So Everyone Agrees the Dodgers Moved Way Too Soon On Jamey Carroll, Right?
February 8, 2010 at 9:22 am | Posted in Felipe Lopez, Jamey Carroll | 40 CommentsIn this offseason which has mostly been noteworthy for the Dodgers’ almost complete lack of activity, one of the main complaints we’ve been hearing (okay, and saying) is that Jamey Carroll was the biggest new acquisition of the winter. That’s probably not a good thing just because, well, it’s Jamey Carroll. But is the problem with Carroll the fact that a backup infielder shouldn’t be the biggest grab by a contending team, or that the Dodgers cost themselves value by going after him so quickly?
This isn’t to denigrate Carroll, of course. He’s nice for what he is, a veteran with some on-base skills and positional flexibility. As I said at the time (despite barely being able to see straight), he’s got his virtues, though I did say I was unhappy with having to give him a second guaranteed year. It’s just that we all remember how nicely it turned out last year when Orlando Hudson and Randy Wolf were signed to below-market deals because they’d waited too long in a terrible market, and much the same situation appears to be happening again.
I’ve been thinking about this for weeks, but what really got me going it today was today’s list on MLBTradeRumors of their “Unsigned All-Star Team“, and seeing Felipe Lopez on that list. Lopez isn’t as good as he thinks he is – he’s been riding that fluke 23 homer 2005 season in Cincinnati for quite a while now – but he’s also a useful player who’s probably going to come cheaply, and he’s a perfect fit for the Dodgers. Last year, Lopez signed in Milwaukee for $3.5 million (that’s right, less than Carroll is guaranteed, though of course not over two years), and though he was traded midseason for the third time in four years, put together quite a nice line of .310/.383/.427. Dig that OBP!
Granted, his career line doesn’t quite match up to that, at .269/.338/.400. That line needs to be taken with a grain of salt, though; it’s weighed down heavily by a slow start to his career in Toronto at ages 21 and 22 in 2001-02 (.293 OBP) and a season and a half on a dreadful Washington team (.320 OBP). Lopez was good in Cincinnati (.765 OPS), got dragged down in Washington, but then has been very good ever since he left the Nats. His 2008 turned around instantly as soon as he was dealt to St. Louis (man, players getting good once they leave Washington sure does seem to have some legs to it, doesn’t it, Ronnie Belliard and Marlon Anderson?) as he had a red-hot .964 OPS, and then as mentioned above was very good in 2009 between Milwaukee and Arizona. Add in that he’s a switch-hitter while Carroll’s a righty – and don’t forget, the Dodgers are having a problem with too many righties on the bench – and there’s no question that Lopez is a more valuable bat than Carroll.
Lopez has the advantage in the field, as well. Like Carroll, he plays several infield positions and is slightly above-average at 2B, below-average at 3B, and has some limited experience in the outfield. But unlike Carroll, who can’t play shortstop, Lopez has played over 600 games there. He’s not great (-11.2 UZR/150 overall), but if Furcal stays healthy, he doesn’t need to be. (The obvious follow up question is, “what if Furcal doesn’t stay healthy,” in which case the Dodgers are screwed regardless). Wouldn’t you rather see Lopez manning short as Furcal’s backup than the unappealing options we’re currently faced with, like Nick Green and Angel Berroa?
So what we have here is the Dodgers choosing a 36-year-old guy who’s a lesser batter, can’t play shortstop, and hits from the wrong side of the plate over the 29-year-old guy who has a recent history of offensive success, can play shortstop, and is a switch-hitter. Look, if Blake DeWitt can’t handle the job, Carroll’s not going to be there to play every day – Ronnie Belliard is. Yet if Lopez were on hand, he would be able to play everyday, and serve as a middle-infield backup/lefty bench bat otherwise. Lopez has almost no lefty-righty platoon split in his career, so he’d be an ideal piece.
The only way this doesn’t make sense is if the Dodgers were convinced that Lopez would be unhappy if forced into a bench role. Yet here we are, two weeks before spring training starts, and Lopez is unemployed. What better situation would he have than trying to beat out the untested DeWitt? No, I think it’s clear that the Dodgers jumped on Carroll far too soon, without seeing what kind of bargains would be out there in February. It’s not like if they’d missed on Carroll, the season would be sunk for not having him, right?
40 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
Leave a Reply
How Many McCourt Sins?
