Here is one from Curt:
Just listened to another Rangers segment where you mentioned that Hicks has been the biggest obstacle this franchise has faced for the past several years (don't disagree). You also patted yourself on the back for being on top of this from the get-go, seeming to imply that not too long ago BAD Radio was the lone voice crying in the wilderness when it came to Tom Hicks. I know I've heard Dan mention this in the past, as well.
This may be true, but what I remember as the BAD Radio stance was that Jon Daniels was a lousy GM. I'm sure you railed against Hicks also, but I don't recall you ever comparing him unfavorably to a fern. What I remember most is how both you and Dan dismissed the Ranger farm system, saying that Daniels should not get credit for something that had not produced results at the major league level. Now that the system is starting to bear fruit and Jon Daniels is seen as one of the better GMs in the game, it seems like you're ignoring that previous stance and focusing instead on the Hicks one. I guess I'm not the most devoted listener, so maybe the amount of air time dedicated to Hicks' ineptitude vs Jon Daniels' was 10 to 1 and I happened to listen at the wrong time. But for someone like me, it seems incredibly disengenuous to position yourselves as being first on the scene in uncovering the true cause of the Rangers' failings, when at the time it appeared to run a distant second to an opinion you've swept under the rug.
Please tell me I'm wrong. I want to believe in my heroes.
Curt in the Hinterlands
Thanks, Curt for your email.
I am a bit confused here on your direction. It appears you are comparing 2 different opinions about the same team and allowing one to influence how you feel about the other (which is a fair thing to do).
First things first: Our Tom Hicks view has not changed in a long, long time. Especially not since the "owner has to stop writing checks" interview with Dale Hansen.
How that relates to Jon Daniels is anyone's guess, but in October of 2008, I wrote This very controversial essay which has likely been the least well-received thing I have ever written.
The premise was that at the time (easy to say now) the Rangers were continuing in disarray with several consecutive bad moves in a row (it seemed) and another bottom finish. The fruits of the Teixeira trade had not been realized and the question was "what if the GM had not made any moves at all?"
Surely, an unrealistic question, but at the time - with the Danks trade, the Adrian Gonzalez/Chris Young trade, and a few other moves that had not exactly worked well, a conversation that was tailor-made for blogs or segments.
Obviously, the Braves trade changed everything in the career of Daniels. It is likely that this will be his signature move of his career - the one that will always have him employed. Like Donnie Nelson "finding Dirk" or Tom Grieve trading Sammy Sosa, we all know that GMs often get linked to a signature move - no matter how fair it really is.
So, to answer your question: Has my opinion on Daniels adjusted since writing that column? Absolutely. I now have far more information that says he knows what he is doing than I had in October of 2008. As for Hicks, I also have more information. The kind that only confirms that my worst fears of the man were correct back in 2005.