Miguel Olivo signed by Royals

by James Quinn on Dec 27, 2007 11:55 PM EST

Pretty big news here completely out of the blue. Olivo has been the Marlins starting catcher for the last two years and has put up pretty good offensive numbers for a backstop.

2006 - .263/.287/.440, 430 at bats, 16 HR, 58 RBI
2007 - .237/.262/.405, 452 at bats, 16 HR, 60 RBI

Some things jump out right away. Very low OBP. A lot of power. I understand Olivo is at least an average defensive catcher. In most ways he and Buck are pretty similar catchers.

Olivo Career - .239/.275/.405, 1786 at bats. 61 HR, 224 RBI.
Buck Career - .237/.297/.397, 1357 at bats, 53 HR, 175 RBI.

Olivo earned $2M last year. He was entering his third and final year of arbitration when the Marlins non-tendered him rather than pay what probably would have amounted to about $3.5M. I do not yet know the financial terms of his contract with the Royals but I understand it is a one year deal with some option attached for a second year.

This is the second consecutive year that Dayton Moore has brought in an established catcher to play with John Buck. Is he trying to replace Buck? Push Buck? Or does he just like to have an expensive but steady back up to Buck? Next year Buck will be 27 and Olivo will be 29.

Anyway, this is big news and Olivo will certainly make the team better.

Someone will have to be removed from the 40-man roster to make space for Olivo. This very well might be current backup catcher Matt Tupman.

Tweet Comment 45 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

I really like this signing

Decent hitting for a catcher and very good defensively. I remember back when he was in the AL, he was an excellent defensive catcher. I can't imagine his skills have dropped off much.

One-year deal plus a mutual option for 2009. Sounds good.

I probably disagree with you.

by Scott McKinney on Dec 27, 2007 12:31 PM EST reply actions

I remember he had a canon for an arm

Good at throwing out base stealers.

I probably disagree with you.

by Scott McKinney on Dec 27, 2007 12:32 PM EST reply actions

Throwing out baserunners

A quick look at career percentages for Olivo and Buck regarding throwing out base stealers gave me this:

Buck - 30.8%
Olivo - 34.5%

Obviously Olivo has been better but is that considered a lot better? I have no idea. How many runs does a 3.7% difference mean? Anybody have a clue if this makes a difference at all?

by MileHighKCfan on Dec 28, 2007 1:33 PM EST up reply actions

That isn't a big difference, but...

Buck appears to be actually getting worse at this. His %age last year was one of the worst in baseball. I think Olivo did considerably better.

I probably disagree with you.

by Scott McKinney on Dec 28, 2007 1:47 PM EST up reply actions

yeah

I noticed that too, but his 3 previous years were pretty consistent I believe. So I would say it's 50/50 on whether last year was just a down year or if he really is declining.

Also, I think this is a pretty shitty stat to judge a catcher by because the pitcher has a lot to do with how many SB's are given up.

by MileHighKCfan on Dec 28, 2007 1:52 PM EST up reply actions

But the Royals had better pitching in 2007

than in 2004-2006.

by jbrocato on Dec 29, 2007 11:31 AM EST up reply actions

We Were Better

At getting hitters out, but that has little to do with preventing stolen bases. Some of the best pitchers gave little thought to base runners. I think Bob Gibson fell into that category. Bottom line, if you get the hitters out, runners don't matter that much.

I'm not getting older....oh, wait, yes I am....and slower.... and weaker. God, this is great!

by philofthenorth on Dec 29, 2007 3:22 PM EST up reply actions

Hello, Open Up

Spelling Police here:
"canon:
in Spanish | in French | in Italian
in context | images

canon
A noun
1 canon

a collection of books accepted as holy scripture especially the books of the Bible recognized by any Christian church as genuine and inspired
Category Tree:
abstraction
¨^relation
¨^social relation
¨^communication
¨^written communication; written language
¨^writing; written material; piece of writing
¨^sacred text; sacred writing; religious writing; religious text
¨^scripture; sacred scripture
¨^canon
2 canon

a complete list of saints that have been recognized by the Roman Catholic Church
Category Tree:
abstraction
¨^relation
¨^social relation
¨^communication
¨^message; content; subject matter; substance
¨^information; info
¨^database
¨^list; listing
¨^canon
3 canon