MSTI on the web
MSTI Library
Blog at WordPress.com. | Theme: Pool by Borja Fernandez.
Entries and comments feeds.
I agree. I thought they signed him for too much, and since the belliard signing it seems that signing him at all was a rash mistake. I didn’t even think about lopez, which makes it a bigger blunder. It is kinda surprising because the one thing ned has been good at is waiting the market out and getting good guys to good deals.
Comment by gillbert— February 8, 2010 #
Completely agree with the article. Though to Carroll’s credit, I had no idea his and Lopez’s UZR/150s at 2B are similar, even though Lopez hasn’t had the full sample size yet.
Comment by dingers— February 8, 2010 #
Mike, can we just get you to be GM? This makes way too much sense.
Comment by Stephen— February 8, 2010 #
Sure! Set it up.
Comment by Mike Scioscia's tragic illness— February 8, 2010 #
yep……….even in an offseason in which the Dodgers don’t make moves, Ned finds a way to make bad ones.
Comment by Table— February 8, 2010 #
That was just too funny, and sad
Comment by bluetrain— February 9, 2010 #
Well, I don’t like the signing any more than you do, but of course it’s easy now to say that the Bums jumped too soon, with the benefit of retrospect.
Comment by Greg— February 8, 2010 #
So signing Schmidt when Ned knew he was injured is only bad in retrospect? The fact is that GM’s need to have foresight.
Ned should have made up his mind. Either go with Dewitt at second and sign him a veteran backup like Caroll, as things originally appeared, or invest in a substantial second baseman to take Dewitt’s spot. As is the Dodgers are stuck in between with two veteran backups set to take Dewitt’s spot, and superior free agent secondbase options just sitting in free agency.
Comment by Table— February 8, 2010 #
This is spot on. Carroll makes sense if we don’t go and sign Belliard. The Ronnie signing looks like an “oops, I didn’t think he would still be available, oh well” type of move.
Comment by Kevin— February 9, 2010 #
Effin-ehe dude…right on with the comments.
Comment by DTW Dodger— February 8, 2010 #
I thought the exact same thing when I noticed that Felipe Lopez was still without a job. He is a much better option and fits all the holes off the bench. Plus he has enough speed to swipe a bag or two if need be. I would obviously much rather see Lopez have to fill-in for a week or two if someone goes down (or God-forbid any longer than that).
Comment by TheStig— February 8, 2010 #
And where does Amezaga fit into this whole (hole) mess. if he is healthy, is he a better option than Carroll?
Comment by Bleacher Seats— February 8, 2010 #
Amezaga is coming off of knee surgery and probably won’t be ready until June at the earliest, so he’s not really a consideration at this point – and won’t be until he proves he’s healthy.
Comment by Mike Scioscia's tragic illness— February 8, 2010 #
Carroll is Ned’s annual “I’ve got a boner for this guy” signing. Last year’s was Mota.
Comment by David Young— February 8, 2010 #
At least Mota had a decent ERA last year (3.44). I would say he had a nice comeback year. I don’t know what Carroll is capable of doing to at least say his signing was worth it.
Comment by joe— February 11, 2010 #
Dont expect much from Ned, he used up all his magic getting himself a new 5 year contract….
Comment by bluetrain— February 9, 2010 #
Amezaga will be Furcals backup. Dewitt is a better option than Berroa or Green
Comment by ACCarrau— February 9, 2010 #
Way too earlier. We signed our utility player before most of the top infielders even signed.
Comment by Johnny— February 9, 2010 #
The Dodgers could have resigned Orlando Hudson for the money they gave to Carroll and Belliard.
Comment by Wes— February 9, 2010 #
Yeah, but Hudson wasn’t interested in returning. And he can’t play other positions if DeWitt wins the job.
Comment by Mike Scioscia's tragic illness— February 9, 2010 #
The point is that the Dodgers can’t complain about having no money for expensive players only to turn around and throw 800,000 dollar contracts every which way. That shit adds up man!!!!
Comment by Table— February 9, 2010 #
I don’t think the job is up for competition if Hudson is resigned. DeWitt needs to really step up this year and prove he’s worth all this talk. One or two nice months two seasons ago doesn’t mean much heading into 2010.
Comment by Wes— February 10, 2010 #
Not true. The only way Hudson would have returned was via accepting arbitration, which would have netted him ~$8-10 million or so.
