Carl Pohlad died

Sympathies to his family.

I wonder if/how this affects the Twins.

6 months ago lenred Comment 34 comments 0 recs |

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

93. That’s one heck of a run. RIP.

by Brick. on Jan 5, 2009 8:46 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Did he leave the managing share of the team to his grandson?

No, seriously though, RIP.

by afh4 on Jan 5, 2009 9:10 PM EST reply actions 4 recs

Carl Pohlad has been contracted out.

by SuddenSam on Jan 5, 2009 9:35 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

DFA.

by odradek on Jan 5, 2009 9:46 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Up until about an hour ago, I really didn’t like Pohlad for his shenanigans in trying to get the Twins contracted, then crying poor to get the public funding for a new stadium, and being “cheap” with his payroll.

Then I read the part of this article (or another one) that says he grew up basically dirt poor – the son of a railroad brakeman father and his mother was a maid. He “took over” a small bank and used that to become the second richest man in Minnesota. Impressive.

I then read that he gave away $3.3 mm to kids charities last year. And the part of him giving $1/2 mm to that ballplayer’s research fund. At the very least, I gotta say I respect the man now for his business success and his generosity.

by lenred on Jan 5, 2009 9:52 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

He may have been a fine person, and I am sorry to hear that he’s gone, but charity doesn’t appear to have been high on his list of priorities.

I don’t know what else he had going on, but donating 3.8 million amounts to 0.1% of his net worth in a year, far, far less than his yearly income. I mean, it’s nice that he did that, but he was in his nineties and, well, set for life. Estate taxes being what they are, I’d be giving away my money left and right—but then again I don’t have the disposition to find or seek that 3.6 billion.

If one of us had net worth of 1/2 a million and a good income, it’s proportionally equivalent to donating 528 dollars in one year (and we’re by and large not the ones who are set for life).

by jhon on Jan 5, 2009 10:08 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Not that anyone would suspect this to be the case, but my net worth is nowhere near 1/2 a million, but each of us probably know someone who’s worth at least that much.

by jhon on Jan 5, 2009 10:18 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

It is an odd fact that the wealthiest Americans give far less to charity, as a percentage of wealth or income, than others do.

by Jay on Jan 5, 2009 11:07 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Well, I think the real numbers are probably difficult to come across. This isn’t meant to be a defense of the wealthiest Americans, but they don’t have the incentive to disclose it on their tax returns. Once you make a certain level of income, your itemized deductions go through a phasing out process. I am not sure what the specific level is, but it’s not all that high, and at that point if you aren’t getting a tax break at all for your charitable contributions, then what incentive do you have to disclose how much you are giving to charity?

by Roger Dorn on Jan 5, 2009 11:57 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I leave open the possibility that he’s more charitable than we can tell, based upon the public record and what we can ascertain from the way he managed his team. I don’t want anyone to read the above as a condemnation of this person. I meant it charitably when I wrote, “charity doesn’t appear to have been high on his list of priorities.” There are people in our country with enormous fortunes who’ve given massive portions of it away and/or created benevolent institutions. Carl Pohlad wasn’t one of them.

by jhon on Jan 6, 2009 12:07 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Right. And Carl Pohlad has done nothing to suggest that we should give him the benefit of the doubt. Quite the opposite.

(I realize you were making more of a general comment than a defense of Pohlad, RD)

by scripteye on Jan 6, 2009 12:11 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

One thing about this argument that you pose – you’re comparing the amount of money he donated in one year vs. the total of his net worth. How often does anyone donate a portion of their net worth to charity? I don’t know the numbers of it, but I can safely say that Carl didn’t look and say “gee, I think I should donate a portion of my net worth.” If he thought about it at all, he was probably considering the size of his donation in terms of his annual income.

This isn’t a defense of Carl. It’s more pointing out an inaccuracy of your argument.

As an aside, when Britney Spears’ tax return become public last spring, I think it showed she made like $15 mm and donated $250 to charity. If accurate, that is reprehensible.

I’m still curious to see how this affects the Twins. Does the team go to his kids (if he has any)? Are they sold? Does their payroll go up or down?

by lenred on Jan 6, 2009 12:21 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I get that. What’s Michael Bloomberg’s famous line again, “Good financial planning is bouncing the check to the undertaker”. ?

Well, based on his net worth picture, I think we can safely assume that his income last year was at least 300 million. 3.8 million is 1.26% of that, which is kind of pathetic if you’re 93 years old. That’s 950 bucks even on an income of $75,000. Not a ratio to be ashamed of, but it sounds like this was an inordinately generous year for him. The Mayo Clinic isn’t that expensive, know what I mean?

"Gee, I think I should donate a portion of my net worth."

Have you heard the list of the illustrious people who have done just that?

by jhon on Jan 6, 2009 12:34 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

The exact quote is, “The ultimate in financial planning is to bounce the check to the undertaker.” You’ll have to Google the reference or just take my word for it, since Bloomberg is a political figure in addition to his status as a very wealthy guy.

by jhon on Jan 6, 2009 12:40 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I think you missed the point of what I was trying to say. I don’t know anything about Carl Pohlad and wasn’t making a comment on him one way or the other.

The point is that we have no idea how much the wealthiest are actually contributing to charity because there is no tax incentive for them to list it on a tax return. Itemized deductions (which include charitable contributions) get phased out and are not a benefit at all once you are earning a certain level of income.

by Roger Dorn on Jan 6, 2009 12:58 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Which goes along with the point about Britney Spears only contributing $250. It doesn’t make sense for her to list any charitable contributions because she isn’t receiving a tax benefit at her income level. I am not sure why the $250 would even appear to be honest

by Roger Dorn on Jan 6, 2009 1:00 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Charitable gifts don’t just have income tax benefits. They’re the easiest and surest way for wealthy individuals to lessen or avoid the estate tax, and for the most part, those gifts are required to be listed on a gift tax return.

