, it is going up, no doubt about that.
And I think that’s the main source of the “Change!” hysteria. But it’s far from certain. We don’t even know how much each of these owners is contributing of their own money yet and how much debt they will leave on the club’s balance sheet.
As another group of Americans that bought the “Change!” line is now learning, to even their own admitted growing frustration, financial (and other) promises don’t always go as planned. And that’s especially the case when the numbers and other specifics on which such hopes are being based are intentionally kept vague.
Bleah, you have a political axe to grind (among others)
And I tried to discuss baseball. Kthanks, won’t do that again.
"Back on the scene, with a gangsta lean" RW
"When you have a weapon on your shoulder like he has, you can be cool." RW on Perez
And the little bastard threw it for a swinging strike three in a 3-2 count. He’s blessed. And ballsy.
What political axe do I have to grind?
And I tried to discuss baseball. Kthanks, won’t do that again.
Not sure why as you made fair points and I responded directly to them with points related to the topic, but OK.
"Change!"
Could you work that in to just a teensy bit more posts, please.
"Back on the scene, with a gangsta lean" RW
"When you have a weapon on your shoulder like he has, you can be cool." RW on Perez
And the little bastard threw it for a swinging strike three in a 3-2 count. He’s blessed. And ballsy.
OK.
You didn’t answer my question though.
Anyway, you don’t appear to have any specific evidence for how and why the payroll will substantially increase. You’re not alone in that here clearly.
I think you will find over time that the current payroll is at the general level it is and has been because that is the level at which the Rangers generally break even given mid-to-upper 20,000s attendance and current ticket prices. Hopefully attendance rises with a better club (though that won’t necessarily be due to an ownership change), but if not, here we are.
In other words, it’s not that the previous administration was evil/stupid/whatever (although that’s certainly more fun and easy I realize), just that the policy in question was logically based on the circumstances. That’s often how life goes.
Hey dumbass...
stop it with the “change” bullshit.
"The only good is knowledge and the only evil is ignorance."-Socrates
by slc ranger on Mar 5, 2010 5:28 PM CST up reply actions 1 recs
I'm sorry...
How could I forget that the new ownership group is required to release to the public (or maybe just to you?) the exact breakdown of how much each of the ownership group is agreeing to pay, what profit margins they are going to insist on, and what level of spending they plan on implementing before they’ve even officially bought the team?
Silly me…
If Brad Pitt is playing Beane who do you want playing you?
JD: Eddie Guardado.
by GhettoBear04 on Mar 5, 2010 5:46 PM CST via mobile up reply actions
Odd answer.
You are the one who made the claims about much lower debt, much higher payrolls, and other financial improvements. I was simply asking questions, based upon your claims, that enable you to be so sure of these things.
If you are just hoping these things will come true (and, hey, maybe they will as we all would like that) and don’t have specifics for now, it’s OK to say that.
I can't be sure.
I’m using deductive reasoning, not the Rangers Financial 2010 Report. I have provided some anecdotal evidence, passed through reporters, that selling tickets was growing difficult under Tom Hicks regime. Before your further break down, sentence by sentence, block quote by block quote, perhaps you could provide some evidence for any of your claims.
If Brad Pitt is playing Beane who do you want playing you?
JD: Eddie Guardado.
by GhettoBear04 on Mar 5, 2010 11:56 PM CST via mobile up reply actions
I’m using deductive reasoning, not the Rangers Financial 2010 Report. I have provided some anecdotal evidence, passed through reporters, that selling tickets was growing difficult under Tom Hicks regime
OK. I got that. I just don’t think there’s any real evidence yet that ticket sales have substantially increased with the new ownership. I hope that happens, and I think it will, but I think that will have more to do with an improving product on the field.
Before your further break down, sentence by sentence, block quote by block quote, perhaps you could provide some evidence for any of your claims.
I have provided evidence for most of my claims. But here I was simply responding to your claims as to why the new ownership means a drastically improved outlook for the Rangers.
I think if you’re honest with yourself you can see that most of your optimism is based in a dislike of the incumbent than anything substantive about the largely unknown new team.
