tom81 [love the Callison photo, I remember where I first saw it. Sport magazine, April of 1965, The Rise and Fall of the Fabulous Phillies, a wonderfully written story about the rise and demise of the 1964 Phillies. Jim Bunning and Bo Belinsky were on the cover. I still have that article.
Anyways, I agree with your post on two points and felt that way when I read what Peter Mac said. #1, I also think the Phils would have won more games with another manager. Peter Mac would definitely rate in the bottom 3rd of managers, his in game decisions, his use of his bullpen, his public criticisms of players are all negatives in my mind. A manager like Maddon or Showalter could have done an awful lot with this group in my opinion.
And unlike zambonir, I do see drama in this story. Management may not appreciate him bringing this up publicly during the final home stand, especially since he does have a contract for next year. And once again, he is seemingly calling out Klentak for not providing him with the players he needs to win. Good managers take players he has and wins with them, mediocre managers need very good players in order to win.
And his continued goal of letting Galvis play all 162 games simply because he wanted to, and also allowing him to bat 2nd when he is clearly an 8th place hitter, hurt the team and may have irritated a few guys in the clubhouse. This talk of Galvis being the leader seems foolish to me, leaders never have to tell the world they are the leaders, they just lead. Yet Galvis was always reminding us, as did Peter Mac, that he was the leader of the team. Actually Crawford has the best leadership qualities in my view and the fact that he has so eloquently switched positions and pooh-poohed it as no big deal speaks volumes to me.
I cannot imagine that the Phillie front office was too happy with this story, even if they don't act on it in a negative way or speak publicly about it. This seems something Larry Bowa would have said when he was manager and we were always cringing at his public comments.