January 10, 2006
GM Comparison
Dodger Thoughts looks at DePodesta and Colletti and decides they aren't that different.
One of the arguments I've been making this offseason is that the biggest difference between former Dodger general manager Paul DePodesta and his successor, Ned Colletti, is not in philosophy, but how the media has covered them. Despite the perception that Colletti is a 180-degree reversal from DePodesta, my belief has been that in reality, the two are much closer in approach than we've been led to believe. Both prize the Dodger farm system. Both relied on veterans from other organizations - including veterans with considerable injury histories - to carry the Dodgers until the farm system matured.
Posted by David Pinto at
07:42 PM
|
Management
|
TrackBack (0)
apparently, Colletti started his career in public relations, while depo got a nerdy rep from 'moneyball'. as this article correctly suggests: Colletti gets the better press, and it's not hard to figure out why.
David, thanks for mentioning there can be a difference between media coverage and reality. It's good not to take things for granted.
Colletti receives more favorable media attention for two reasons. One, he possesses social skills sufficient to allow him to direct a multi million dollar enterprise. DePodesta didn't/doesn't. Two, when Colletti signs oft-injured, veteran players he doesn't give them long-term 55 million dollar deals.
You're right, Jon. Because the LA media told us DePodesta didn't have social skills, they must be right! Furthermore, DePodesta is personally responsible for the fact that the Dodgers had the most DL days in the Majors last year. He went into their rooms at night and, a la Kathy Bates in Misery, shattered their knees. BY HIMSELF.
Sorry if I don't buy your arguments, but Colletti and DePodesta have made similar moves for similar reasons. They just get treated differently by the LA media folk.
I think there's a lesson here. We should always be slow to decide whether someone in sports is a "good guy" or a "bad guy" based on what we read about them in the press. If the media likes someone it can, without actually lying, report only the good things he says and does and make him out to be a saint. If the media doesn't like someone it can, without actually lying, report only the bad things he says and does and make him out to be a jerk. Unless we actually know the person, we don't know whether it's true or not.
this kinda reminds me of political arguments.
depo was employed by billybeans (and had the bad history of getting a college degree and learning to use a computer which is a very bad thing for a powerful businessman to do.) the la press HATE billybeans. i wouldn't have been even a little surprised that IF the dodgers had won 120 games in the regular season and every postseason game that the press would have said something like - they won because of tracy and IN SPITE of depo.
the minute plaschke wrote a column criticizing the hiring or depo because he got acne i KNEW depo was dog meat no matter what he did