Rod Barajas Is Going to Be a Dodger in 2012
August 31, 2011 at 5:16 pm | Posted in Dana Eveland, Jamey Carroll, Rod Barajas | 51 Comments
You can mark that down right now, as we enjoy today’s 4-2 win over San Diego, which represents the eighth victory in nine games and finishes off the first winning month of the season at 16-11. As much as we might like to think that A.J. Ellis and Tim Federowicz might start next season as the backstop duo, it’s not likely to happen, nor should it: Federowicz has just 111 games of experience above A-ball. So while the out-of-options Ellis seems almost certain to be on the roster, the Dodgers are going to need another guy to pair with him. As Rod Barajas finishes off a smoking August (.357/.403/.750 with ten extra-base hits, including six homers) it seems more and more likely it’s going to be him, particularly with his professed love of playing in his hometown.
While we make fun of Barajas and his .293 OBP, I’m not entirely convinced that’s an awful thing. Don’t get me wrong; Barajas isn’t a great player, and I would love to have a better option than him. Just keep in mind how atrocious the state of the game is as far as offense from catchers is right now, because even lousy Rod Barajas is worth 1.2 WAR (in a rare situation where both WAR systems agree). The Dodgers have a .690 OPS from their catchers, which is pretty bad… except that 13 teams are even worse, and that’s even including the healthy dose of Dioner Navarro the Dodgers just suffered through. Sad as it sounds, a combination of Barajas and Ellis could possibly be average to slightly-above both at the plate and behind it.
That says a lot about the catching situation in the bigs, I think, but unless any of the guys on the 2012 free agent list thrill you (I joked recently that 41-year-olds Ivan Rodriguez and Jason Varitek are exactly the type of guys Ned Colletti would go after), it might be the best we can hope for.
******
Eugenio Velez went hitless in two more at-bats; there is no reason for him to ever play again, ever. I’m serious about that, especially since Dee Gordon is back soon and rosters will be expanding. That said, thanks to Chad Moriyama and his smartly-named new site ChadMoriyama.com, we do have footage of the one thing Velez did hit today:
******
MLB.com’s Mark Bowman reports that the Braves were the team who won the claim on Jamey Carroll, but the Dodgers said “they will not trade him”. It’s hard to know what, if anything, was discussed as the return from Atlanta (not much, most likely), but this does seem short-sighted. I like Carroll as much as anyone, yet having him around for another month isn’t going to add much. Ideally, he’d have been moved for whatever return was available, with the middle infield being handled exclusively by youngsters Gordon, Justin Sellers, and Ivan DeJesus, and third base dealt with from a grab-bag of whomever can walk among Aaron Miles, Casey Blake, and Juan Uribe. (Russ Mitchell can fetch coffee, I guess.) Again, it’s not that they were going to get a top prospect or anything in return for Carroll, it’s just that something would seemingly have been better than nothing.
******
To the surprise of absolutely no one with a pulse, Dana Eveland will be recalled to start for the Dodgers on Thursday in Pittsburgh. Eveland appeared in three games for the Pirates last season, allowing 20 baserunners in 9.2 innings, though he was named a PCL All-Star this season for the Isotopes. DeJesus is also expected to join the team for the game, with further call-ups happening in the days ahead. (Update: now it sounds like it might be Mitchell instead.)
******
As we’ve done here, ESPN looks at Clayton Kershaw against Roy Halladay for the NL Cy Young, and essentially declares it a dead heat:
Glancing at the remaining schedules, each pitcher appears to be in line for five more starts (although, with rotation shuffling and double-headers, it’s impossible to know for sure). Kershaw may have an easier go of things. Assuming regular rest, three of his remaining starts will come against the two worst offenses in the league by runs per game, the Giants and Padres. Entering play Tuesday, Kershaw’s probable remaining opponents had hit a collective .242/.307/.372 (.679 OPS). Meanwhile, Halladay’s likely slate sits at .261/.326/.400 (.726 OPS). It includes the Mets, Brewers, and Cardinals, all well above-average offenses. Don’t be surprised if Kershaw emerges from the 2011 season with his first piece of hardware. Either way, the NL Cy Young vote figures to be hotly debated and narrowly decided.
51 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 thought we would be calling up Carlos Santana by………oooops wait…….
Comment by Robert R. King— August 31, 2011 #
I saw him hit his 20th dinger on the highlight reel the other night. Thanks, Ned!
