Skip to content

Carl Crawford is injured, so Matt Kemp will get off the Dodgers’ bench

May 28, 2014, 10:51 AM EDT

NLCS - St Louis Cardinals v Los Angeles Dodgers Getty Images

And just like that, all the drama about the Dodgers benching Matt Kemp is a moot point.

Carl Crawford left last night’s game with a sprained ankle and is likely headed to the disabled list, which means the Dodgers are down to three healthy big-name outfielders and Kemp–who sat out five straight games as a healthy scratch–is no longer relegated to bench duties.

Crawford hasn’t been very productive this season, hitting .267 with four homers and a .693 OPS in 44 games before the injury. By comparison Kemp has a .775 OPS in 43 games and while manager Don Mattingly has apparently soured on the idea of using Kemp as a regular center fielder at this point he’s certainly a quality defender in a corner outfield spot.

It took an injury for the Dodgers to start playing their $160 million former MVP runner-up again, but they might be a better team for it.

  1. thetoolsofignorance - May 28, 2014 at 10:59 AM

    Big money team problems I guess. All in all I’m sorry for Carl but happy for Matt and even happier for my team. They have some games to make up still in the division.

    • koufaxmitzvah - May 28, 2014 at 11:23 AM

      We’ll do it. June is time for the the Giants’ inevitable swoon.

      • thetoolsofignorance - May 28, 2014 at 11:30 AM

        Hey, this is baseball. Anything could happen. They could be just fine.

  2. strangebrew22 - May 28, 2014 at 11:00 AM

    20 million dollars a year to sit on a bench!

    • sabathiawouldbegoodattheeighthtoo - May 28, 2014 at 11:48 AM

      I could do that is Kemp’s spot on the bench starts getting chilly.

      • sabathiawouldbegoodattheeighthtoo - May 28, 2014 at 11:49 AM

        “if” Kemp’s spot….ugh typos.

  3. koufaxmitzvah - May 28, 2014 at 11:21 AM

    In the month of May, Carl Crawford is 26 for 78 (.333) with 4 home runs, 14 RBI, 14 Runs scored, and 5 stolen bases.

    Those numbers are productive especially considering the logjam in the outfield.

  4. bronco58lb - May 28, 2014 at 11:43 AM

    Joc Pederson time?

  5. tfbuckfutter - May 28, 2014 at 12:13 PM

    I’m not sure I’ve ever heard Carl Crawford and “injured” in the same sentence before.

  6. Jack Marshall - May 28, 2014 at 12:24 PM

    Ah, the joys of having three over-paid, under-performing outfielders rather than just one…

  7. 9foldmuse - May 28, 2014 at 1:05 PM

    As opposed to da Bums’ October swoons of 1995, 1996, 2004, 2006, 2008, 2009, 2013?

    • koufaxmitzvah - May 28, 2014 at 1:12 PM

      Didn’t they win the division in 2013? Not much of a swoon. Giants finished the year 16 games behind the Dodgers. That’s a swoon.

      Giants fans ought to learn some baseball. But I know you hate the Dodgers more than you love baseball, so you’ve got that going for you.

      Jokers.

      • koufaxmitzvah - May 28, 2014 at 1:14 PM

        In 2004, the Giants ended up 2 games behind the Dodgers. 1996? 22 games behind the Dodgers (who were in 2nd place). I can go on, but your head might explode.

      • 9foldmuse - May 28, 2014 at 1:37 PM

        October is the important noun here. Post-season. Surely you remember the St Louis ballclub? A little reading comprehension goes a long way.

      • koufaxmitzvah - May 28, 2014 at 1:46 PM

        I sure do. So you’re suggesting the Dodgers were a failure last year? I guess that makes the Giants 16 games worse than failures.

        Reading comprehension means nothing when you whitewash the context and history.

        This bears repeating: The typical Giants’ fan on these boards enjoy a Dodgers loss more than a Giants win. That’s sad.

      • 9foldmuse - May 28, 2014 at 1:51 PM

        It’s generally accepted that winning a championship is the only success in team sports: so yes, they failed along with 30 other MLB teams. Boy, talk about heads exploding…

      • koufaxmitzvah - May 28, 2014 at 2:31 PM

        Oh…. So what are you doing here? It’s not October, so none of this should matter for such a forward thinking sports fan as yourself.

        You can go away now. We won’t miss you, so don’t worry about it.

        Thanks!

      • agent0027 - May 28, 2014 at 2:14 PM

        “so yes, they failed along with 30 other MLB teams” – So now there are suddenly 31 teams in MLB, and the Red Sox didn’t win the title last year?

      • 9foldmuse - May 28, 2014 at 2:40 PM

        Oh dear, someone does NOT enjoy being challenged! And I mean that in every sense of the word.

        You’re welcome!

      • koufaxmitzvah - May 28, 2014 at 2:58 PM

        I don’t really see the challenge. It’s a thread about Matt Kemp and Carl Crawford, in which you are declaring that the Dodgers sucked because, while they ended up 16 games better than the Giants last year, they lost the playoff series to the Cardinals. Also, the Dodgers suck because in 2004 they were 2 games better than the Giants, and in 1996 they were 22 games better than the Giants, and so, Giants rule and Dodgers drool.