"Sports franchises are notoriously bad investments"
You’re an idiot.
Sports teams are owned by fantistically wealthy, successful individuals. So these people that have made killings in various business ventures all decided to make “notoriously bad investments”? If sports franchises all lose money they wouldn’t exist and people with a keen eye at making money wouldn’t buy them.
Let’s look at a few examples of how and why baseball franchises go through financial straits.
1 Rangers – are easy. The issue wasn’t the Rangers not making money but the dipshit leveraging the shit out of them.
2 Padres – divorce with the husband and wife owning 50% of a huge investment that has to be liquidated.
3 Cubs – the Tribune’s financial troubles not the Cubs.
4 Expos – a lot of machinations ultimately resulting in Hendry and Loria making a shitload of money.
"You promised me, Eckstein, that if I followed you, you would walk with me always. But I noticed that during the most trying periods of my life, there have only been one set of prints in the sand. Why, when I have needed you most, have you not been there for me?" David Eckstein replied, "Because my little legs had gotten tired, and you were carrying me." And I looked down and saw that I was still carrying David Eckstein.
Then he grounded out weakly to second.
x
Sports teams are owned by fantistically wealthy, successful individuals. So these people that have made killings in various business ventures all decided to make "notoriously bad investments"?
Sure. Because they aren’t meant to be investments by many owners. They are toys.
If sports franchises all lose money they wouldn’t exist and people with a keen eye at making money wouldn’t buy them.
I didn’t say they all lose money. Just that they are generally bad investments.
Sure it is.
Some franchises make good returns. Many don’t. That’s why this is a widely held belief:
Since the purchase of a sports team is primarily a lifestyle investment—done for love of the sport rather than for financial returns—it’s important to have a healthy interest in the team one decides to purchase.
ok
well 91M is not very high if you include those numbers. Without bonuses and benefits, the number should be up at at least 90M. We were at 68. Unacceptable.
x
Without bonuses and benefits, the number should be up at at least 90M.
OK.
1) How did you arrive at that number, specifically?
2) In which season do you think the new ownership will first have the payroll above $90M before benefits and bonuses?
Far superior baseball market.
They have consistently outdrawn the Rangers in attendance and that at a significantly higher average ticket price (40% higher in 2008, for example).
sigh
i guess you’re in the camp that last season’s attendance should dictate the following season’s salary.
blow me fuckface
You're not very good at this.
Which probably explains why you have to resort to emotion over reason.
Seattle consistently draws substantially higher revenues from the main source of any team’s revenues. But the Rangers should have a higher payroll because, well, you say so.
Good luck with that.
you're fucking stellar at this
a losing team will not draw fans. but that does not mean that an owner shouldn’t put money into player salary to jumpstart the winning. hicks believed this at one point when he went on the spending spree of the early oughts. problem was, he had a terrible GM who made all the wrong decisions.
Anyway, I don’t know why I’m arguing any of this. It’s not like I can’t identify players that the Rangers should have signed or kept but didn’t because of ridiculously tight purse strings. An 87 win team is supposed to spend, regardless of what previous revenues were. We are a top 5 media market. To look at previous attendance figures during losing seasons to conclude that high salaries can’t be sustained is moronic.
x
It’s not like I can’t identify players that the Rangers should have signed or kept but didn’t because of ridiculously tight purse strings
It is exactly like that though unfortunately.
Seattle doesn’t have a 40% higher average ticket price because it’s some huge winner compared to the Rangers. You clearly haven’t thought through this very well.
I've already identified 2
and there were much better options for DH out there than an aging Vlad and much more dependable options than Harden and Lewis
Don't you remember?
This is the guy who said he has secret sources, etc. Just more texas_dawg bullshit.
Like I told you
No idea what a “texas_dawg” is.
And I’m not sure how my source on the deal has anything to do with my question.
But here you are, once again replying after a post of mine yet failing to even make an attempt at any argument. That’s definitely not “bullshit” I’m sure.
No, just about me.
Look, given how you automatically dismiss anything I post or ask without explaining why, I’m sure you are an extremely intelligent, very well-educated person.
