That’s all you need to know about his candidacy for the Chicago Cubs’ recently-vacated GM role, according to many. The Sun-Times included Colletti as number two on its list of “most likely candidates” (written mere hours after Hendry’s firing was announced – didn’t I say that it was worth waiting a couple days before creating such lists?), and literally offered those two justifications in support of Colletti’s inclusion on the list.
I suppose there may be other reasons to consider Colletti. He’s had moderate success in Los Angeles and the Dodgers have developed some excellent players under his term. And Colletti did start his career with the Cubs,as a publicist, though he left some 20 years ago to make his bones with the Giants and then the Dodgers. Plus, he’s got that indomitable mustache.
But Colletti is widely considered to be cut from the same cloth as Jim Hendry: an “old school,” scouting-first, free-agent-heavy GM. Does that sound like the “change” Tom Ricketts explicitly said he wants? I simply can’t see it.
When asked about the Cubs job, Colletti wasn’t exactly emphatic in his desire to remain in Los Angeles. “I have a contract and a commitment to the Dodgers,” Colletti said. “Until somebody tells me otherwise, that is where my focus is and where my efforts will be.” He might as well have said, “Cubs, please tell me otherwise. Please!”
For my part, all I needed to read to know that Colletti wasn’t the guy was a post entitled, “In Which We Try to Convince Cubs Fans That Ned Colletti is a Good Idea,” from the popular Dodgers blog, Mike Scioscia’s Tragic Illness. Bloggers and fans don’t always know best, but when they collectively laugh at the very thought that another team might want their GM, and desperately hope that team will be foolish enough to relieve their suffering, it’s probably safe to move on to another candidate.