The Rangers file for bankruptcy


We’re still light on the details (Maury has the press release and some analysis), but the Texas Rangers filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy this morning. It was a voluntary filing that is being characterized as a “prepackaged” bankruptcy proceeding, which means that all the terms of the bankruptcy are agreed
to before filing, which can result in a shorter turnaround time.  The team is characterizing it as a necessary step to allow Hicks Sports Group to sell the team to Chuck Greenberg and Nolan Ryan. The target date according to the filing: “midsummer.” You may recall that the Cubs did something like this prior to their sale to the Ricketteseseses.

This just came down so the details are still a bit sketchy, but something that sticks out to me is that the creditors of Hicks Sports Group — the ones who have been causing all the problems — aren’t part of the filing. If that’s the case, how could they have agreed to the terms of the “prepackaging?” Moreover, the verbiage in the press release says that the deal will provide “for all Rangers creditors to be paid in full.”  That can’t be technically right, because if there is enough money in the sale to fully satisfy all outstanding debts, the bankruptcy filing — which basically says that part X owes creditors more money than it has — would be tossed out, right?  This deal can’t be a “paid in full” thing. It has to be a “we’ve been paid enough to be happy” thing.

Another possibility — a pretty good one actually — is that there is separate deal in place between Hicks Sports Group and the creditors to settle the outside debt on some sort of payment plan or something else, but to do it outside the framework of the Rangers sale.*  If that were the case it would not necessarily have to be a part of this bankruptcy case. We just don’t know, however, based merely on the terms of the bankruptcy filing.  I will say that it would be pretty reckless for the team to file like this without any creditor signoff, official or otherwise, because it would invite the sort of proceeding — creditors going deep into the Rangers’ business — that they had been threatening to do back when they were at each others’ throats.

The primary upshot: there has to more going on here than meets the press release, probably in the form of some backroom dealing that will (a) keep the dirty financial laundry of the Rangers, Hicks and Major League Baseball out of bankruptcy court discovery proceedings but (b) makes the creditors happy. Otherwise, there’s no point to this filing.

Secondary upshot: if this is going down as the Rangers say it is, the team will be out of ownership limbo within a couple of months and, hopefully, able to resume normal operations, sign draft picks and add payroll in a way that a team in their competitive position should.

More on this, obviously, as the story develops.

*I’m aware that most of the debt at issue is not technically owed by the Rangers — it’s owed by Hicks Sports Group, thereby meaning that the big creditors like Monarch Alternative Captial couldn’t really go after the Rangers. But that’s kind of beside the point. All along these creditors have been making noises about dragging the team itself into bankruptcy if they weren’t paid, and it the suggestion has been strong that they would try to advance legal theories — however novel — that would allow them to encumber the team in order to get the money they are owed by Hicks.  For MLB and the Rangers to make this filing today, they have to think that such a move is not a threat.  This underscores my belief that some sort of side deal between Hicks and the creditors has to have taken place.

UPDATE: Red Sox sign outfielder Chris Young to a two-year, $13 million deal

Chris Young Getty

UPDATE: Ken Rosenthal reports that Young will receive a two-year, $13 million contract from the Red Sox.

Monday, 1:47 PM: Veteran outfielder Chris Young thrived in a platoon role for the Yankees this past season and now he’s headed to the rival Red Sox to fill a similar role, signing a multi-year deal with Boston according to Ken Rosenthal of

Young was once an everyday center fielder for the Diamondbacks, making the All-Star team in 2010 at age 26, but for the past 3-4 years he’s gotten 300-350 plate appearances in a part-time role facing mostly left-handed pitching. He hit .252 with 14 homers and a .773 OPS for the Yankees, but prior to that failed to top a .700 OPS in 2013 or 2014.

Given the Red Sox’s outfield depth–Mookie Betts, Rusney Castillo, Jackie Bradley Jr., and Brock Holt even with Hanley Ramirez back in the infield–Young is unlikely to work his way into everyday playing time at age 32, but he should get another 300 or so plate appearances while also providing a veteran fallback option. And it’s possible his arrival clears the way for a trade.