Comment by Bill Grabarkewitz— August 31, 2011 #
Legitimate question: how long before he’s the most famous Carlos Santana of all time?
Comment by SamL— August 31, 2011 #
i doubt that will happen
Comment by Brian R— August 31, 2011 #
One more month and we retire the joke?
Comment by DodgersKings323— September 1, 2011 #
Mike,
I think you can expand this to say we will be seeing Ethier, Loney AND Barajas in 2012. Also maybe Velez can complain to Simers that he has been playing injured all year. Let him have his sit down with Ned and Mattingly and lets see what happens.
Comment by DAVID S— August 31, 2011 #
I never had any doubt Ethier would be back in 2012. I think they’ll non-tender Loney and try to bring him back at a lower price, which could open the door for him to go elsewhere.
Comment by Mike Scioscia's tragic illness— August 31, 2011 #
Unbelievable. Did you see me?! I saved the umpire’s life! What do I have to do for you people not to hate me?!?!
Comment by Eugenio Velez— August 31, 2011 #
Actually, we all love you EV… just a lot more when you were in a Giants uniform.
Comment by Denis— August 31, 2011 #
Barajas is the least of our worries.
Comment by Shane— August 31, 2011 #
“Eugenio Velez went hitless in two more at-bats; there is no reason for him to ever play again, ever. I’m seriously about that…”
seriously? Also I’ve been on board with the “Barajas isn’t the worst option behind the plate” train all season…I just wished AJ was his backup from the get go.
Comment by crushinator— August 31, 2011 #
Last night, one of the Gnats broadcasters said he considered Kershaw the leading Cy candidate.
Comment by WBB— August 31, 2011 #
If he does win it, any guesses as to the order of magnitude of next year’s salary increase?
Comment by WBB— August 31, 2011 #
Kershaw? Without doing any research whatsoever, I’d say that he’d get like $6m. I think Lincecum got $10m after 2 Cys.
Comment by Mike Scioscia's tragic illness— August 31, 2011 #
Lincecum was an odd case. He threatened to ask for $23m, which was Sabathia’s AAV, and was asking for $13m in arbitration. They settled on 2/$23m, with the first year being a $2m signing bonus and $8m in salary. He probably could have gotten more.
Jered Weaver, coming off a year with an ERA more than a run higher and a relatively pedestrian 2 year aggregate got $4.265m in an arbitration settlement. Ricky Romero, who is also left handed but not anywhere near the same class, gets $5m in his first arb year next year as part of his long term extension.
There really aren’t good comparables, but I think $6m is low. I think he should target somewhere around $7.5m, especially if he wins the Cy.
Comment by AA— September 1, 2011 #
I’m OK with bringing back Barajas, but I hope he won’t earn as much as this year, and that Ellis gets to play at least twice a week.
Comment by WBB— August 31, 2011 #
Ugh. Those powder-blue leisure suits are horrible! Barajas looks like an overgrown huggy bear in the top photo. I can dig the Brooklyn “B,” but those suits gotta go.
Comment by McColletti BeGone— August 31, 2011 #
I hate to say it but I’m actually starting to like the uni’s. Which makes me wish they hurried up and got rid of them before I get sucked in even more.
Comment by Brandon— August 31, 2011 #
I just don’t like the half-ass effort, make them satin like they really were or pick another one. Also aren’t those road jerseys?
Comment by DodgersKings323— September 1, 2011 #
I count 31 empty seats, and 12 with people occupying them. Looks like real good seats.
Comment by lWerthFan— August 31, 2011 #
For awhile I was thinking that Ramon Hernandez would be a better alternative to Barajas, however Barajas has been hot enough lately to convince me that the difference is not enough to care too much about. Hernandez is certainly still a better player, but if the Dodgers are able to sign Barajas for 1 or 2 million less (and they should), than all will be equal.
Comment by Table— August 31, 2011 #
If the Dodgers keep up this “winning” crap, then not only will Barajas still be a Dodger in 2012, but so will Loney, Rivera, Miles…even *shudder* Ned. So typical of the 2011 Dodgers: the only time they actually play watchable baseball is when we kinda/sorta want them to lose.
Comment by SamL— August 31, 2011 #
Ned says don’t worry SamL I have some moves I’m working on for next year that will turn this thing around just you wait and see.
