Skip to content

Judge's ruling means creditors could block Rangers sale

Jun 22, 2010, 3:30 PM EDT

Bad news for the Rangers: the creditors win a victory that could derail the sale of the team and put the kibosh on their trade deadline plans.

The judge in the Texas Rangers bankruptcy case ruled today and — contrary to the statements he made from the bench last week in which he suggested he was leaning in the Rangers’ favor — held that the creditors’ interests are “imparied” by the bankruptcy plan. That means they can vote to accept or reject the prepackaged plan that the team had come up with. Of course, the creditors have said they would reject the
prepackaged plan, so unless something dramatic happens soon, they probably will.

I haven’t read the entire decision yet — Maury’s got it in case you’re interested — and I will obviously update with nuances that matter, but the upshot of this is that the plan for the Rangers to emerge from bankruptcy quickly (i.e. before the trading deadline) is in serious jeopardy. It also means that the whole sale of the team to Chuck Greenberg and Nolan Ryan could unravel, and the team could be put up for bid again. Obviously if the team doesn’t emerge from bankruptcy and isn’t sold before the end of July the Rangers will be in no position to make any big moves before the deadline.

That sound you hear is every Rangers fan in the world screaming bloody murder to the heavens above.  Once they get done venting, however, they should refocus those screams at Tom Hicks because he’s the one that got everything in such a mess to begin with.

  1. APBA Guy - Jun 22, 2010 at 5:12 PM

    By all means lets focus on the parties that matter here, MLB and especially Tom Hicks. From a fan’s perspective there are no sympathetic parties here, and unfortunately they all can’t lose in this deal. But I like the Rangers team on the field, and some competition with the Angels is good in the AL West. Being unable to move on a star pitcher may not be the worst thing in the world, especially if it mans not having to carry Roy O’s salary next year.

  2. Ron Thompson - Jun 22, 2010 at 7:12 PM

    Craig, I told you last week that no one with any sense would draw any conclusions on how a judge is going to rule based upon his comments before both sides make their argument.

  3. Craig Calcaterra - Jun 22, 2010 at 8:43 PM

    That you did, Ron. And I will admit that in this instance I was mistaken. I think, generally speaking, the proposition I argued for last week (if the judge says he’s inclined to rule one way then he’s really, really inclined to rule that way) still stands, but I will grant you that I was very, very wrong in this case.

Leave Comment

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!

Top 10 MLB Player Searches
  1. B. Crawford (2744)
  2. Y. Puig (2414)
  3. G. Stanton (2360)
  4. C. Correa (2354)
  5. G. Springer (2263)
  1. H. Pence (2171)
  2. J. Hamilton (2079)
  3. M. Teixeira (1873)
  4. H. Ramirez (1865)
  5. J. Fernandez (1849)