So in the future, why don’t you just lay out the specifics behind your reason for dismissing everything with your little sarcastic one-liners? Or are you needing to hide something?
x
You came in with some pompous, utterly untrustworthy horseshit that you laid down with some serious heavy-handedness, and as a result, I think you’re not very credible and I don’t think anyone should listen to anything you have to say.
You don’t like it? Attribute your sources or provide even the most basic basis for your “inside knowledge.” Otherwise, you’re just a guy to be dismissed, even when you’re just giving your opinion.
You clearly aren't capable of thinking for yourself.
Or making arguments for what you want to believe.
Just as you instantly dismissed my Greenberg $3M claim yet proceeded to show in the ensuing discussion that you know next to nothing about finance.
At least you know your limitations well enough to keep your posts short and not attempt to address the actual discussion. Probably the best way to go.
Huh?
Where did even talk about finance at all? Don’t just say stupid shit that can be easily proven wrong.
I didn’t instantly dismiss your number, I instantly dismissed your credibility.
It’s actually not a very subtle distinction, so hopefully a genius like yourself can grasp it.
x
Don’t just say stupid shit that can be easily proven wrong.
That’s just it. You haven’t done anything to disprove what I said. You just freaked out about the source thing and refused to even discuss the topic.
Others discussed the financial angle, and, though you hung around doing your thing, you were clearly unable to keep up.
No, I just don't care.
But I do feel satisfied that you’ll never be taken seriously here, and you’ll have to change your screen name.
I see.
100 or so posts and counting about “not caring.” Not just an inability to think or argue intelligently. Got it.
And I’m not sure why I would have to change my screen name or what that is supposed to mean.
As far as being “taken seriously here,” I think I’ll live.
No, you won't.
You feel the need to make long, drawn-out posts responding to every clause of somebody disagreeing with you, which is going to happen more and more frequently.
I’m anticipating a rather quick fade-out from you.
You seem to be much more interested
in everyone agreeing with you and everyone else than in mature discussion.
You're right
At least in the sense that I’m not interested in mature discussion (whatever that means). I don’t really care about anyone agreeing with me, though.
But I’m always interested in seeing some goon with an agenda go down. It’s what keeps this site’s quality up.
x
I don’t really care about anyone agreeing with me, though.
I don’t doubt you actually believe that.
Which is too bad.
Anyway, good luck, little kid. I hope you think offline a little more than you do with your internet trolling.
I don't doubt it.
Keep telling yourself that the only reason you aren’t able to address my arguments with any specifics or any knowledge of finance is because you aren’t interested.
Funny stuff.
I love it...
some know it all new poster with “sources”.
You have posted nothing on this site that has shown any intelligence whatsoever. You’re talking to people who are at least twice as smart as you and acting like your extensive knowledge of all things is superior. When you clearly have no idea what you’re talking about. It’s sad really.
You’re a clown and need to just go away.
"The only good is knowledge and the only evil is ignorance."-Socrates
We can only hope
he pulled an Ed Harris and drank Joe Boo’s rum…
"calmer than you are dude" Walter (Big Lebowski)
by Arlington Stadium Legend on Mar 5, 2010 12:36 PM CST up reply actions
Nice
Yo bartender, Jobu needs a refill!
"Dying ain't hard. It’s living in the wake of a thorough public humiliation that’s hard.--JDT217
Not surprising.
He’s still officially the majority owner, and he’ll still have one of the larger individual stakes in the club in the new ownership arrangement. And of course he’s also a big Rangers fan.
Uhhhhh
And of course he’s also a big Rangers fan.
We have no evidence of that. Now if you had said…
And of course he’s also a big douche that needs to gtfo and never return.
There would be universal agreement.
I am Jurickson Profar son of judeska and chesmond.. And I was born ready! ready to play baseball!!- Jurickson Profar 2/15/2010
by Aquaman, Esq. on Mar 5, 2010 1:24 PM CST up reply actions 1 recs
Too morbid to wish for a foul ball to attack him?
"Josey drives to games???