a rule or especially body of rules or principles generally established as valid and fundamental in a field or art or philosophy; "the neoclassical canon"; "canons of polite society"
Category Tree:
abstraction
¨^relation
¨^social relation
¨^communication
¨^message; content; subject matter; substance
¨^direction; instruction
¨^rule; prescript
¨^canon
4 canon

a contrapuntal piece of music in which a melody in one part is imitated exactly in other parts
Category Tree:
abstraction
¨^relation
¨^social relation
¨^communication
¨^auditory communication
¨^music
¨^musical composition; opus; composition; piece; piece of music
¨^canon
¨^enigma canon; enigmatic canon; enigmatical canon; riddle canon
5 canyon, canon

a ravine formed by a river in an area with little rainfall
Category Tree:
entity
¨^object; physical object
¨^natural object
¨^geological formation; formation
¨^natural depression; depression
¨^valley; vale
¨^ravine
¨^canyon, canon
6 canon

a priest who is a member of a cathedral chapter
Category Tree:
entity
¨^object; physical object
¨^living thing; animate thing
¨^organism; being
¨^person; individual; someone; somebody; mortal; human; soul
¨^leader
¨^spiritual leader
¨^clergyman; reverend; man of the cloth
¨^priest
¨^canon
¨^prebendary"

I like the contrapuntal piece of music best.

I'm not getting older....oh, wait, yes I am....and slower.... and weaker. God, this is great!

by philofthenorth on Jan 1, 2008 3:25 AM EST up reply actions

good deal.

i have never high on tupman, for whatever reason, so i was semi-worried having him as our backup going into the season.

olivo is a very good defensive catcher though, and hits well enough not to be compared to lapoo...

by rockchalk on Dec 27, 2007 1:12 PM EST reply actions

Moore did get a bit carried away,

when he was quoted as saying Olivo and Buck formed "one of the most powerful catching duos in baseball"

Uh, OK.

Good duo, certainly. Above average, yes. One of the strengths of this team? Of course. But one of the best in baseball? That's a stretch.

by loyal2s dad on Dec 27, 2007 1:17 PM EST reply actions

Power only

I think he was talking about their combined power. That's why he said "most powerful" not "best." If you look at the other "catching duos" in baseball, you probably won't find many (or maybe any) where both catchers are likely to have a slugging percentage over .410.

I probably disagree with you.

by Scott McKinney on Dec 27, 2007 1:23 PM EST up reply actions

OK, but

only one can play at a time, so there are still probably a half dozen more powerful duals, especially if the stronger player gets 6 starts out of 7.

I'm not against the signing or anything - just thought Moore got a bit carried away there.

Here's one use I would like to see Hillman consider: use one as a catcher, and the other as a DH vs lefties on occasion. Butler could play first, meaning, essentially, he would be platooning the backup catcher with Gload. Take a look at both Buck and Olivo's career numbers vs lefties, and, if our roster remains as is, this usage seems to make some sense. Bell would NEVER use Buck as a DH on his scheduled day off from catching, even against a LH pitcher, and it drove me NUTS.

by loyal2s dad on Dec 27, 2007 1:39 PM EST up reply actions

I think it was reasonable

The Royals catching power goes deeper than most teams. Some teams have a much better (and/or more powerful) #1 catcher, but few have the power tandem that the Royals have.

As to your idea, I think Shealy needs to hit against lefties (as well as getting significant at bats against righties). We need to see what he has. If we determine that he doesn't have anything, then I wouldn't mind DHing one of them against lefties as long as the #1 catcher gets enough full off days. #1 catchers really do need rest, particularly in the second half of the season.

I probably disagree with you.

by Scott McKinney on Dec 27, 2007 1:49 PM EST up reply actions

My suggestion

was based more on Shealy not making the team - but that could very well be wrong. I think it will probably depend on the decision to go with either a 11 man or a 12 man pitching staff...

by loyal2s dad on Dec 27, 2007 5:47 PM EST up reply actions

someone should run the numbers...

by Freneau on Dec 28, 2007 3:03 AM EST up reply actions

Terms

I predict $2.75M.

