Dodgers Extend Don Mattingly

WEDNESDAY: Dodgers GM Ned Colletti has officially announced Mattingly's extension to reporters, including Dylan Hernandez of the Los Angeles Times (Twitter link).

TUESDAY: The Dodgers and manager Don Mattingly have agreed to an extension that will keep him in the Dodgers' dugout for the next three seasons, according to's Ramona Shelburne.  An official announcement is expected later this week.  Ken Rosenthal of FOX Sports (via Twitter) reported yesterday that the two sides were closing in on a deal. 

Mattingly was already under contract through the 2014 season thanks to a $1.4MM option that vested when his Dodgers defeated the Braves in the NLDS.  However, Mattingly made his desire for a multiyear contract known shortly after the season in a surprisingly candid press conference.  Mattingly has led the Dodgers to three straight winning seasons, including an NL West Division Championship and an NLCS berth in 2013.

His job was called into question earlier in the season when the Dodgers were struggling despite the team's gaudy payroll, but Mattingly – thanks to some improved health and the emergence of Yasiel Puig – silenced critics by helping the Dodgers to a 42-8 run that vaulted them to the top of the NL West.  Shelburne reported back in November that the two sides were discussing a multi-year deal and it sounds like they've finally hammered it all out.

Steve Adams contributed to this post.

72 Responses to Dodgers Extend Don Mattingly Leave a Reply

  1. kungfucampby 1 year ago

    This is going to make his midseason firing all the more hilarious.

    • Jorden 1 year ago

      Why would they fire a first place teams coach?

      • John Ramos 1 year ago

        Ignore him. He’s a Giants fan that believes that Bonds didn’t cheat.

  2. PoseyTheGreat 1 year ago

    As a Giants fan, I hope its for 3 years or more.

    • theophilus166 1 year ago

      at least then you’ll know which manager will be ahead of you

      • PoseyTheGreat 1 year ago

        You have a glass ball, do you? Well, he didn’t do well against the Giants or the rest of the NL West in head to head match ups. That says something. He also couldn’t win a title with the richest payroll.

        • nick silverman 1 year ago

          The only thing that “says something” is who finishes first. You dont get extra credit for winning with a lower payroll.

          • PoseyTheGreat 1 year ago

            It says something because the likely hood of winning a division two years in a row while not winning within your division is slim.

          • PoseyTheGreat 1 year ago

            You also get no credit for getting knocked out of the NLCS. You end up to be just 1 of the 29 other teams that didn’t win the World Series.

          • thegrayrace 1 year ago

            Actually, you do get credit. It is called the Divisional Championship.

          • PoseyTheGreat 1 year ago

            During the past 25 years: Giants = 4 NL Pennants, 2 W.S. Titles. Dodgers = 0 NL Pennants, 0 W.S. Titles. These are things that matter.

          • IamTinman 1 year ago

            Why only go back 25 years?

          • PoseyTheGreat 1 year ago

            Giants 7 WS, Dodgers 6. we go back to the 1880’s.

          • Puig Power 1 year ago

            And then we can compare the California titles. Meaningless argument.

          • PoseyTheGreat 1 year ago

            You see when the Giants left NY they brought their players and rings with them. Just Like the Dodgers. Only they brought their ring (not plural). I love how Dodger fans tend to get amnesia with this concept.

          • Oh, Beepy 1 year ago

            Everyone ever knows that the WS is based more on luck and hot streaks than it is overall team skill. A team’s success for the year should be judged by whether they made the playoffs and whether they won their division.

          • PoseyTheGreat 1 year ago

            On the contrary, to have won a WS you would have needed to make the playoffs, emphasizing that skill you speak of. Coming up big in big games is what separates the Champ from the other skilled teams.

          • IamTinman 1 year ago

            You’re right, and the Dodgers have won 5 to the Giants 2.

          • PoseyTheGreat 1 year ago

            you’re missing some #’s. Giants 7, Dodgers 6. You’re ignoring over 60 years of history, bud.

          • nick silverman 1 year ago

            I would say I enjoyed last season a heck of a lot more than a fan of the Mariners, Mets, or Giants.

          • PoseyTheGreat 1 year ago

            Really? So you watch the Giants win a World Series, then watch the Dodgers fall short. This was as exciting for you as it was for me? You must not be a Dodger fan.

        • thegrayrace 1 year ago

          The Dodgers played poorly against divisional rivals in late September, after they had already realistically secured 1st place in the division, and in April/May, when the team was riddled with injuries to Greinke, Hanley and others, hadn’t promoted Puig yet. The Dodgers had guys like Justin Sellers, Luis Cruz, Skip Schumaker and Jerry Hairston Jr. starting regularly, and had gone down to 9th and 10th in their depth chart for starting pitching (Fife, Magill).

          During their hot streak in late June through early September, the Dodgers steamrolled over everyone, including division rivals.

          • PoseyTheGreat 1 year ago

            That hot streak was impressive for sure. I bet you every Dodger would trade that streak for a pennant. This why it’s a 162 game season. All teams deal with ups and downs and injuries. You don’t get special sympathy for your team’s injuries. There is no “what could’ve” or “what should’ve” happened.There is only what happens.