I always assumed he rides in on his high horse"
jam0152
Martin Perez, "Mucho queso"
i was thinking more
like a flying bat shard through the heart
You hear about the "Electric Arms", they're all the rage.
"If the Rangers have marked improvement in 2010, I'm going to need to give JD credit." Josey Wales, Feb. 10, 2010 11:45 AM CST
Or Nolan gives a big ol' glass of STFU and GTFO TOM, with a nice gift he bought on sale from target
"Josey drives to games???
I always assumed he rides in on his high horse"
jam0152
Martin Perez, "Mucho queso"
If the ball comes off of Vlad's bat
I surely will forgive him for all the years he tormented us…
Matt (Denver, CO): Congratulations, I heard you won a gold glove!
Klaw (1:18 PM) : Thanks, I had a great year at the plate!
The over/under
on remaining tweets Adam links to that the Rangers sale is about to fall through just dropped to 1.5
Go Rice Owls!
I'm not familiar with Adam's "tweet" links on the topic, and
I think the deal will get done at some point (hopefully sooner than later). But it is interesting that in March there are still enough “loose ends” needing to be tied down that they will make for a “busy month.”
WFAA has a short video interview w/Nolan up
He sez it’s possible that they’ll get it done by opening day, but you could kinda tell he wasn’t extremely confident about it.
It's not interesting in the way I think you mean here
All along we’ve been told to expect the sale to wrap up around opening day. For months we’ve been hearing that, why should that be “interesting”?
Freude, schoener Goetterfunken,
Tochter aus Elysium,
Wir betreten feuertrunken,
Himmlische dein Heiligtum.
The only thing that will ruin Opening Day is Tom Hicks is in attendance and he's visible.
Chuck Greenberg should throw out the 1st pitch with Nolan catching.
by TooLegitToQuit on Mar 5, 2010 1:21 PM CST via mobile reply actions
And they should burn an effigy of Hicks in the middle of Greene's Hill throughout the game.
I am Jurickson Profar son of judeska and chesmond.. And I was born ready! ready to play baseball!!- Jurickson Profar 2/15/2010
by Aquaman, Esq. on Mar 5, 2010 1:26 PM CST up reply actions
all restrooms should be renamed
Tom Hicks Memorial Shit Stops
You hear about the "Electric Arms", they're all the rage.
"If the Rangers have marked improvement in 2010, I'm going to need to give JD credit." Josey Wales, Feb. 10, 2010 11:45 AM CST
since everything's sponsored these days
how about the
Tom Hicks Memorial Shit Stops, complements of Jack in the Box Monster Tacos
It's baseball. You don't always get what you want, and you don't always want what you get. --Ed Coffin
by txranger7 on Mar 5, 2010 1:36 PM CST up reply actions 3 recs
HA
rec
You hear about the "Electric Arms", they're all the rage.
"If the Rangers have marked improvement in 2010, I'm going to need to give JD credit." Josey Wales, Feb. 10, 2010 11:45 AM CST
I'll Rec to that!
"Josey drives to games???
I always assumed he rides in on his high horse"
jam0152
Martin Perez, "Mucho queso"
Except
Tom Hicks isn’t dead…….. yet
Oh my god! What can it be? We're all doomed! Who's flying this thing?
-Wash
him being owner is almost over
"Josey drives to games???
I always assumed he rides in on his high horse"
jam0152
Martin Perez, "Mucho queso"
Way too much
foreplay before the buttsecks in this episode.
Who gives a shit what Josey says.............................
by Lil' Jonny Donuts on Mar 5, 2010 8:21 PM CST reply actions
I'm with you Jon Boy...
although I will continue to look out of the corner of my eye until I see someone dragging off a plump corpse.
If the Rangers don't make the play-offs this year I'm gonna go all Epic Bearded Man on your ass.
Tiredhead
Major tiredhead from reading all that crap from Tom Hicks, I mean Rangers100.
The other sports are just sports. Baseball is a love. ~Bryant Gumbel, 1981
by TxStCa on Mar 5, 2010 11:21 PM CST via mobile reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
