Dodgers Sign Adam Kennedy

The Dodgers announced that they signed infielder Adam Kennedy to a one-year, Major League deal.  The contract will be worth about $800K, and will include $150K in incentives based on plate appearances.  The Dodgers pursued Kennedy because of his versatility.

“Adam gives us infield depth and an experienced left-handed bat,” GM Ned Colletti said in a statement.  “He provides us with infield versatility at second and third base and can play first as well.”

Kennedy played first, second and third base for the Mariners in 2011, posting a .234/.277/.355 line with 23 doubles in 409 plate appearances. Kennedy signed one-year deals in the $1MM range in each of the past two offseasons. The Mariners signed him to a minor league deal worth $750K plus incentives last offseason. TWC Sports represents Kennedy, a 13-year MLB veteran.

As MLBTR's free agent tracker shows, Dodgers GM Ned Colletti has committed about $15MM so far this offseason to free agents Mark Ellis, Juan Rivera, Matt Treanor, and Kennedy.

MLBTR's Ben Nicholson-Smith first reported Kennedy's discussions with the Dodgers, with Tony Jackson, Ken Rosenthal, Dylan Hernandez and Tim Brown adding details. 

Ben Nicholson-Smith contributed to this post.


19 Responses to Dodgers Sign Adam Kennedy Leave a Reply

  1. This wasn’t what I had in mind when I wanted the Dodgers to sign a new first baseman…

    • until we get a new ownership in place: your 2012 dodgers!!!!! take it or leave it!!!

    • BrocNessMonster 4 years ago

      Kennedy get a minor league contract, has the worst year of his career, and Agent Ned gives him a guaranteed raise.  What the… 

  2. doyers 4 years ago

    one good reason for this singing is that he can play second third and first base.that way don can use him when a starting second basemen,third basemen and first basemen need a day off

  3. John Walters 4 years ago

    An “experienced bat,” yes. A “good” bat, no. 

    And I’m with Carlos here: why the hell would anybody ever put Adam Kennedy at first? Except possibly as a sort of “emergency first baseman” in the same sense as “emergency catcher.” 

    As for the versatility, the single biggest attribute you need in a bench infielder is the ability to play second and shortstop. If Kennedy can’t do that, you’d be better off with a major-league minimum guy with a glove. And you’d save $350K. 

    • doyers 4 years ago

      ya i wouldn’t put him at first base either.i would put Rivera at first and then put Sands in left field.If loney needs a day off once the dodgers tender him a contract.

    • BlueSkyLA 4 years ago

      I wouldn’t expect him to play much FB, if only because he’s left handed. Note that this position was mentioned essentially as an afterthought. He’s a utility second and third baseman who will also get some ABs off the bench. The Dodgers will also need a utility infielder who can play short. Izturis could get a look.

      • doyers 4 years ago

        why waste money on izturis when when they can use Sellers or ivan Dejesus.know we should sign sp to fill in the hole in the rotation.

        • BlueSkyLA 4 years ago

          Using Sellers or De Jesus in a utility role says that they are not seen as starting position players in the future. I don’t get involved in arguing about salaries, since I have no idea how much they are going to spend. None of this has anything to do with signing a starting pitcher.

          • thegrayrace 4 years ago

            The Dodgers have thrown over $15m at 4 league average veterans with very limited upside. If the offseason ends without them having acquired any significant offensive upgrade, will you then admit these were poor signings and a poor use of limited payroll? If you factor in Loney’s likely $6m+ salary, that is $21m that should have been enough for a year of Prince Fielder. Especially with McCourt’s habit of backloaded contracts.

            I’d take Fielder, Sands, Sellers, FedEx and DeJesus, Jr. over Loney, Rivera, Ellis, Treanor and Kennedy. Wouldn’t you?

          • BlueSkyLA 4 years ago

            Honestly, not really. Sellers does not look so hot, Sands looks not ready, and don’t get me going on De Jesus. Then we’re talking about very possibly many more years of Fielder than he is likely to be productive or useful for any NL team. So if you consider all the implications, no I would not see your scenario any sort of sure fire advantage, especially looking down the road apiece. I’m being realistic here. This is a transitionary season. If the Dodgers could acquire a player they could truely build a team around, I’d say maybe. But Fielder just isn’t that player IMO.

  4. coolstorybro222 4 years ago

    Jeez, why not just trade for Jamey Carroll again

    • BlueSkyLA 4 years ago

      Why, so everybody can gripe about how they gave away too much to get him? Because you know they will.

  5. Triple Hawpes Brewed 4 years ago

     so basically the lineup is kemp, ethier, and a buncha nobodies

    • John 4 years ago

      If you consider Albert Pujols a nobody then yes.

      • Triple Hawpes Brewed 4 years ago

        let me know when your team isn’t declaring bankruptcy and i will take you seriously

  6. Has anyone else noted that all of Colletti’s press statement’s are pretty much identical? 

    Just replace Kennedy’s name with any one of the mediocre “veterans” that Colletti has wasted money on and viola, you have every Colletti press statement about a signing

  7. I’ll back up 2B & SS for $45k, Ned.

Leave a Reply