          • thegrayrace 1 year ago

            None of those are arguments I am making. You used their divisional record – rather than overall record – to predict future performance. I’m pointing out how your argument is flawed.

          • PoseyTheGreat 1 year ago

            The Dodgers did exceptional against other divisions. But, most of their games come against NL West Teams. Unless they improve against the NL West, or do as exceptional against the rest of the NL, they won’t repeat. The chances of them winning their division in the same fashion is slim. Everyone knows you must win within your division (typically) to take the division.

          • thegrayrace 1 year ago

            They played exceptionally when most of their key their players were healthy (particularly Greinke and Hanley), Puig was in the lineup regularly, and Uribe had replaced Cruz.

            During the time they played exceptionally, they did so against both division rivals and teams outside of the division. It just so happens that that period largely coincided with play outside of the division. (From June 22 through September 10th the Dodgers were 21-5 within the division.)

          • PoseyTheGreat 1 year ago

            I hate to break it to you but staying healthy is part of your Dodgers’ weakness, and it’s a factor. I hope you don’t expect Uribe to perform this year, it’s not a contract season.

          • thegrayrace 1 year ago

            And anyone being honest would have to acknowledge that the Dodgers suffered injuries at far higher rate than usual last season, and it is reasonable to expect some regression towards the norm. There is a reason the head trainer was fired (“resigned”) despite the Dodgers making it to the NLCS.

            I’m not expecting much from Uribe personally – at least not offensively – but I’m expecting a lot more production from the Dodgers outfield this season than last. There will be no more Schumaker or Hairston starting in the OF – the Dodgers should get a full season of Puig, and it is reasonable to expect two of the Kemp/Crawford/Ethier trio to be healthy. If that doesn’t happen, Pederson looks ready to make an impact as well.

            In addition, a full season of Haren will more than adequately replace a 1/3rd season of Nolasco, and Zach Lee could be ready to make an impact in the rotation if needed.

            EDIT: The bullpen is also vastly improved from the start of the 2013 season. Wilson, Wright and Perez replace Guerrier, Capuano and Harang.

          • PoseyTheGreat 1 year ago

            I don’t know about your Haren analysis. He was pretty bad last year. Although, crazier things have happened. The Dodgers’ injuries were nothing compared to the Yankees. It only seemed to you that the Dodgers had worse injuries than anyone else because it effected your interest. The Giants had an injured posey (broken finger), and injured Scutaro (mallet finger and back issues), no centerfielder (pagan) which caused our LFer to play CF (and therefore we had no LF), our bullpen was beaten up, and we had a former all star pitcher (vogelsong) out for over half the year. And on off and on injured Sandoval (just like every year).

          • thegrayrace 1 year ago

            Dodgers were 3rd in total DL stints last season (behind the Yankees and Blue Jays).

            Giants were 17th.

          • PoseyTheGreat 1 year ago

            Just because a player comes back and returns to the DL several times, it doesn’t make it worse than a player who’s out that whole derangement. It just means more stints.

          • thegrayrace 1 year ago

            The Dodgers lost 3 of their top 5 players to extensive time on the DL: Greinke, Hanley and Kemp.

            Kemp and Hanley missed half the season each. Greinke missed six weeks.

          • PoseyTheGreat 1 year ago

            Kemp is top 5? where do Gonzo and Puig fall then?

          • thegrayrace 1 year ago

            Absolutely Kemp is one of the Dodgers top 5 players. Dude should have won the MVP in 2011 (regardless of the PED scandal, Kemp’s numbers were still better than Braun’s), and even struggling with injuries in 2012 he still put up an OPS of .906.

            Kershaw and Gonzo would be the other two. Puig still has a lot to prove. I doubt he ever matches Kemp’s 2011 over a full season. I think we’ll get a solid .850 OPS out of him, but not the elite level production that a healthy Matt Kemp is capable of.

          • PoseyTheGreat 1 year ago

            I would say Kemp “used to be” in your top 5. The last few seasons he hasn’t been. Potential is one thing, performance is another. I would argue your top 5 last season were: Kershaw,Greinke, Gonzo, Hanley, Riu or Puig.

          • thegrayrace 1 year ago

            Last few seasons? Kemp had a .906 OPS in 2012, .986 OPS in 2011.

            Usually “few” implies, like… more than one. He struggled in 2013 because he wasn’t healthy, as has been discussed at length.

            Even if you include Kemp’s 2013 numbers, over the last “few” (three) seasons:

            Matt Kemp: .906 OPS
            Hanley Ramirez: .815 OPS
            Adrian Gonzalez: .857 OPS

          • thegrayrace 1 year ago

            also, look at Dan Haren’s 2nd half numbers.

          • PoseyTheGreat 1 year ago

            Ya, they were better. As were Cain’s.

          • nunyobini 1 year ago

            Wrong dude, Dodgers (and every other team) play 76 division games and 86 non-division games, so most of their games do not come against NL West teams. Nice try though.

