Money from Column B doesn't always comes from Column A. The business world is often not so clear-cut.
Nevertheless, there could hardly be a more ill-timed revelation for the Dodgers — in an offseason already full of them — than the news that, according to Bill Plaschke of
The Times, they have cut the salary of 87-year-old part-time scout George Genovese from $18,000 to $8,000. Like anyone else would be, Plaschke is quick to draw the connection between Genovese's meager pay and the McCourts' recently publicized extravagance.
Now, at least on one level, the decision appears to have rested with Logan White, the Dodgers' popular assistant general manager in charge of scouting.
"I try to use George the best I can, but I know everybody always wants to be used more," White told Plaschke. "I can't go into details about it, but I'm taking a different path here and making changes in the whole staff. I can tell you it has nothing to do with the divorce or with finances. We're just trying to improve our local feel."
Let's give White the benefit of the doubt and say hypothetically that Genovese, whom former Dodger general manager Dan Evans described as "the greatest scout of all time," isn't quite as valuable as he once was. Is his past service not worth an extra $10,000?
One almost has to think that it is worth that and more, but that budget considerations dictated that Genovese not get it. And who has the final say over the scouting budget? Not White, I'm guessing.
As this news spreads, someone at the Dodgers organization will no doubt find themselves asking, "Was it worth 10 grand to have this negative publicity, instead of letting the guy just keep it?"
But perhaps the main remaining question is, who will race to address this situation first and try to seize the public relations advantage, Frank or Jamie? Of course, it could involve someone admitting a mistake (whether they believe it was a mistake or not), or having to convince the world that any perceived grandstanding is beside the point.
Hmm, tough decisions. And to think, all this nuance could have been avoided by following a simple rule: When you're in a public business, don't slash the salary of an 87-year-old man.