That's certainly not the policy on THIS site, is it? I defend a lot of the decisions and actions of ownership and management, but I don't object to fair criticism and opposing views. I object to the often vicious personal attacks and unfair and distorted characterizations. I wish people wouldn't type what they wouldn't have the balls to say to their subject's face.

 

The Criticism towards the Pohlad's has to do with their public role as Baseball Owners.

There has been very few comments regarding their affairs outside of Baseball.

Good ol' JR. "Never been ordered to reduce payroll" goes right next to "never been told no when I went to Carl to ask for more money." Ryan was hired because they didn't have to order him to reduce payroll. He's a company man who knows what ownership wants.

I wish people wouldn't type what they wouldn't have the balls to say to their subject's face.

 

I would gladly tell them to their face how I feel about their ticket prices given their own willingness to cut checks. And my bankroll is slightly behind theirs.

 

I would love for a Pohlad to come on here and answer some respectful questions - by all means use your connections to do that. Methinks that will never happen, that's why Terry Ryan has to be the shield to the public saying that (of course) he wasn't asked to cut payroll! Perish the thought! He just knew that was what he signed up for. That was ultimately Billy's biggest failure.

No. Why would it? Ryan said he had leeway to spend. He didn't spend. Was this planned, or did circumstances arise that influenced Ryan's judgment? Why would you assume this is because of some directive from Jim Pohlad? I'm assuming it wasn't because of a directive because both Jim Pohlad and Terry Ryan said so. Yeah, I know. They're a couple of thieving no-good lying scumbags, and I'm their PR guy.

It seems to me if you're going to make the claim that future budget busting will be by design, it's a bit...generous...to turn around and also claim current budget scrimping isn't by design. They'll spend when it's "warranted"--your words not mine--which implies they're not spending now, right? Because it's not warranted.

I would ask the Pohlads if they told Ryan to cut costs. I would ask why smith was let go. I would respectfully ask a lot of questions.

That's not what I meant. There were health reasons that kept teams from signing Marcum. Said health reasons could have easily been cleared up with a tryout. For wahtever reason, that didn't happen. I don't know why.

 

Now you're right back to stating a reporters guess as a fact. Sure health issues COULD have been a reason but it isn't the only option. Perhaps he had some personal off the field issues. Perhaps there were clubhouse issues. Perhaps he wanted a boatload of money/years early on and nobody was willing to go that high and by the time he realized it and reduced his asking price FA was pretty close to wrapped up and there just wasn't the demand to push his price up, he did sign pretty late.

 

It could be any of these things, a mix of these things or many other options. It certainly isn't a FACT that it is health and stating it as such just clouds the point you're trying to make.