Rodgers has been badly let down by his bosses and, although I am a big fan of
Michael Owen, the fact that the former
Liverpool are desperate, but they only have themselves to blame because they
got rid of a striker - a £35 million
If that situation had not arisen, and Liverpool had been able to sign Dempsey from Fulham after loaning Carroll to West Ham, there is no way that Rodgers would now be considering going for a free agent like Owen.
The only reason it has become an option is because the club has done a bad job of its transfer business.
Similar suggestions that Didier Drogba might become an option due to uncertainty about his situation with the Chinese club Shanghai Shenhua also reflect badly on Liverpool’s owners.
If they decided against paying a transfer fee for Dempsey because he is 29, where is the sense in paying big money in wages for somebody like Drogba, who is 33?
If Drogba signs for two years and is paid £150,000 a week, that amounts to £15 million, so while you would take him in two seconds flat, it would not sit well the club’s philosophy under their American owners.
It is all very well having a philosophy, but one of the golden rules in football is that you don’t let somebody go until you have brought somebody else in.
Whether it was the right or wrong decision, Carroll was allowed to join West Ham last Thursday.
I would have kept him at Anfield because, after the injuries he suffered last season, he showed enough in the FA Cup final against Chelsea - and in the following midweek when he was unplayable against the same team - and against Sweden at Euro 2012, to suggest he was worth persevering with, if only because he offers variety and a different option.
But having let him go, Brendan Rodgers would have known that Dempsey wanted to move to Anfield, yet the owners let him down by not coming up with the money.
I’m not sure it is something that can be put down to Brendan’s inexperience as a manager.
He has obviously believed that getting Carroll out would enable him to bring Dempsey in. Maybe he has taken somebody’s word and then been let down.
Dempsey is not the out-and-out centre-forward that Carroll is, but he would have given another option and another body.
What do Liverpool have without either of them? They have Luis Suárez and Fabio Borini and, while Suárez will work all day long, he is no target man.
Borini, on the other hand, has not shown anything in his three league games so far since arriving from Roma, so Liverpool are now really short of attacking options.
It is all very well looking at Dempsey and judging that he would offer no re-sale value in four years’ time as a 33 year-old, but Liverpool needed to speculate to accumulate in order to close the gap from eighth to fourth in order to challenge for the Champions League.
When Liverpool won the League Cup last season, the owners came out with a statement saying that the club could compete with anybody, but they look a long way from that.
Brendan has got rid of a lot of players and made big cuts to the wage bill, but the team needs investment to qualify for the Champions League.
Letting Carroll go has left Liverpool without the ability to vary their tactics when the situation demands it.
It seems that Rodgers hasn’t fancied Carroll as a player from the outset, but he is probably the best header of a ball in the Premier League and he would have brought goals had he stayed.
Liverpool are obviously changing the style of play under their new manager, but if your philosophy is pass-pass-pass, what happens when you are playing against teams like Arsenal who have better passers than you?
Liverpool have the players who can pass and press opponents but with Andy Carroll in the team they would have another option.
But after three league games, Liverpool are in the bottom three having collected just one point from a possible nine.
It is not panic time yet, but with Sunderland away after the international break followed by Manchester United at home, one point from nine could quickly become two from 15.