OK, I saw The Force Awakens last night (sans Yoda, of course).
But Doc creams this ball, WAY over the LF fence.
What does Pete Carroll mean by "always compete"? He means he'll trade off other things, when other (good) principles conflict with his main one. He'll hire a young, competitive coach even at the cost of technical knowledge. He'll start a 5' 10" quarterback if he likes the kid's makeup. These are "in the margin" decisions where 16 head coaches will go one way and 16 will go the other. ... wait ... Carroll has plenty of decisions where 2 head coaches will go one way and 30 go the other.
And herein lies the difference between professing a philosophy and living that philosophy (GM-wise).
Is there a GM in the game who doesn't state they believe in "controlling the zone?" Any GM who doesn't believe that should be out of the game. Who would ever say, "I couldn't care less about my hitters and pitchers getting ahead in the count!!?"
So everybody believes in it. Man, Branch Rickey did, way before Bill James was even born.
But is your GM going to make ALL roster decisions based on that philosophy? Wait, let mme rephrase that. Is he going to make NEARLY all descisions based on that philosophy? I'm giving Dipoto the Leonys Martin pass here.
So far, Dipoto has been pretty consistent in adhering to his driving philosophy.
Sticking to a philosophy (you can almost call it a Baseball Theology) isn't easy in the day of attractive FA's being gobbled up by divisional rivals. If you don't answer, are you a GM'ing rube or just a laser-focused maestro? Well, that depends on next year's results, doesn't it?
I'm a bit surprised that nobody has mentioned the band'wagon mentality that might be at play here: The Royals have been decently successful for 2 seasons, if you haven't noticed. It is the natural course of events for GM's (in any sport) to emulate success.
Every NBA GM is looking at the Warriors' recipe for success and imagining how they can replicate (Spoiler alert: There aren't a bunch of Steph Curry's available in the draft). C'est la vie: We look at success and model it. It makes sense, too.
But the proof is in the willingness to stick to a philosophy, in terms of roster decisions. If controlling the zone is your living/breating heartbeat, do you pass on a on an Ichiro? Do you pass on an Leonys Martin?
Dipoto didn't. So Dipoto's overriding philosophy isn't overriding, it seems. Unless he has an equal philosophy that speaks of CF gloviness.
Which, btw, is a complement to Dipoto. Living and breathing to a singular rule soon collides with real world choices, best choices, outside that rule.
More and more, I think Dipoto has a general view of the guys he wants, but won't live/die by that general rule if valuable players who don't fit the template (but aren't exactly opposite) become available.
And that boys and girls, is good GM'ing.
Montero and Romero are still hanging around, for example, and they don't fit the template. Dipoto sees something there, maybe just necessity.
If you'll make the trade off that Doc's mentions above, ALL the time, then you're a zealot. But if you're willing to close your eyes, once in a while---for good reason---then you're GM'ing well.
So far, that's what I'm seeing in Dipoto. But that should be expected, shouldn't it? Dipoto's at the tip-top of his profession (there are only a handful of these GM jobs), he should be pretty capable.
Jack Z. had us within a game or two of the playoffs. Remember? His philosophy worked for a bit, or nearly so. Dipoto has to do better than that. And so far, I like where he's taking us, even if I don't agree with every decision.
Moe