Today, we start with the age-old question: "Would David Glass selling the team help the franchise?" And we follow it up with our experts' "Plea to David Glass."
Would David Glass selling the team help the franchise?
Jeff Passan: Depends on who buys it. If it's going to be someone who comes in and has a ton of money, not just a ton of money to spend but is willing to spend that money, sure. Any franchise can use an owner who puts personal province aside.
David Glass has gotten better as an owner. He was a dreadful owner at the beginning. Once Dayton Moore came on board, I think he understood that the Royals couldn't run the franchise the way they were and have any hope of winning. He hasn't gone out and spent the big money on any free agents.
Gil Meche is the biggest contract that the Royals have given out to a free agent and that was $55 million. In the grand scheme of things, $55 million in baseball is a pittance. It's really nothing. This to me is going to be a bellwether off-season for David Glass' tenure as an owner. There are a lot of good pitchers out there, and if he is willing to go out there and spend on that pitcher and make the Royals a contender, then I think Kansas City can look at David Glass and feel the right owner is in place.
Michael Engel: Glass is a bogeyman in Kansas City. When the team stinks, man, fans always turn to Glass and demand he sell the team or spend money. Fact is, he's spent more since Dayton Moore came to town than he had beforehand. He's invested in a farm system that had been wiped out by bad picks and cheap signings (and that's partly his fault). But it's been said by others that if you could change the owner to a guy named Sam Smith over the last six years and he did the exact same things, nobody would complain at all.
Bill Ivie Jr.: David Glass is not the problem; he's running a business. Performance on the field will bring the fans out and the money will be there.
Bob Stalder: I am starting to believe that it would mainly on the basis that the Royals need an owner who does not shy away from the media and speaks his mind freely about the organization and what he is going to do to change it. David Glass is and has been an absentee owner who paid his money and has sat back and watched his son, Dan (who has no business being president of this club), make bad decisions in his absence.
The unfortunate thing is that there is no one locally who has the money or willingness to take on a franchise that has not found its way yet. If Glass were to sell to another owner out of the area, there could be repercussions to that owner concerning his willingness to keep the team in Kansas City and regardless of the price it would cost in order to move the franchise, it could be bad for the team.
Jeff Zimmerman: Probably. Tough to tell.
Rany Jazayerli: The boring but honest answer is, it depends. If the Royals were sold to a buyer who valued winning over profits, and was willing to spend real money to flesh out this talented roster where they still have holes, they could build a dynasty over the next five to six years. But what made the Glass family ownership so destructive in the early years wasn't their cheapness - it was their insistence on meddling with baseball operations. That has ended under Dayton Moore.
David and Dan Glass now do little more than sign the checks, and they've been willing to sign big checks for amateur talent. Ownership isn't nearly the problem that most fans think it is.
Craig Brown: Only if the new ownership doubles the payroll budget. Except that would be fiscal suicide. Good luck with that.