Rock Chalk Talk for pretty good KU College Baseball Coverage

by James Quinn on Dec 27, 2007 1:26 PM EST reply actions

Sounds about right to me

One-year deal with a larger mutual option for 2009. If Olivo thinks he can get more money next year from someone else, he can decline his option and put himself on the market.

BTW, this means the Royals would put the Royals $6.5M below last year's payroll (including arbitraton awards, etc.). Given that I'm sure Glass is willing to go at least a little over last year's payroll, that leaves ample room for any of the remaining available FA SP's.

I probably disagree with you.

by Scott McKinney on Dec 27, 2007 1:36 PM EST up reply actions

DH role

I just dont see us using Buck or Olivo at DH because then we wouldn't have a backup. Unless we also keep Tubman, then we could DH one of them. I don't see us having room for 3 catchers though, I would suspect that we DFA Tubman. I bet he's in Omaha next year.

In the Royals game of life, Neifi Perez is the rake.

by Matty486 on Dec 27, 2007 1:49 PM EST reply actions

Another trade option

One thing this signing does is make John Buck tradeable. He's certainly not expendable, but this signing would make trading him easier to swallow. We've now got some decent trading chips in DeJesus/Teahen, Gathright, Buck and Gobble/Bale.

I probably disagree with you.

by Scott McKinney on Dec 27, 2007 2:13 PM EST reply actions

I don't see the point in trading Buck

he is controlled by the Royals for three more arbitration years, and right now there is no one in the system who is likely to step up. Trading Buck would mean the Royals would need to sign a free agent catcher to replace him. A free agent comparable to Buck would cost about three to five million a year

Now Olivo might be flipped this year for some middling prospect if a contending team loses their catcher to injury.

Anyway, I do not see this signing opening up many trading opportunities for the Royals. They just do not have enough depth to give up Buck, and Olivo is expensive and free agent eligible already. I was actually half expecting the Royals to pick up a Rule-5 catcher to back up Buck last month, but there just didn't seem to be any very attractive options open in that draft.

Rock Chalk Talk for pretty good KU College Baseball Coverage

by James Quinn on Dec 27, 2007 2:25 PM EST up reply actions

Buck

I just see Buck as a catcher who is slightly above average (for a catcher), which means maybe a 90 OPS+. If we could package Buck along with guys like DeJesus and Gobble for a genuinely good player, I'd do it. I'd be happy with that trade, even if it meant going with a replacement level catcher.

I'm not saying Buck should definitely be traded, but I'd certainly be open to it. Of course, it would have to be as part of a package for a really good player. I'm not interested in what we could get for Buck straight up.

I probably disagree with you.

by Scott McKinney on Dec 27, 2007 2:31 PM EST up reply actions

Replacement level catcher = Paul Phillips,

or Paul Bako, or Alberto Castillo, etc.

There is quite a gap between the replacement level catcher the Royals could pick up for $800K to replace Buck and an acutal average level catcher such as Buck himself. Buck is probably worth two or three wins over a true replacement level catcher.

Rock Chalk Talk for pretty good KU College Baseball Coverage

by James Quinn on Dec 27, 2007 2:43 PM EST up reply actions

You have to give in order to receive

Two or three wins sounds about right. For the right player, I'd be willing to lose Buck's 2-3 wins.

I probably disagree with you.

by Scott McKinney on Dec 27, 2007 3:22 PM EST up reply actions

That's Simple

Math, right?

I'm not getting older....oh, wait, yes I am....and slower.... and weaker. God, this is great!

by philofthenorth on Dec 27, 2007 4:02 PM EST up reply actions

Only Good Here

I don't like this move and I tell you why. Miguel Olivo is brutal at the plate. I don't mind using Tuppman or anyother weirdo backup because Buck needs the playing time. Buck was on fire last year until Buddy played this 3 pitchers for Buck 2 for LaRue game and if I was Buck I would be pissed too. He would be an all-star no more of this not getting anyone voted in let's send Meche game. Buck was our all-star last year if Buddy left him alone. Buck had that weird before the ball got there leg kick I loved it the thing was magic. I'm not going to be to negative here because I remember watching a game on Extra Innings that was called by the Marlins people and they had this thing King Olivo he can hit at the K but that means we give him a shot and I think we should have Miguel Olivalone this guy. Buck should be our guy and that's the final word. We trade Olivo at the dead line next year for someone who's catcher gets hurt the only plus here.

by KingofKansasCity on Dec 27, 2007 8:08 PM EST reply actions

Buck and Olivo are very similar

Their hitting stats have been very similar, and Olivo is the better defensive catcher.