Also, Carroll and Belliard’s base salaries add up to $2.175 million for 2010.
Comment by ericdstephen— February 9, 2010 #
I am considering Ausmus, Johnson, Weaver etc as well. The point once again is that a player like Hudson could have been had. Lopez stands out as someone the Dodgers should have been targeting all along.
Comment by Table— February 9, 2010 #
I think that once arbitration is out of the question and he is just a free agent he could have been got. Whether or not he “wanted” to come back is irrelevant when faced with the almighty dollar. Fact is, Ned spent money signing Carroll to be a back up and Belliard to also be a back up? Is Belliard going to be the every day 2B at about 3 million less than Carroll as the back up? Does this negate the fact that both of these guys are not very good at baseball? Like I said, DeWitt better be the next friggin Chase Utley or else trading Tony Abreu looks really stupid.
Comment by Wes— February 10, 2010 #
Any chances the Dodgers sign him anyway to back up Blake or even Loney since Torre last week was quoted in trying to rest Manny and Blake some more this season
Comment by Johnny— February 9, 2010 #
I may be out of line but i would really love to see Sheff come off the bench and strike fear in the hearts of all those half-ass relievers out there. Whether this is anywhere in the realm of reality or not, I’m sure MSTI could tell us. But man, hows that for a sick pinch hitter, idk if sheff would take that role or not, but don’t wake me from my drunken fantasy stooper.
Comment by Vaporshizle— February 10, 2010 #
Please DO NOT bring Sheffield back. Even if he has something left he was such a clubhouse distraction when he was here last time. The dude always is figuring out a way to be pissed off by management, the fans or his teammates. In my opinion he is the poster boy for clubhouse cancer. Things are good these days once chap assed Kent retired. We don’t need the drama.
Comment by Eff the McCourts— February 12, 2010 #
When Ned signed Carroll, I thought it was a good move, in itself. The money, as reported was not obscene as the market still hadn’t shook out. Did Ned jump in too quickly? Probably. There was talk that Carroll was going to sign with the A’s and Ned has much manlove for Carroll (as does Mattingly, both being Evansville boys). As it stood, Carroll would caddy for Blake and DeWitt while Hu would backstop Furcal. That made sense. Then Ned had to sign Belliard and that threw a huge wrench into the works. It may still end up being DeWitt at second with Hu and Carroll as the backup infielders, but Belliard is the 800lb (figuratively and literally) gorilla in the room.
At the time, Lopez was/is looking for a starting gig. I doubt he would’ve signed then to carry DeWitt’s bags. The same could be said for Kennedy. Sure, if we had 20/20 foresight, signing Lopez would’ve been the prudent move, but at the time it was assumed that Lopez wanted bigger money than we were willing to offer and a guarantee of a starting gig. We will likely be unhappy with Carroll, but the signing does not have the same stigma as Slappy.
Comment by grabarkewitz— February 10, 2010 #
Your article is well, not really looking at the whole picture. Take it froma guy who has played with Lopez… He IS a MAJOR CANCER and brings 50% effort at 2B and mostly SS. For your information, a quick look says that Carroll has about 500IP at SS with only 2 errors and they didn’t need him in that role in Clev with Peralta, Valbuena, and Cabrera. Carroll was a .300 batter (15th in league in 2006) with 525 PA and only 2 errors at 2B that year, and should have won the gold glove. In addition, Carroll has the highest career pinch-hitting average of an acive player .354 which is a bonus. He has plus D at 2B and 3B and CAN be used at SS. Carroll will play more than Belliard. Belliard is a fluke and that will play out. Carroll was signed to start 110 games. Just like they found out in Washington, Colorado, and Cleveland that Jamey was MUCH BETTER than they thought before he got there, Dodgers fans will see him play and be glad they have him. Lopez would have been a disaster and the problem with blogs like this is that it is ALL speculation from people that don’t know ANY of these players and assume crap constantly. You watch, Carroll will be the everyday 2B no later than May 1st when it becomes clear he was a bargain! The Dodgers gave him 2 years for a reason! He was their main target for a reason. as a side note, Carroll is the one Big Leaguer I played with who signed for the fans 90% of the time before games. Great guy and Great player. Lopez = Thank Goodness the Dodgers didn’t sign him. Belliard was bad enough.
