Charlie Manuel Gets Extension
The Phillies took care of at least one important piece of business at the Winter Meetings, ensuring that manager Charlie Manuel will be at the helm for at least the next three seasons after guaranteeing Manuel's 2010 option year and adding another season at the end of his deal. Paul Hagen has the details:
Manuel has become just the second Phillies manager to take the team to back-to-back first-place finishes; Danny Ozark won three straight division titles from 1976-78. Manuel is the first to have four straight winning seasons since Ozark (1975-78). Since Manuel replaced Larry Bowa, the Phillies are 354-294 (.546), and he's finished as the runner-up in the NL Manager of the Year voting each of the last 2 years. Manuel, 64, is scheduled to make $1.5 million next season and $1.7 million in 2010. His salary in 2011 could be in the neighborhood of $3 million, which would place him in the financial upper echelon of big- league managers.
Manuel's story with the Phils is improbable in all kinds of ways. When he was hired before the 2005 season, most fans were disappointed that the team had not chosen Jim Leyland or other high-profile candidates who had been in the mix. Personally I thought it was foolish to choose a skipper whose main qualification seemed to be his personal closeness with Jim Thome, the team's signature player at the time, even if he had been relatively successful in a previous managerial stint with Cleveland. Manuel did a credible job that season, guiding the Phils to 88 wins while overcoming injuries to Thome, Randy Wolf and other key players and helping the emergence of Rookie of the Year Ryan Howard, but just falling short of the playoffs. The next year, the team was sluggish out of the gate and looked absolutely dead in June and July, and I thought the West Virginia native had lost the team. But the Phillies rallied with a blistering last two months of the season before, again, barely missing the playoffs.
The same basic pattern seemed underway in 2007 when the team got off to its worst start yet. But from the night Manuel--in his mid-60s with a history of serious medical problems--offered to give obnoxious sports radio host Howard Eskin a thoroughly merited ass-kicking, something seemed to change. The Phillies, again beset with injuries and undermined by a porous bullpen, began to show a resilience not previously in evidence; when they finally got healthy and found a troika of solid relievers in September, they went on a late tear to seize the division and end a fourteen-year playoff drought before getting swept out of the playoffs. Manuel, whose initial three-year contract was up at the end of the 2007 season, got a two-year extension and a modest raise.
You know what happened in 2008, when teamwide good health and a superlative relief corps elevated the team from a marginal contender to National League power and, ultimately, World F*&^% Champions. But Manuel's work was indispensable to the title: from disciplining (but never alienating) defending MVP Jimmy Rollins, to sticking with streaky slugger Ryan Howard, to challenging talented but inconsistent outfielders Shane Victorino and Jayson Werth to merit everyday jobs, to patiently auditioning setup relievers after Tom Gordon's injury until Ryan Madson's late emergence, Charlie pushed the right buttons again and again.
Somewhere along the way, he completed the transformation from "Elmer Befuddled" to arguably the greatest manager in franchise history, met with roaring approval by fans who had called for his job a year earlier. Whatever happens going forward, it's great to see him get his reward today.
12 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Nice piece dajafi, agreed completely. I can’t think of a single manager in the game that would never, ever be second-guessed, and I think the playoffs and the pennant race are where great managers show their colors. Charlie was virtually flawless from September onward . . . little bitta luck, sure, but he still did great.
http://www.thegoodphight.com
WHY CAN'T US?
adding...
I’m absolutely shocked that Charlie is younger than both of my parents, yet looks about 10 years older.
http://www.thegoodphight.com
WHY CAN'T US?
Must be the stress. When I started watching baseball, Jim Leyland looked 60 and Sparky Anderson looked about 80, but they were really only in their 40s and 50s, respectively.
On that note, Charlie’s really got to lose some weight. He’s already had lots of health problems and the stress isn’t going to make it any better.
luck
That’s something no team wins without. One could argue that we were due, but we had a ton of it this year.
What I think might impress me most about Manuel is that he never wigged out and really changed direction in response to things going temporarily bad. I guess this is why his guys revere him.
Is Charlie the one who challenged Eskin to a fight? Cause at that point he earned my eternal admiration…it’s just a fact of life that the ‘head man’ of a sports team gets too much credit or too much blame depending on how the team performs…NBA is up to 4 fired coaches in this season all from teams performing badly – but they are BAD TEAMS that were going to suck – but at some point someone ha to take the blame – and coaches can’t fire GMs :)
by jemagee on Dec 10, 2008 2:18 PM EST up reply actions
It’s chemistry. That’s why this team won. They are not man for man the most talented team in baseball, but they do play together better than any other team in baseball. The manager is a major part of that.
I agree, though if you take the four or five best guys on the Phillies and match them up talent-wise with any other team, they’re certainly in the top tier.
But that was also true of the Mets the last two years at least, and for that matter it was arguable for the Phillies in 2003-2006. Both improving what they got out of the 15 or so roster spots after the elite players and the cohering/chemistry/intangibles element—plus, again, good health and luck—is the difference between 86 wins and also-ran, and WFC.
I’m going to go with with being eimnently healthy and having some really good years from unexpected sources (for instance werth was probably the healthiest of his career)…chemistry is for making silver from silver nitrate and potassium iodide
by jemagee on Dec 10, 2008 11:50 PM EST up reply actions
I used to think was true too, until I actually started to work in a workplace myself. But the truth is that people are more productive when they’re in a healthier work environment.
Not even Bill James or Rob Neyer would say that chemistry doesn’t matter. What they would actually say is that chemistry can’t be measured and therefore shouldn’t be cited as a means of ignoring the weight of more objective indicators.
bingo
I’m more sympathetic to jem’s view than I am to, say, Bill Plaschke (whose consistent idiocy on this point, I’m guessing, somewhat informs jem’s disdain for the concept). But it does seem to be real in some non-quantifiable sense. I can’t help but believe the 2008 Phils clubhouse was a more functional place than, say, the 2003 iteration. And, yes, I’d rather have beers with Charlie Manuel than Larry Bowa.
I don’t mean to dismiss chemistry completely any more than i dismiss defense entirely – but i think a healthy portion of sports fans put too much weight into ‘team chemistry’ – and sepcifically on baseball people who ‘hate’ on pat burrell often seem to put a lot more weight on defensively ability than i do – these are things that matter – but i don’t think they matter as much as say – health, talent, career years, the mets being a total mess and collapsing again, etc….i mean didn’t the mets bullpen cost the mets 6-8 wins this year? THat seems like a lot.
As for ‘having a beer’ – there are people who vote that way in national elections – i try not to decide on who i like in a certain situation by whether or not i’d like to have a beer with them versus whether or not i think they’re good for the job – be they larry bowa or charlie manuel or mo cheeks (i prefer manuel to bowa anyway but i don’t drink beer)
by jemagee on Dec 11, 2008 2:36 PM EST up reply actions

by 