Comment by dodgers66— August 31, 2011 #
And a worse spot in the draft
Comment by @BrocNessMonster— August 31, 2011 #
The Giants cut Aaron Rowand and Miguel Tejada today – how soon will Ned be contacting the agents of these Giant retreads? How would a team look next year with Rowand in LF, Tejada at 3B and Uribe at 2B (and Velez as the utility player of course)?
Comment by Kirk Davenport— August 31, 2011 #
Oh my God.
2012 Dodgers:
C Barajas/Pudge Rodriguez
1B Loney
2B Uribe
3B Blake (option exercised)
SS Miles/Carroll (Tejada signed as the utility guy)
LF Rowand (five years $45 million)
CF Kemp
RF Ethier
Book it.
Comment by SamL— August 31, 2011 #
$45 bwahhaaa dang you Sam you made me spill my beer!
Comment by DodgersKings323— September 1, 2011 #
SamL – if they left camp with that group as the starters, what would be the over/under on how many games they would all be healthy and able to play together – about 6 games maybe?
They would have to train the groundskeepers to do extra duty as wheelchair attendants to keep up with all the injuries. At least Velez should be available to fill in at any of 6 different positions successfully.
Comment by Kirk Davenport— September 1, 2011 #
I think leaving camp healthy with that group would be damn near impossible.
Comment by Dave Pomerantz— September 1, 2011 #
DL would have more players on it than the active roster.
Comment by SamL— September 1, 2011 #
Ned says you are not supposed to ruin my suprise for all you fans.
Comment by dodgers66— August 31, 2011 #
I personally don’t see why you would give up Carroll for a bag of peanuts anyway. With all the youth, and the unpredictableness thay come with it, I day bring Jaime and Aaron back next yr. They were not the problem this year, and we certainly cannot count on Uribe and Blake!
Comment by paul c— August 31, 2011 #
I think the Dodgers should be looking to the future. You know the expression “time is money”? Well playing time is money as well. By giving playing time to guys like Ivan DeJesus, and Justin Sellers they would be investing in those guy’s value. If the succeed (and I think they could perform at levels similar to Miles/Carroll) then they uncover value. There is definitely risk there, Miles/Carroll are easier to project, but strong performances won’t yield the Dodgers any future value, nor will it likely change whether or not the Dodgers make the playoffs.
Comment by Table— August 31, 2011 #
Mostly I agree with Table. But even if you DID want to bring Carroll back, trading him doesn’t prevent that. He’s not under contract for 2012.
Comment by Dave Pomerantz— September 1, 2011 #
On Carroll – Is he a Type B? If so, why trade him for less than the value of a sandwich pick?
Comment by AA— September 1, 2011 #
That’s assuming we offer him arbitration.
Comment by Brandon— September 1, 2011 #
That’ll actually be very interesting to see this winter.
Comment by Mike Scioscia's tragic illness— September 1, 2011 #
He definitely should be offered arb. He’s likely a Type B, he can get on base, and he’s a decent utility guy. If he signs elsewhere, Logan gets a 2nd-round pick to work with.
Comment by The Dude Abides— September 1, 2011 #
Imagine, if you will, a man lost at sea, getting thrashed around by the waves and about to drown. He’s desperate to live, desperate to survive…and then, all of a sudden, miraculously, a rescue ship appears right when all hope seems lost. The ship pulls right up next to him, throws him a life preserver…and he refuses it. Everyone on the ship is struck dumb by this gesture, which goes completely against all rationality, but it happens anyway. Well, should Frank refuse this, he will officially be the drowning man who refused rescue: http://www.latimes.com/sports/la-sp-dodgers-mccourt-sale-20110902,0,3026247.story
Comment by SamL— September 1, 2011 #
I’m not ready to jump on that yet until I figure out what the story is with all this Chinese-backed money.
Comment by Mike Scioscia's tragic illness— September 1, 2011 #
Really Mike? How does that make any difference? It’s just part of Globalization. You can’t be against foreign owning of US property if you turn a blind eye to how much of the rest of the world Americans have their hands on. Side note, the Mariners are owned by the Japanese.
Comment by Table— September 1, 2011 #
Foreign owners – not just foreigners in America, also Americans in soccer elsewhere – have shown a tendency to treat the team as a business and not care about tradition at all. I’m not so xenophobic as to suggest that the Dodger owner must be a white-bread America. White, black, female, Asian-American, I don’t care, but it’s the way that it’s worded as “Chinese-backed money” that makes me pause.