          • PoseyTheGreat 1 year ago

            touche. Inter division games are still more critical.

          • nunyobini 1 year ago

            The 2010 Giants had a 38-34 record vs. the NL West while the 2010 Dodgers had a 40-32 record vs. the NL West, and yet the Dodgers finished 12 games behind the Giants in the final standings.

            The 2013 Dodgers had a 37-39 record vs. the NL West while the 2013 Giants had a 44-32 record vs. the NL West, and yet the Giants finished 16 games behind the Dodgers in the final standings.

            Division games are not as critical as you think.

          • stl_cards16 1 year ago

            It’s not who you play, it’s when you play them. The Dodgers are easily the best team in the West and I really doubt that facing the NL West will be their main concern for 2014.

          • BlueSkyLA 1 year ago

            I think every team in the NLW (except Colorado, maybe) is arguably improved for 2014. This is going to be a tough division.

  3. I’m not sure if this really changes anything other than Mattingly’s confidence level. If the team falters, he’ll still get fired. Though the Dodgers have enough money to buy some more confidence for their skipper.

    • BlueSkyLA 1 year ago

      I haven’t noted any lack of confidence from Mattingly. Sure they could always fire him, but what the extension does is make his fate much less of a constant storyline. It also gives him a freer hand to deal with clubhouse issues.

  4. Tre-Day 1 year ago

    I’m glad. It’ll give us some much needed stability at the helm.

  5. Donnie Two Times! Keeping Coletti in the big chair and Mattingly in the dugout gives a little comfort for GIants fans worried about the new Evil Empire and its spending habits…

  6. Rognog 1 year ago

    Hopefully someone disconnects the dugout-to-bullpen phone

  7. jaybuck 1 year ago

    Oh, sorry to hear that Dodger fans.

  8. nick silverman 1 year ago

    This was the smart choice. If it doesn’t work out they can fire him and can easily afford paying him the rest of the contract. This takes away one distraction on a team that has many.

  9. Visionsofsilver 1 year ago

    The players like Mattingly so I don’t hate the move… but his management of the bullpen is questionable at best.

    • MilkMeMore 1 year ago

      so is his management for the line up

      • thegrayrace 1 year ago

        yeah, his lineups and situational hitting choices are worse than his bullpen management, in my opinion.

        not that the latter is particularly good, but its not worse than average.

        • CDADodgers 1 year ago

          He has Wallach as his new bench coach. Maybe that will be different this time around.

          • MilkMeMore 1 year ago

            wallach needs a shot to manage imo he did well for AAA. Matt should be the bench coach since he is good with the players. i dont want to see him manage for another team and be great

    • bandits33 1 year ago

      That’s what happens when you get mentored by Joe Torre.

    • bandits33 1 year ago

      That’s what happens when you get mentored by Joe Torre.

  10. Eslva917 1 year ago

    Lifetime contract please.

  11. Sky14 1 year ago

    Part of the reason the Dodgers turned it around was replacing League with Jensen in the closer role. Took Mattingly way too long to realize that League had no business finishing close games.

    • CDADodgers 1 year ago

      The thing was that the call to replace league was not solely on Mattingly. Just like the promotion of Puig was not the call of Mattingly.

      • TommyL 1 year ago

        Of course the call to replace League was solely on Mattingly. He was the one determining who pitched the ninth, no one else. I never saw Ned go to the mound and signal in League.

  12. DodgersNation 1 year ago

    Great move! This provides stability in the clubhouse. Donnie has earned the respect of the players, now hopefully he can guide Puig and navigate the Boys in Blue to a WS title in 2014 and beyond!

  13. John Ramos 1 year ago

    Finally, Giants fans have some to be happy about lately.

  14. DieHardMsFan 1 year ago

    I’m pretty sure they are happy with their recent WS’s….I mean I’m still waiting for my M’s to play in one (let alone win one)….

  15. PoseyTheGreat 1 year ago

    I think we’ve had more to be happy about lately than Dodger fans. I LOVED the 2012 and the 2013 NLCS.

  16. itstheduke 1 year ago

    The championships in 2010 and 2012 aren’t “lately” enough for you? My goodness, it’s a good think you’re not a Cubs fan!

  17. thegrayrace 1 year ago

    I’m sure you loved defeating the Rockies for that coveted 4th place spot, too.

  18. PoseyTheGreat 1 year ago

    4th or 1st, Did not make much of a difference for the Dodgers in the Playoffs. They still lost. I’m also sure you enjoyed watching the Giants win in 2012. I haven’t had the pleasure of watching the dodgers win since I was only 2 years old the last time it happened.

  19. Dodgerzz 1 year ago

    Because both Giants championships entailed the collapses of two other teams, which is pretty much the definition of a fluke. They snuck their way into the playoffs, meaning they were in the right spot at the right time. They didn’t win convincingly, and every other season besides those two, since their move to San Francisco, they rivaled the Cubs and Indians in decades of futility. It takes time and prolonged success, preferably convincing success, to be taken seriously. Those two seasons the Giants played like they’re expected to, meaning they played terribly.

Leave a Reply