Marlins hire Juan Nieves as pitching coach

Screen Shot 2015-12-01 at 8.43.08 AM
1 Comment

This is not a terribly big deal compared to the rumors of who the Marlins want to hire as their hitting coach, but it’s news all the same: Miami has hired Juan Nieves as their pitching coach.

Nieves replaces Chuck Hernandez who was let go immediately after the season ended. Under Hernandez Marlins pitchers allowed 4.19 runs a game and had an ERA of 4.02, striking out 1152 batters and walking 508 in 1,427 innings. As far as runs per game go, that was around middle of the pack in the National League, just a hair better than league average. The strikeout/walk ratio, however, was third to last in the NL.

Nieves, a former Brewers hurler who once tossed a no-hitter, was most recently the Red Sox’ pitching coach, serving from the beginning of the 2013 season until his dismissal in May of this year.

In baseball, if you lose the World Series you still get a ring

ST. LOUIS - APRIL 3:  Detail view of the St. Louis Cardinals 2006 World Series Ring at Busch Stadium on April 3, 2007 in St. Louis, Missouri.  (Photo by Scott Rovak/Getty Images)

“Second place is first loser” — some jerk, probably.

The funny thing about “winning is everything” culture in sports is that it’s revered, primarily, by people with the least amount of skin in the game. Self-proclaimed “Super Fans” and talk radio hosts and guys like that. People who may claim to live and breathe sports but who, for the most part, have other things in their lives. Jobs and families and hobbies and stuff. Winning is everything for them on the weekend at, like, Buffalo Wild Wings or in their man cave.

Athletes — whose actual job is to play sports — like to win too. They’re certainly more focused and committed to winning than Joe Super Fan is, what with it being their actual lives and such. But you see far less “winning is everything” sentiment from them. In interviews they talk about how they hate to lose but, with a little bit of distance, they almost always talk about appreciating efforts in a well-played loss. They rarely talk about big losses — even championship losses — as failures or choke jobs or disgraces of one stripe or another.

All of which makes this story by Tim Rohan in the New York Times fun and interesting. It’s about championship rings for the non-championship winners. The 2014 Royals — winners of the A.L. pennant but losers of the World Series — are featured, and the story of rings for World Series losers is told. Mike Stanton, who played on a ton of pennant and World Series-winning teams with the Yankees and Braves, talks about his various rings and how, even though the Braves lost in the World Series that year, 1991 is his favorite.

Also mentioned: George Steinbrenner’s thoughts about rings for World Series losers. You will likely not be surprised about his sentiments on the matter.

Wait, what is the non-tender deadline again?

Screen Shot 2015-12-01 at 7.03.34 AM
1 Comment

For the next day and a half you’ll hear a lot about the non-tender deadline and/or players being tendered or not tendered a contract. Here, in case you’re unaware, is what that means.

By midnight on Wednesday teams have to decide whether to tender contracts to arbitration-eligible players. If they do, the team retains control over the player. Now, to be clear, the team is not simply “tendering” the player the actual contract specifying what he’ll be paid. Think of it as more of a token gesture — a placeholder contract — at that point the team and the player can negotiate salary for 2016 and, if they can’t come to an agreement over that (i.e. an agreement avoiding arbitration) they will proceed to submit proposed salaries to one another and have a salary arbitration early in the spring.

If the team non-tenders a player, however, that player immediately becomes a free agent, eligible to sign anywhere with no strings attached.

Basically, the calculus is whether or not the team thinks the player in question is worth the low end of what he might receive in arbitration. Or, put differently, if the guy isn’t worth what he made in 2015, he’s probably going to be non-tendered.

MLB Trade Rumors has a handy “Non-Tender Tracker” which lists the status of the couple hundred arbitration eligible players and whether or not they’ve been tendered a contract. We’ll, of course, make mention of notable non-tender guys as their status for 2016 becomes known over the next day or two.