How good is Buck? He's decent, perhaps above average for a catcher, but no better than that. I don't think there is any reason to believe that the pre-ASB Buck was the "real deal." He's not that good. Nor is he as bad as his second half.

Oh, and Bell was playing Larue a lot in the first half when Buck was hitting well. Why is Bell to blame for the Buck's second half hitting, but doesn't get any credit for Buck's first half hitting.

I probably disagree with you.

by Scott McKinney on Dec 27, 2007 8:21 PM EST up reply actions

I'm okay with this signing, but

Buck and Olivo are very similar

Their hitting stats have been very similar, and Olivo is the better defensive catcher.

It depends on whether you believe the 2007 version of John Buck (90 OPS+) or versions past. I'm inclined to believe that, judging by 27-year old Buck in '07 is better than 28-year old Olivo in '07, defense considered.

OPS+
Olivo: 87, 72 (trend downward) - avg. about 79
Buck: 80, 90 (trend upward) - avg. about 85

Why is Bell to blame for the Buck's second half hitting, but doesn't get any credit for Buck's first half hitting.

Bell was blamed for stopping Buck's leg-trigger, which he used to increase his power. It showed, as Buck OPS-ed 1.106 in April (and March), but then declined sharply therafter. Kind of odd, considering Buck had previously been a slow starter and a strong finisher.

Bell was, in my opinion, justifiably blamed for ceasing what was working in a good, young catcher, who is one of the cornerstones of our future.

http://royalsnation.proboards62.com/

by Royals Nation on Dec 27, 2007 10:24 PM EST up reply actions

I do recall

Buddy bragging about getting rid of Buck's leg kick because it was something ML pitchers could exploit to put off his timing. I also recall his offensive numbers dropped precipitously after that. Anybody have more details on this?

by howserfan on Dec 28, 2007 8:53 AM EST up reply actions

wins

With Olivo replacing Larue and/or competing for the starting job, how many wins are we talking? And does anyone want to throw out a win prediction for next season? (both with the current roster and with free agent pitcher X that NYRoyal mentioned)

by ctrell on Dec 27, 2007 11:06 PM EST reply actions

80

by Freneau on Dec 28, 2007 3:16 AM EST up reply actions

I'm torn on this signing

I'm really okay with it if the money is right and if it doesn't cut into Buck's PT too much. Buck needs to be playing about 85% of the time (as long as he can handle that load). If Olivo is just the backup and the money isn't outrageous, I have no problem with this signing because it strengthens our team.

by royaldaddy on Dec 28, 2007 12:18 AM EST reply actions

85% of the time is a lot for any catcher

That is about 138 games out of a 162-game season. By comparison, Olivio was Florida's #1 catcher for two years and only caught about 125 games each year. Buck will catch less than 85% of games (probably more like 75%, with maybe a few games as a PH), and that will probably be the right move to make.

This is probably a good signing for the Royals. I didn't have a lot of faith in Tupman or Phillips, and I think Olivio will allow us to safely give Buck nights off without sacrificing his batting power (although Buck is pretty clearly the better of the two at the plate, given Olivio's horrendous plate discipline).

by DarthYoshi on Dec 28, 2007 6:18 PM EST reply actions

Contract "details"

According to the KC Star he gets a little more than $2 million in 2008 and then a mutual option of unknown value in 2009.

I probably disagree with you.

by Scott McKinney on Dec 29, 2007 6:51 PM EST reply actions

Meaning this functionally is a one-year deal

Mutual options are almost never taken...either the player or the club will often opt out.

$2 mil is a lot to shell out for a backup catcher, so it would strongly seem Moore and Hillman plan on having Olivio compete with Buck for the #1 job.

by DarthYoshi on Dec 29, 2007 7:57 PM EST up reply actions

They spent more on Larue

$2.5M. Olivo will get his playing time, but unless Buck falls apart, he's the #1.

I probably disagree with you.

by Scott McKinney on Dec 30, 2007 12:14 AM EST up reply actions

I thought the Reds ate most of LaRue's salary

Did the Royals really pay $2.5 mil for LaRue? I thought it was less than that.