But either way, Pohlad was a schister.

by scripteye on Jan 6, 2009 4:23 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I wouldn’t go that far. I just won’t praise him for being charitable like the puffy obits, since it doesn’t appear to be an important characteristic of Pohlad. (and maybe we’ll learn later on that he did a bunch of charitable things behind the scenes). There’s no reason to heap more accolades on this guy or apologize for his profit.

It’s enough to say he lived well and made a lot of money.

by jhon on Jan 6, 2009 1:23 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I’ll stick with schister. Some of the crap he pulled in an effort to get a new stadium was really awful.

by scripteye on Jan 6, 2009 9:57 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Shyster. Schist is a rock.

by odradek on Jan 7, 2009 9:59 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

He bought the Twins and kept them in town when it was likely they were going to be moved. The team was trapped in a terrible stadium for nearly the entire length of his run, with a famously bad lease. Under the circumstances, I’d say he did a great job for Twins fans. I do criticize him for stubbornly seeking public money and all the shenanigans he pulled in his quest for public money trying to build the new stadium. Some of that stuff was just stupid, like the fake “sale” of the team mentioned in the SI article.

All in all, I think he was good for baseball mostly because his team showed year in and year out that it’s possible to contend and even to win championships without running the farm system into the ground and the fans in to the poor house. I can’t speak to his personal qualities.

by MTF on Jan 6, 2009 9:49 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

While I agree that to make blanket statements characterizing him as tightwad and bad for the Twinkies is misleading at best, to say that he was good for baseball also goes over the edge too. Wasn’t he supposedly at one point OK with the team contracting if he got paid by MLB for it? I will give him credit for being able to identify quality FO personnel who ran the team with obvious skill. But beyond that, I have difficulty giving the man credit.

I think it can be best be said that he was a controversial figure and one who will not be typecast, even in death.

Still the local "Barfield Bounces Back Believer" and confident that Gutz will succeed in Seattle.

by mjmarble on Jan 6, 2009 10:50 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I wasn’t saying that blanket statements calling him a tightwad and a miser in his charity were misleading. I was saying I myself don’t know enough about him, especially about his charitable giving. Maybe he was those things, and I’m sure we’ll hear more about him.

But I do think he did a great job running his team insofar as he hired great baseball management, he worked with those FO people effectively to make the farm team productive, and especially worked well with them to make the major league team competitive in significant spurts over a long period. He ran the team in a fiscally responsible way, a quality that fans find hard to appreciate when a team free agent gets signed by the Mets, maybe, but a quality that helps our significantly over the long haul. I think he was a good example in those attributes.

Sure he pulled a lot of silly stunts trying to get at taxpayer money, and I agree that made him controversial. I guess he was ahead of his time in that respect.

by MTF on Jan 6, 2009 11:16 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

The bridge collapsing in Minneapolis makes the deal he gave the city look a lot worse. I’m not saying he should have been building bridges, just that Stadia have been bad deals for the public, and that event reinforces my belief in this. Pohlad (among others) is implicated in urging the public a bad deal. He deserves the criticism he gets.

That said, I don’t fault him for living the dream. Good for him that he got to own an MLB team, and that he and that he didn’t completely screw it up—maybe he did a good job. The dude lived a good life. Living into his 90s and making billions = Bravo!

by jhon on Jan 6, 2009 12:13 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Well, one thing we can all agree on: those Dolans are real cheapskates.

by odradek on Jan 6, 2009 8:12 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

I don’t know what you’re talking about, and I can’t tell if you’re kidding.

by Jay on Jan 6, 2009 10:02 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I’m kidding!

I can’t get enough of the prevailing idea that the Dolans are total tightwads.

From cleveland.com:

“Dolan will not accept drops in team profitability. Shapiro has put this at risk by spending excessively for Talents like Wood and DeRosa. We could finally see some heads roll if revenue doesn’t increase next year. Shapiro’s number one performance screen is franchise profitability. A bloated payroll (relatively speaking) could risk profit margins and that gets Dolan’s attention.”

What do the Dolans have to do to prove they’re not cheapskates?

by odradek on Jan 7, 2009 8:09 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Did you read the story about how the Phillies are cheapskates? Written by a Phillies fan, not three months after winning the whole thing?

by Jay on Jan 7, 2009 11:41 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Yeah, that’s the one that Chuck said could have been written only by a Phils fan.

Do hockey fans complain about cheap owners?

by odradek on Jan 8, 2009 12:09 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Well, there was the Chicago Blackhawks…

by Ryan on Jan 8, 2009 11:22 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Wirtz was something of a weirdo, keeping his team from being on TV and all. But didn’t he pay big-league wages for his players?

by odradek on Jan 8, 2009 11:47 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

at first I thought that said “the Phillies are cheesesteaks”

by Logodaedalus on Jan 8, 2009 11:27 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs

Haha same. Rec.

by supermarioelia on Jan 8, 2009 4:43 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I know everyone here knows this, but Cleveland is fortunate to have the Dolans as owners. The franchise has had quite a few terrible owners, but the past two have been pretty good. And other franchises—Florida, Los Angeles, Detroit, San Diego, Arizona, Yankees, Pittsburgh, Kansas City, Minnesota all come to mind—have worse owners.

If the owners had signed Edgar Renteria to a two-year $18 million contract maybe they wouldn’t be cheapskates. But they would be stupid.

It’s amazing how enduring the notion that the franchise is run by Dolans’ Discounts.

by odradek on Jan 8, 2009 12:44 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs