Bob,
And of course you wouldn't! I think it is now pretty well documented that ANGC started among financial problems, but always tried to maintain the high road, as you would expect. It is always tough to market memberships if there is a sense that the project is in a "death spiral" to use a phrase from another thread.
But, there is no writing, or no other author saying this. I am just connecting the dots based on all I have read about ANGC and my other experience.
My "sense" comes from the two public courses Mac did after the crash which had fewer bunkers than his standard. Certainly Mac advocated fewer bunkers than, say Oakmont, but the 28 or so at ANGC was clearly less than his "typical" course of a few years earlier, like RM, CP, etc.
I agree there is some great, minimalist philosophy in using the bare minimum of bunkers necessary, and only in places where they affect play. But, again connecting the dots, it isn't hard to imagine them saying "and there are some cost savings, too!" at some point. No bombshell there.
I recall that there were some ill advised changes to No. 8 green. I would call that one version of it, done by Roberts himself, (if I recall) may have been the one referred to as a pancake on the hill. I think that got them into the idea of using gca's for the work, since it came out so bad. Interesting to hear about the third. What era are you speaking of?
Lastly I never said he advocated narrowing. I suggested that he accepted it where it fell naturally and felt it was an appropriate challenge, perhaps especially for the 18th. Do YOU think he would have left the 18th as narrow as it is if he didn't think the occaisional tee shot through narrow chute of trees was unacceptable on his dream course?