I suppose we can debate the question "What if the Phillies didn't fire Tito after 2000?" Would the Phillies have done just as well or better in 2001? Would Rolen have stayed since he was fond of Tito? How long would Tito have stuck around, assuming there was also a turnaround under him in 2001? If the Phillies moved on from him at some point, would they have turned the reigns over to Charlie (considering that his low-key demeanor was considered a plus post-Bowa)? Would Tito have gotten them to the postseason sooner than 2007?
Personally, I am in the camp that believes the team needed the jolt that Bowa provided, regardless of the fact that his welcome started to wear out as early as 2002. I am doubtful that the quick and dramatic turnaround would have happened under Tito. I always got the sense that Tito didn't demand much in the way of accountability from the players and his teams had pretty much come to accept losing while Bowa, on the other hand, hated losing with a passion and, I think, drove them to win, at least in 2001. I remember watching "Meet the Phillies" on CSN in January of 2001 and hearing Bowa say "I hate losing", a comment which elicited cheers from the audience, and, admittedly, feeling like that sounded like a breath of fresh air compared to Francona's words and more passive demeanor. And, I think Rolen soured on the Phillies organization and the city for a host of reasons so he was probably on the way out anyway. So, I do tend to be in the camp that says Francona's improved as a manager, with his best and most impressive work coming in Cleveland. I always thought he had teams in Boston that had clubhouses that were good at policing themselves, a la the '93 Phillies. When they became less so toward the end of his tenure, the Red Sox fortunes flagged.