Oh well...all the more reason why Olivio looks like a better investment.

by DarthYoshi on Dec 30, 2007 8:54 AM EST up reply actions

$2.5M was the Royals portion

$2.95 was paid by the Reds (covered the rest of his 2007 salary plus his buyout).

I probably disagree with you.

by Scott McKinney on Dec 30, 2007 1:14 PM EST up reply actions

Interesting

A good move, in that it makes the Royals better for the 150-250 plate appearances a backup catcher gets. Olivo is no great hitter, but he is infinitely better than Jason LaRue. He is as solid as LaRue defensively, if not better. His OBA sucks, but he does have some pop, which is worth something.

I like Matt Tupman, but he only does one thing well, draw walks. Still, that's a valuable trait, and he might have been a decent low cost option as a backup. There's no guarantee his walk numbers would translate to the big league level though.

My only real concern is that this will eat into Buck's playing time, stifling his development. Buck needs to play five times a week. Olivo isn't really an upgrade from him - he's much the same player. And Buck still has some room to improve, although the clock is starting to run out on that.

So I hope this doesn't mean the Royals intelligensia has given up on the Buckster and are looking for a two-headed monster, when one head will give pretty much the same production.

Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com

by RoyalsRetro on Dec 29, 2007 8:12 PM EST reply actions

After three and a half years in the majors

and 1,400+ plate apperances, can we still talk about Buck's development? John Buck has been basically the same player every year, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007.... Batting average has ranged from .235 to .245. OBP has ranged from .280 to .308. Slugging from .389 to .429. There isn't much development going on with this guy.

Maybe we should start accepting Buck for what he is and treat change at this point with surprise rather than expectation.

Rock Chalk Talk for pretty good KU College Baseball Coverage

by James Quinn on Dec 29, 2007 10:52 PM EST up reply actions

Buck

I think we were ready to do that last year, but his offensive numbers pre-AS break in 2007 are just really, really good. OPS of .870+? I think that intrigues people to see if he can keep that success going throughout the entire year in 2008.

We can keep talking about his development I believe, catchers tend to develop slow offensively. Very interested to see what he can do next year. I accept that he is generally a low AVG guy, but it's odd that he took A LOT more walks in the first half than than the second half. So his OBP is still up in the air.

by doublestix on Dec 30, 2007 12:22 AM EST up reply actions

At the plate...

I agree with you that Buck and Olivio are pretty similar, aside from Buck's much-improved plate discipline. But Olivio is almost certainly the better defensive catcher, and he represents a significant upgrade in stuff like throwing out base stealers.

I am also hoping that the Royals haven't given up on Buck--I think having Olivio and TPJ in the same lineup consistently will amount to a horrendous OBP sink for the Royals. But this might also be a cheap way for the Royals to maintain Buck's power in the lineup during his days off, and I'm fine with that.

by DarthYoshi on Dec 30, 2007 8:58 AM EST up reply actions

From Sam Mellinger KC Star column yesterday

"As I put the pieces in place," Moore said, "I looked at: One, we needed depth and strength at the catching position. This accomplishes that. Two, we needed a power, right-handed bat. This guy's the best available player in our minds currently available to us. In talking with Trey (Hillman), he is not against having one of his catchers DH in the right matchup."

Olivo hits left-handers well (.295 last year), while incumbent catcher John Buck hit 42 points higher against righties than he did lefties last year.

When asked whether Buck was still the clear No. 1 catcher, Moore talked of the advantage of having depth.

Rock Chalk Talk for pretty good KU College Baseball Coverage

by James Quinn on Dec 30, 2007 9:34 AM EST up reply actions

Is That A

Definite maybe?

I'm not getting older....oh, wait, yes I am....and slower.... and weaker. God, this is great!

by philofthenorth on Dec 31, 2007 2:10 AM EST up reply actions

Moore is good at giving those non-responsive

replies. At least no one can say he lies.

I wondered about that DH comment. If Hillman really wants to DH Buck and Olivo at times, he will certainly be inclined to carry a third catcher.

I really do not see either Buck or Olivo having a good enough bat to DH. If either are the Royals best DH candidate on a given night, that speaks more to a week roster than to their bats.