Originally Posted by Chip R
Apologies for going off on a tangent here but does anyone else think Pete's suspension was ultimately a good thing for the Reds on the field? Obviously they won the Series the next year but there are probably people who believe the Reds would have had the same result with Pete as the manager.
Let's say Pete never gambled on baseball and was thus never suspended. How tough would it have been to fire him if the Reds underperformed? Marge loved him to pieces and while she wanted to win, she seemed to value interpersonal relationships more than the results on the field. If Marge herself had never been suspended and the Reds under Pete had records similar to the teams in the 00s, would she have stuck with Pete or bit the bullet and let him go? If she did, could you imagine the firestorm that would have followed?
IMO, I doubt the Reds would have fired him. Especially as long as Marge owned the team. I'm afraid the Reds would have been about what they were under Pete. Underachieving a bit and coming up short most seasons. Pete wans't a very good manager. He had trouble getting along with players and if he didn't like one he went to the GM and told him he wanted them gone. You have to find a way to get along with most players and I think Pete had a lot of trouble with that.