Comment by Mike Scioscia's tragic illness— September 1, 2011 #
Isn’t all American money Chinese backed nowadays?
Comment by Table— September 1, 2011 #
I do get your point though. I’m just guessing the Chinese are making a financial investment, not trying to run the team some funky way.
Comment by Table— September 1, 2011 #
I think we need more info. It sounds to me like Bill whatsisname is really just a friendly face to front a Chinese takeover attempt.
Comment by Mike Scioscia's tragic illness— September 1, 2011 #
The Chinese money is from “certain state-owned investment institutions of the People’s Republic of China.” Foreign or domestic, I don’t want a government-controlled Dodgers, and I doubt Selig would either. Seattle is owned by a foreign private business, specifically Nintendo.
Comment by Dave Pomerantz— September 1, 2011 #
Understandable, but like the article says, I doubt that the situation would be that much different than the Seattle Mariners having a large portion of the team bankrolled through Japanese investors. And hell, maybe we can create an overseas talent pipeline and import the Chinese Ichiro one of these years.
Comment by SamL— September 1, 2011 #
Recall when Japanese investors bought the Pebble Beach company and the four golf courses? I was living in San Jose at the time and everybody was up in arms. And then some wise dudes said, “Hey, they can’t take the courses to Japan. The only thing they can do is run them and try to turn a profit.” And inasmuch as there is no way the average golfer (I’m one of them) has the $$ to play those courses on a regular basis, the whole thing got swept rapidly into the “who gives a shit” basket. Let the rich folk worry about it. As an aside, I have played three of the courses, to include Pebble Beach, but I never paid more than $70. Paid $30 to play Pebble Beach 35 years ago as a resident of Monterey. Yeah, it kicked my ass. But it’s not the most difficult course in the area.
.
So the Japanese investors ran Pebble Beach for a few years and lost their collective asses. They sold at a loss to an American group that included the mayor of Carmel, one Clint Eastwood. No harm, no foul. The courses are just as beautiful as they were 30 years ago.
.
McCourt would be truly insane if this were a serious offer and he declined. The bankruptcy court would also be guilty of malfeasance if they didn’t force a sale for the price cited. We all like the Dodgers, but there is no way this team is worth $1.2 Billion. Might as well get used to the Chinese. We’ve allowed them to get into our shorts big time. Maybe they can buy a World Series or two. Isn’t that what the Yankees, Red Sox and Phillies do? Buy it?
Comment by SCDodger— September 1, 2011 #
All fair points. However Shaikin is now reporting that MLB isn’t convinced this IS a legit offer, more details to come soon.
Comment by Mike Scioscia's tragic illness— September 1, 2011 #
The Burke-Chinese offer may be some bogus scam of McCourt’s to disprove MLB’s contention he’s run the value of the Dodgers down. He and Burke may be connected financially. HOWEVER: The de-valuation agreed to by MSTI which SC Dodger wrongly stated is itself disproven by the value of the TV contract the next (i hope) owner will reap. If it runs into the billionS, the value of the Dodgers is literally that and more.
For those who don’t get that, if by owning the team you benefit from contracts worth $5 billion, then the value of the team to you is $5 b + its value without that contract. This is not rocket surgery, but to some it seems to be as inscrutable, or the claim would not be made and agreed with that the team isn’t worth even less ($1B) than it actually really is.
Comment by craigbhill— September 2, 2011 #
The way you explain it, Craig, it sounds simple. Plug in value of TV contract and there you go. However, I just don’t think it’s that simple. I base my judgment regarding this proposed/potential deal (excellent) on the Forbes valuation of the Dodgers: third highest in MLB at $800M, with the Red Sox ahead at $912M, and the Yankees out in the stratosphere at $1.7B. We should also note that a major reason for the Yankees being valued so highly they have their own TV network. The Red Sox also have a very lucrative TV deal.
.
I based my opinion of the possible Chinese deal on the Red Sox and Yankees. Although Forbes views the Red Sox as being worth more than the Dodgers, I don’t agree. The Dodgers can put 20K more butts into the seats, they own their park and they play in LA, a much bigger market. Given proper ownership and management, the Dodgers are worth more than the Red Sox. However, they are not worth more than the Yankees. So there you have it: why I think the $1.2B deal is worth it. And why I think McCourt would be an utter horse’s ass if he even thought twice about it.
Comment by SCDodger— September 2, 2011 #