Skip to content

David Montgomery OK with Timing of Charlie Manuel’s Firing

Sep 12, 2013, 1:59 PM EDT

Charlie.Manuel

Matt Gelb has a wide-ranging interview with David Montgomery in Thursday’s edition of The Inquirer. The Phillies president gives general manager Ruben Amaro Jr. a vote of a confidence – much to your delight – and talks the organization’s upcoming TV deal.

But what we really want to know almost a month after the fact is where Phillies brass falls on Charlie Manuel’s firing. The higher-ups have been relatively quiet on the popular manager’s dismissal, but then Manuel probably would still be here if somebody above Amaro’s head really had a problem with it.

Montgomery’s take?

“Some people think when we did it was disrespectful,” Montgomery said Wednesday before the Phillies defeated the San Diego Padres, 4-2. “But to do it much earlier than that would have really been . . .”

He paused.

“We were not the club we envisioned to be in either of the last two years coming out of spring training. I probably would have been very accepting of letting Charlie finish the year. But I think we owed him, when Charlie asked if he was going to be renewed, an honest answer.”

So then this was really about Manuel’s contract that was set to expire at the end of the year? Remember, Charlie was adamant that he didn’t quit his post, he was fired. No doubt he wasn’t thrilled about being a lame duck, but I’m not sure what that had to do with the timing of the decision to let him go.

Montgomery goes on to add he hoped Manuel continues to feel like a welcome member of the Phillies family.

It’s all water under the bridge now. Charlie was gone at season’s end anyway, and Ryne Sandberg is doing a fine job of mixing things up as the interim manager – it looks and sounds like the job will be his. Check out Gelb’s interview for more from David Montgomery.

>> Phils president backs Amaro’s calls — even on Manuel [Inq]
>> Full Q&A

  1. sfsu - Sep 12, 2013 at 2:09 PM

    Sounds like Manuel forced their hand. The reason why Manuel wasnt allowed to have a “farewell tour” is because he didnt say “farewell.” On the list of Reasons To Hate RAJ, firing Manuel is somewhere around 200

    Reply
    • hitnrun - Sep 12, 2013 at 3:03 PM

      I’d say it’s higher than 200, but it’s certainly much lower than:

      “We were not the club we envisioned to be in either of the last two years coming out of spring training.”

      I’ll say.

      Reply
  2. Mike - Sep 12, 2013 at 2:21 PM

    I more concerned that he sounds perfectly comfortable with his front office and scouting staff. The Manuel firing is ancient history at this point.

    Reply
    • Hiccup - Sep 12, 2013 at 8:41 PM

      Firing Charlie is not ancient history; it’s indicative of the state the team is in and has been under the current front office management. Charlie had his faults but he didn’t trade Pence, Victorino, Worth etc. etc…ending up with Martinez, Young & Young etc…What a way to end the season, eight of nine players started the season in the minors; going from sellouts to a sea of blue seats.
      Yes, firing Charlie on the day we were to celebrate his 1,000 victories is yesterday’s news but the health of the franchise isn’t good and if the moves in the off season don’t produce some miracles we are in for the same. And that means a lot more sea of “blue”crowds.

      Reply
  3. Mike - Sep 12, 2013 at 4:05 PM

    “We were not the club we envisioned to be in either of the last two years coming out of spring training. ”

    Really?

    Did you not look at the line up? Did you not realize you were a National League team that acquired two DH’s in the offseason? Did you not realize your roster mostly consisted of past their prime veterans and AAA? Did you not realize Michael Martinez?

    Reply
  4. Wilmo - Sep 13, 2013 at 3:09 AM

    People seem to forget this isn’t the first time Charlie left a team when his contract wasn’t going to be renewed.

    Albeit in Cleveland, he wanted to leave because the new GM didn’t want to commit to him for the long-term during the season, but a transition to a younger and different was already occurring, just like it was for the Phils this year.

    Phillies wanted to let him finish out season if he wanted but weren’t going to renew his contract.

    Charlie didn’t want to waste his time and did the same thing he did in Cleveland, asked for clarification. He got it from Ruben and that’s what prompted his departure from Phils.

    Reply

(email will not be published)

RECENT COMMENTS

wholesale Senior Bow… on ‘Who’s That Guy?…
clubberlangphila on Exit Interviews: Evaluating th…
Renee on Steve Mason will start Game 4…
Renee on At least Evan Turner didn…