        Not really a challenge. However, I will say that you are challenged. But that’s okay because my reading comprehension sucks so you win! Yay you!

      • sportsfan18 - May 28, 2014 at 3:17 PM

        no, he said they sucked because they didn’t win it all…

        he did NOT say they sucked because they were 16 games better than the Giants… YOU said that…

        Him – ALL teams who don’t win the championship suck.

        YOU – they were this many games better than your team that year so your team must suck worse then.

        Uh, he ALREADY covered that. his team sucked too because they didn’t win the championship either.

      • koufaxmitzvah - May 28, 2014 at 4:32 PM

        That’s great you’re keeping score. What about individual players? Is Willie Mays just one big loser? See, what you don’t understand is the context. I covered that earlier.

      • TheMorningStar - May 28, 2014 at 3:31 PM

        Division titles are nice; MLB championships are much nicer.

        All them division titles you mentioned, how many resulted in championships?

      • koufaxmitzvah - May 28, 2014 at 4:34 PM

        But my team isn’t a Loser Team because they won the division and not the World Series. I don’t consider the Dodgers a failure of a ballclub because they last won it all in 1988.

        I can’t believe this is a conversation, btw. Like I said earlier, if you only follow baseball for the championship, then we don’t need to discuss anything until October.

  8. kaleidoscopictreats - May 28, 2014 at 1:14 PM

    I wonder whether this is precisely one of those times where having “tons of money and tons of outfielders” is such a good thing. What do you think, Aaron Gleenman?

    Or do you still think that “Sometimes having tons of money and tons of outfielders isn’t such a good thing”?

  9. lew24 - May 28, 2014 at 1:38 PM

    Hasn’t been productive? Lately he has been….333/.358/.513 with four home runs during the month of May.

    • kaleidoscopictreats - May 28, 2014 at 1:55 PM

      Seriously.

      Why don’t we steep ourselves in a little reality about Dodger outfield production, shall we…

      http://www.fangraphs.com/leaders.aspx?pos=of&stats=bat&lg=all&qual=0&type=1&season=2014&month=43&season1=2014&ind=0&team=0,ts&rost=0&age=0&filter=&players=0&sort=16,d

      Oh, look at that. The most productive.

  10. thekidatbat - May 28, 2014 at 1:55 PM

    Now Big Matt is going to SHINE.
    GO GET THEM MATT.

  11. grehg74762 - May 28, 2014 at 3:33 PM

    With the money your precious Dodgers frivously spend on players, ONE loss is a failure. The Dodgers, as well as the Yankees, are proof that World Championships cannot be bought. I will give you the award for your Beachball and Wave lamest fans in the world award. Just keep changing the number on the board for “Days Someone has NOT been murdered in the Parking Lot”.

    • bigmayhem1 - May 28, 2014 at 4:03 PM

      Uh…pretty sure that the Yankees (and a LOT of other high payroll teams), have proven that championships CAN in fact be purchased. Are you 12 years old??

      • grehg74762 - May 28, 2014 at 5:10 PM

        Like I said, “One” loss is a failure with that type of payroll. Your clubhouse is a mess. Way too many egos. Your TV deal is a bust when your own fans get blacked blacked out. The Dodgers are a joke. State facts and not personal attacks. And it is a fact that “Waves” and “Beach Balls” are incredible LAME! What year is it in LA? 1982? Get with the times.

  12. TheMorningStar - May 28, 2014 at 3:33 PM

    So glad Crawford is in LA.

    Sincerely,

    Boston Red Sox fans

  13. fishman22 - May 28, 2014 at 7:13 PM

    Bottom line is it is ridiculous a market the size of LA has gone 26 years without a title. Even more absurd the Giants with their market went 56 years without a title. As a lifelong Dodger fan I can take pride in the fact I don’t get caught up in all the smack talk. Just like to state the facts. Not like I have anything to do with rather my team wins or loses. On another note, don’t let any fan fool you out there and talk smack about deep pockets. Everyone wishes their team had the money the Dodgers and Yanks have. I don’t like it, but there will be a bought world series for the Dodgers and Yanks in the near future. Everyone knows it is going to happen because it has so many times before. Last, anyone who states last year wasn’t a success for the Dodgers? C’mon. First year with that team and ownership and 2 games from the series. Hanley, with the tear he was on doesn’t get his ribs shattered and different story? Uh, yeah.

  14. fishman22 - May 28, 2014 at 7:16 PM

    Will say this. If Boche coached the Dodgers they would win 110 games. Best coach in baseball, period. Constantly out coaches Mattingly.

Leave Comment

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!

Featured video

Angels' 2011 overhaul finally paying off?
Top 10 MLB Player Searches
  1. G. Stanton (3910)
  2. R. Castillo (3129)
  3. A. Rizzo (2481)
  4. A. Pujols (2177)
  5. H. Ryu (2134)
  1. E. Gattis (2103)
  2. C. Davis (1936)
  3. J. Hamilton (1935)
  4. B. Belt (1915)
  5. C. Young (1816)