This is the David Glass post I promised in Sunday's paper, and my point here isn't to blast anyone by name, so I'll just say I heard a few guys the other day on the radio missing some facts about the Royals owner.
They said last week's Twins series was the first time he showed up at the ballpark, which just isn't true. I've seen him there at least a couple other times before that.
They said that it was too difficult to get Glass to talk, which I've never found to be the case. I called him for a story earlier this year, he answered on the second ring, and we talked for 10 or 15 minutes.
And then they dropped the most common mistakes there are about Glass, that he's money-hungry, just interested in turning a profit on the Royals, and implied he didn't really like baseball all that much.
I can't claim to know him all that well, but I've had enough extended conversations with him about the game (relating to the Royals and otherwise) to know he's a passionate baseball fan. This is not a Sam Zell situation. Actually, his childhood growing up as a Cardinals fan is something I've heard people around here use against him.
But more important, the terms of Glass' purchase of the Royals require that any profit he makes by selling (and it would be huge if he sold today) go to Kansas City charities.
I was glad Whitlock got this part right in his column the other day, because it's the mistake I hear from people about Glass the most often.
And to be honest, I don't think I was aware of that clause (or at least didn't remember it) until Dutton told me one day. He's certainly written that in the paper enough times that we should know.
Maybe it's because that part of it doesn't fit the mold or image people want to squeeze Glass into.
Kansas City is a small market, small market teams don't/can't spend money, franchise values keep going up, so 2+2 = Glass is just trying for an easy profit, right?
My point here is not to defend Glass. He's a big boy. Definitely doesn't need my help, and there are certainly things he can be criticized for.
The Royals have lost 403 games the last four full seasons and are again in last place. Four straight last-place finishes, 100 losses in four of the last six seasons, one winning season since Glass bought the team, you know all the depressing numbers and there's a buck-stops-here legitimacy to that part of the criticism of Royals ownership. We've done plenty of that in the newspaper.
Then again, I do think that if you're going to be excited about Dayton Moore and his people and the things they're doing, you have to recognize that Glass is the one approving it all.
I believe it's correct that the Royals have given out the biggest free agent contracts in each of the last two offseasons (though that ignores some bigger-money extensions, most notably Miguel Cabrera's), the Royals have added a minor league affiliate, poured money into international scouting, and improved their player development to the point that one guy who works for another American League club told me this week the Royals are now considered among the best in baseball in that department.
Glass has also been instrumental in some of the changes baseball's made to benefit the smaller market teams.
If you blast Glass for the failings of the last eight years, it's probably only fair to give him credit for recognizing some changes needed to be made.
I don't know if there's a connection to be made between the guys I heard crushing Glass for things that aren't true and him not agreeing to interviews there are related or not.
And come to think of it, I've got thoughts on that, too.
Coming soon.
Just because Glass talks to you doesn't mean the "guys ... on the radio" were wrong about his unavailability.
I've heard it from "radio guys" and "TV guys" and, matter of fact, you're the only one I've ever heard of trying to claim that Glass was available in any way.
I know at least half a dozen broadcast guys who would show up anywhere, anytime for a chance to interview Glass. His unavailability should be embarrassing to the entire organization.
Are you unaware of his long-ago pledge to leave Wal-Mart business and Arkansas behind and move here and become an active member of the Kansas City community?
Whether or not Glass may be required to give up any profit he might make by selling the Royals is debatable, but even if he did, that doesn't refute the argument that he's money-hungry. He's been taking in a heck of a lot more money than he's been spending.
How do you defend the pre-Gordon drafts where the Royals selected lesser players to avoid paying the going rate for top talent? How do you defend drafting 30 rounds of nobodys and offering each a $1,000 signing bonus, take-it-or-leave it? Have you talked to Ryan Braun about that situation?
You might want to go easy when quoting Whitlock as though he were knowledgeable or even correct in a limited instance when writing about the Royals. Did you miss that embarrassing drivel about the "shortstop merry-go-round," written at a time when Pena had played short for something like 50 of the Royals 52 games?
If your point is not to defend Glass, then what is your point? He has been an utter failure at accomplishing anything to help balance the scales for small-market teams.
And why don't you acknowledge that it appears likely that the only reason Glass recognized the need for change was that Dayton Moore turned down his job offer repeatedly until Glass finally agreed to give up some of his more egregious penny-pinching antics? Why don't you acknowledge that we might have made substantial progress under Allard Baird had Glass and his child not vetoed and/or prohibited Baird's best trades and other attempts to run the baseball side of the Royals in a fashion that might have begun to take some steps toward the major-league way of doing things?
The way I heard it from the "guys ... on the radio" was that they hadn't seen Glass at the ballpark. I also heard that one of them talked briefly to Glass on the phone, at which time he agreed to make himself available for an interview, which turned out to be a lie. And how do you account for Glass not making himself available to talk during his recent and rare visit to the stadium? Do you dispute that the recent visit was a rare instance?
What exactly is your point here, other than to enviously slander some of this town's best sports reporters and commentators?
And finally, how can you give Glass credit for "approving it all," when he should, since Day One, have just stayed out of the way, hired professional baseball people and let them do their jobs? He should never have put himself in the position of approving or disapproving anything other than an annual budget.