Home› Sports Talk

Did anyone hear Tom Hicks' comments?

kcballboykcballboy Posts: 1,405 ✭✭✭
in Sports Talk
He was asked if he could do anything over with the Rangers what it would be. After commenting on giving away $65 million to Chan Ho Park, he then turned on Juan Gonzalez and said something to the effect of

"Throwing away $24 million for Juan Gonzalez after he got off steroids."

I would hope that a business man such as himself would have a bit more sense than to throw an accusation out there like that. For his sake, I hope he has some sort of proof. If not he may need to call his lawyer.
Travis

Comments

  • onlyanumberonlyanumber Posts: 2,433
    If it is an unsubstantiated accusation, he better be calling a lawyer. If he knows something baseball does not, he better be calling a lawyer. I have a feeling he has a lot of explaining to do to someone about his comments. One way or another, he just screwed the proverbial pooch with that comment...
    Next MONTH? So he's saying that if he wins, the best-case scenario is that he'll be paying for it two weeks after the auction ends?

    Forget blocking him; find out where he lives and go punch him in the nuts. --WalterSobchak 9/12/12



    image


    Looking for Al Hrabosky and any OPC Dave Campbells (the ESPN guy)
  • TheVonTheVon Posts: 2,725 ✭
    I'm more surprised that he didn't mention the A-Rod contract in response to that question. . . that was a ton of money and they don't even have him on the team anymore. How much of that contract are they still paying anyway? Either way, it's starting to look like he's got more money than brains.
  • MorgothMorgoth Posts: 3,950 ✭✭✭
    Does Juan Gone have the balls to prove he wasn't on the roids though?
    Currently completing the following registry sets: Cardinal HOF's, 1961 Pittsburgh Pirates Team, 1972 Pittsburgh Pirates Team, 1980 Pittsburgh Pirates Team, Bill Mazeroski Master & Basic Sets, Roberto Clemente Master & Basic Sets, Willie Stargell Master & Basic Sets and Terry Bradshaw Basic Set
  • MichiganMichigan Posts: 4,942 ✭
    I doubt Hicks would be sued for that statement, does Juan really want to drag his reputation thru the mud by even bringing the subject
    up in the media? Most likely he will pretend he never heard it.
  • mikeschmidtmikeschmidt Posts: 5,756 ✭✭✭
    Is there any evidence that Juan was in any way harmed by Hicks' comments?
    I am actively buying MIKE SCHMIDT gem mint baseball cards. Also looking for any 19th century cabinets of Philadephia Nationals. Please PM with additional details.
  • ctsoxfanctsoxfan Posts: 6,246 ✭✭


    << <i>Does Juan Gone have the balls to prove he wasn't on the roids though? >>



    I agree - do you really think Juan wants the attention and the light shining on him regarding steroid use? I'm sure he'd just leave well enough alone.
    image
  • perkdogperkdog Posts: 30,658 ✭✭✭✭✭


    << <i>

    << <i>Does Juan Gone have the balls to prove he wasn't on the roids though? >>



    I agree - do you really think Juan wants the attention and the light shining on him regarding steroid use? I'm sure he'd just leave well enough alone. >>




    Agreed, Im sure he is just fine fading off into the sunset
  • grote15grote15 Posts: 29,694 ✭✭✭✭✭
    I don't see anything terribly wrong with someone offering an opinion, even if it's an unfounded one---though in this case, Hicks may be closer to the truth than not. And why must lawyers always get involved if someone speaks his mind? Have we really become such a litigous society that we must threaten legal action anyone looks at someone the wrong way?

    I also agree that the last thing Juan Gone wants anyone doing is looking for evidence of his steroid use, either.


    Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
  • stitzenstitzen Posts: 1,771
    It will be just like the names dropped in Canseco's book. If anyone wanted to refute what he said they'd have to prove they didn't take steroids, and the same would be for these comments. He can't sue for slander/libel without proving he didn't take steroids. Of course we all know he did, and he won't want the attention, so there will be no legal action with these comments.
  • dirtmonkeydirtmonkey Posts: 3,048 ✭✭


    << <i>It will be just like the names dropped in Canseco's book. If anyone wanted to refute what he said they'd have to prove they didn't take steroids, and the same would be for these comments. He can't sue for slander/libel without proving he didn't take steroids. Of course we all know he did, and he won't want the attention, so there will be no legal action with these comments. >>



    Actually all Juan really has to do is prove that this comment somehow has hurt him, whether it be financially, professionally, emotionally, etc.
    It would then be up to Hicks to prove that Juan indeed took steroids. If Juan can prove that he stands to lose money because another team intended to sign him for more money before this comment took place and the comment itself was a factor in the team offering less, he will win in court. If Juan can prove that autograph signing sessions were cancelled because of this statement, he will win in court. If Juan can prove that he slipped into deep depression after this comment and this somehow hindered any comeback attempt, he will win in court. It's like any other legal matter in this country. Juan doesn't have to prove his innocence. Hicks has to prove his guilt.

    In the end, 'roids or not, Juan was one of the best players in the MLB for about 5 years. He was a large reason Texas drew a crowd for much of the 90's. He certainly made them a lot of money. How is he repaid? A verbal bashing by a guy that benefitted greatly from this.
    I'm sure that to Juan, a simple "thank you" would have sufficed.
    image
  • kcballboykcballboy Posts: 1,405 ✭✭✭


    << <i>It will be just like the names dropped in Canseco's book. If anyone wanted to refute what he said they'd have to prove they didn't take steroids, and the same would be for these comments. He can't sue for slander/libel without proving he didn't take steroids. Of course we all know he did, and he won't want the attention, so there will be no legal action with these comments. >>



    I don't know that he took steroids.

    Whether he sues or not or even has a leg to stand on, it was a classless comment by a guy who has made a series of poor financial decisions and has nothing to show for it. Juan Gonzalez was injury prone before Hicks gave him that contract. It sounds like to me that Hicks is trying to blame Gonzalez for taking money that should have never been offered to him in the first place.

    Edit to add: If he regrets giving Juan Gone the money after coming off steroids, I'd like to hear his explanation of why signing Sammy Sosa after steroids and a year off was OK. It's not that I'm defending Gonzalez, I'm just more upset that this guy has the nads to call out his players for not preforming up to their roid set standards. He's a prime example of an owner looking the other way and helping support the problem in the game because money talks. Gonzalez, Palmeiro, Sosa. Canseco (although not sure if Hicks was in the pic back then). Pudge's name was even thrown around for a while. Does BALCO have a branch in Arlington?
    Travis
Sign In or Register to comment.