Comment by Sam— February 12, 2010 #
You played with Lopez & Carroll? Do tell. In regards to your other comments, the only problem I have with that is that you’re using statistics which aren’t really important – the number of errors a guy commits is a terrible way to derive whether he’s a good fielder or not.
Comment by Mike Scioscia's tragic illness— February 12, 2010 #
Agree 100%. Lopez @ ~$3m/year is a much better option than Carroll @ $4m/2 years. I was a bit dumbfounded by the move at the time. For those bit players, it seems to make more sense to wait the market out and see what deals you can get.
Comment by Daniel— February 12, 2010 #
whats the bigs on hudson?id rather have belliard–at least he hits
Comment by ray brown— February 12, 2010 #
Jamey Carroll is a dependable ballplayer who will contribute for the Dodgers this year. With Carroll you know what you’re going to get. With Lopez it’s a crap shoot and probably a lot more money. The Dodger pennant hopes do not rest on whether or not they signed Jamey Carroll instead of Felipe Lopez. Plus, the ownership issues have no doubt put a crimp on just who Colletti could sign. You might not like that, but that’s life. You know what happens sometimes, and this is one of those times.
The Dodgers have some good candidates as a left handed hitter coming off the bench and I’m sure Torre and Co. will make some good choices in that regard. This isn’t a team that had to sign Babe Ruth to have a chance to win this year. Except for the starting pitching this team was pretty much set. The first time Jamey Carroll drives home the winning run this season I’ll be thinking of you!
Comment by Mike— February 12, 2010 #
I think you’re missing my point. I never said that Carroll was a bad ballplayer or had no use. Just that Lopez fits the Dodgers better, since he can hit lefty and play shortstop.
I also disagree with you about the money – there’s NO WAY Lopez is signing a two-year guaranteed deal.
Comment by Mike Scioscia's tragic illness— February 12, 2010 #
I would have skipped signing Jamey Carroll, skipped Lopez and skipped reed Johnson. I would have spent the money on a fifth starting pitcher, maybe Jon Garland for a full season or Pedro Martinez for half a season. I am OK with a Belliard/De Witt platoon. I am less ure about Elbert, McDonald or Stults as the fifth starter. I would have liked a 23 person roster as follows: (SP1) Kershaw, (SP2) Billingsley, (SP3) Kuroda, (SP4) Padilla, (SP5) Garland, (RP6) Broxton, (RP7) Kuo, (RP8) Sherrill, (RP9) Troncoso, (RP10) Belisario, (RP11) McDonald, (RP12) Elbert/Stults/Weaver, (C13) Martin, (1B14) Loney, (2B15) Belliard, (SS16) Furcal, (3B17) Blake, (OF18) Kemp, (OF19) Ethier, (O20) Ramirez, (C21) Ausmus, (IF22) DeWitt, (IF-OF23) Hu/Repko. With Caroll and Reed Johnson in the mixin the mix, I assume that RP12 and IF-OF23 are both in the minors.
Comment by Mark— February 12, 2010 #
[...] been bemoaning the signing of the old and busted Nick Green or Angel Berroa, wishing that Felipe Lopez had been signed (it’s not too late!), trying to talk ourselves into Alfredo Amezaga because [...]
Pingback by Casey Blake, Backup Shortstop? « Mike Scioscia’s tragic illness— February 25, 2010 #
[...] the Dodgers made a mistake by giving Jamey Carroll two guaranteed years; my post titled “So Everyone Agrees the Dodgers Moved Too Quickly on Jamey Carroll, Right?” saw one of the largest comment totals I’ve seen all season. It’s not that I have [...]
Pingback by A Final Word on The Offseason Infield Acquisitions « Mike Scioscia’s tragic illness— February 28, 2010 #
[...] issue would be “Blake DeWitt vs. overvaluing Jamey Carroll”. As you probably remember, I wasn’t a huge fan of the Carroll signing this offseason. Yet, even I’ll admit that Carroll’s been a nice [...]
Pingback by In Defense of Blake DeWitt « Mike Scioscia's tragic illness— May 23, 2010 #
[...] at the time I wasn’t thrilled with the second guaranteed year. I felt that Felipe Lopez was a better fit (remember, Lopez was coming off of a great 2009), especially when Lopez signed for barely a third [...]
Pingback by MSTI’s 2010 in Review: Shortstop « Mike Scioscia's tragic illness— October 25, 2010 #