Mattingly out in LA

[jerichoholicninja]

http://m.mlb.com/news/article/155258936/dodgers-don-mattingly-part-ways

 

Mutual agreement supposedly. I don't know much about him but the guy has made the playoffs 3 straight years and never had a team under .500. Granted, he's had some stacked teams but I don't think you can put the blame on him for not having at least an NL Championship at some point. [sarcasm]Maybe he still refuses to trim those sideburns.[/sarcasm]

[DuWayne Steurer]

A lot of articles I have read recently had suggested that this year was "world series or bust" for Mattingly.

 

I don't care what your payroll is.....that's an absurd way of thinking. Your payroll can get you to the playoffs, but anything can happen in a 5 game series. I mean, even a 70 win team could conceivably beat a 95 win team a fair amount of the time in a 5 game stretch just out of sheer luck.

[Thurston Fluff]

I think it's less about not winning this season as much as it is failing to win three seasons in a row. Fair or not usually that leads to the manager being released. Personally I think it's more fair to fire him for not winning with good players than it is to fire mangers who fail to win with a terrible roster.

[Jirsch]

Payroll wise they exceeded 310 million and 8 players on the 40-man made 10 million or more this year. Buying a championship hasn't worked all that often in recent memory although teams still try. And even if the team is stacked, chemistry can't be bought either, whether between the players and each other, or the players and the manager. I'm not saying there was tension there, but look at Washington this year. Another team that tried to stack the deck and it crumbled. Was that all Matt Williams? I'm sure a significant portion of it was, but at some point the players need to take some accountability in the firing of their manager.

[QuevedosTongue]

I'm sure a significant portion of it was, but at some point the players need to take some accountability in the firing of their manager.

 

As do the GMs and it's beyond me why Rizzo has been able to skate on Washington's failures.

 

Regarding Mattingly, I think his leaving has something to do with Friedman being hired a year ago. Mattingly was a prior administration guy and, frankly, just doesn't seem like a Friedman type.

[pacopete4]

The real questions is RR going to get his second managers job in LA. I think it'd be a great fit for him. Could set up a World Series with two of our ex-managers facing one another!

[jerichoholicninja]

The real questions is RR going to get his second managers job in LA. I think it'd be a great fit for him. Could set up a World Series with two of our ex-managers facing one another!

 

I'd love to see Ron take what is a rather potent offense and run and bunt it into the ground. Alas, I don't think his style would fit with the new regime there.

[502 to Right]

I'm not surprised they parted with Mattingly. I'm surprised they kept him when Friedman came on board. He's not a Friedman-type guy. If I'm a top GM I want my guy (or my type of guy) in the dugout from day 1.

[DuWayne Steurer]

 

I'd love to see Ron take what is a rather potent offense and run and bunt it into the ground. Alas, I don't think his style would fit with the new regime there.

 

 

Interestingly....... the Dodgers finished 2nd in the NL in OPS (1st in OBP) but 8th in runs scored, and 8th by a pretty wide margin. So they already weren't scoring as many runs as they should have been. They stole 57 based and got caught 34 times, so they already are running to no purpose.

[3and2Fastball]

I think the real problem was the front office in LA, not Mattingly. MLB has turned into a young man's game and LA, with their huge payroll, is running players like Utley, Rollins, & A.J. Ellis out there for significant innings