The Futility Infielder

The Dodgers have been generating plenty of headlines this offseason, with GM Paul DePodesta completing a decisive overhaul of the roster he inherited upon taking the helm last February. He's generated no small amount of controversy in the process. Even after the Dodgers won the NL West for the first time since 1995 and earned their first playoff victory since the clincher of the '88 World Series, DePodesta still endures flak for a midsummer trade which sent popular catcher Paul Lo Duca to the Florida Marlins. The young GM came under heavy fire again just before Christmas when he withdrew the Dodgers from a three-way, ten-player deal which would have brought the team Javier Vazquez, sent Shawn Green to the Diamondbacks and Randy Johnson from the Snakes to the Yankees. This past week, he finally finished the Green trade and signed Derek Lowe to a four-year contract that had everybody scratching their heads.

Jon Weisman of Dodger Thoughts has done a thorough and entertaining job in keeping on top of the team's moves. Like many stat-savvy fans, he's in DePodesta's corner, but not every Dodger fan who passes through his site agrees with him, and neither do many of the writers covering the team. Jon and I have been planning to get together to chat at length about the Dodgers' offseason plans since the team was eliminated from the playoffs last October. In the meantime, we actually got to meet in person at the winter meetings, which made our long-overdue chat on Thursday night feel like two old friends sitting down to gab; we went on (and off) for about as long as it takes to play a real game these days.

Part One of the chat is up at Jon's blog. Part Two follows below.

• • •

Jon: I hear it. But 62 HR since August 1, 2003. When does the guy [Adrian Beltre] get some credit for being more than a flash in the pan?

Jay: When he puts up at least a pair of solid seasons back-to-back for the first time in this millennium.

Jon: I'd have gambled that he will.

But what this illustrates, I guess, is that DePodesta had a case for letting Beltre go, and that he has replaced him rather effectively in the cleanup spot, if not at his position.

Jay: Look, Beltre had a fantastic season and was a wonderful force to watch for the past eight months of Dodger baseball, but those kinds of performance gains are unsustainable. Guys just don't do that, and if you look at the class of them that do, you've got Brady Anderson waving at you from a lonely corner of a bare room.

Jon: Anderson was 32 when he had his big year.

Jay: And he may have had some "help". Nobody knows nothing, but nobody ever spiked to 50 HR from 16 before either.

Despite what I've said, I think it would have been worth a reasonable gamble to sign Beltre, but yes, DePodesta has replaced his profile offensively. I see Drew as capable of putting up Sheffield numbers in Chavez Ravine of the .300/.400/.500 variety; maybe a bit lower on average, but easily with the walks and power. And his track record is much more sustainable.

Jon: Well again, even if Beltre regresses, you're still looking at probably more HR than Drew might hit, and at 3B.

Jay: But I don't think it's simply a HR-for-HR comparison with Drew; there are a lot of walks there instead of outs - the guy walked 118 times last year.

Jon: Yes, of course Drew's walks matter.

Segue to Hee Seop Choi?

You should hear the conversations I have with my Dad about him. Cannot convince him to look beyond the infamous 62 AB with the Dodgers and the fact he was traded twice. Choi is the same age as Beltre and, batting in the No. 7 slot, I expect will more than justify DePodesta's faith if given the chance.

Jay: There's a Baseball Prospectus mantra, I can't recall whether it's credited to Keith Woolner or Rany Jazayerli or one of the other heavy hitters, but it goes something along the lines of in 100 at-bats, anything can happen. And it's bloody well true, enough to move the masses to take up their pitchforks and torches.

It's ridiculous to judge a player, particularly a young, promising player for whom you've traded, on 62 AB. If I can point to a failing of Jim Tracy's over the past three years, it's not giving Choi a chance to get comfortable. The guy wouldn't be in the majors if all he could muster in any given 62-AB stretch was eight hits, and the evidence that he can do more abounds.

Jon: In defense of Tracy, as I said before, DePodesta gave him five people to play in those four slots, and all four were hitting decently. Green was playing his best ball in two years. Finley was hot in August. Bradley and Jayson Werth were decent in spots. The key for Tracy will be to not panic this year.

Jay: In the short term, you're right, and Tracy was right to play the four hottest guys out of five. They won, so the end can be seen as justifying the means.

From a broader organizational perspective, his evaluation was shortsighted because, as I've said before, in 62 AB anything can happen. Who's to say that playing Choi beyond those 62 wouldn't have brought him back in line with his previous production or his projections? The odds are certainly in his favor.

If it did nothing else, Tracy's move drained the paper value of a player the Dodgers had invested a good deal in, and that's not such a hot thing for a manager to do on a regular basis. That it was in the fire of a pennant race, and that his other options panned out, is enough to cut some slack. But I'd hate to see it become a habit.

Jon: I wouldn't necessarily expect it to.

Jay: I was a bit distraught to see how hard it was for Tracy and DePo to agree to a deal, by the way.

Jon: You mean in general, in how it would affect things going forward, or because you felt Tracy was being slighted?

Jay: Both. Tracy seems to be, if not the ideal manager for DePodesta to work with, than pretty damn close. There's no reason for the situation to take up a month's worth of media cycles or whatever over something that probably amounts to a half-million dollars here and there.

I appreciate that the team can operate on a budget, but they were second in MLB to the Yankees in attendance, they play in the No. 2 market, they need to cut the broke hobo act before it really screws them.

Jon: Frankly, things seem a little schizophrenic with the money spending. McCourt clearly wants to make some money, so frankly it won't matter how good their income is - he's gonna want to pocket some. But how do you explain approving the Lowetract, unless it's, as some suspect, his desire to bring Boston's glory to Los Angeles?

Jay: I can't explain the contract beyond a point that says Lowe was worth about three years/$18-21 at the outer reaches.

But try this on: to a guy from Boston who's hungry for his team to make a quick splash like the Henry/Epstein model did, Lowe's postseason performances in closing out the three series were worth about $1 million a year apiece and an extra year over the life of his forthcoming contract. Take them away, and you've got 3/$24 million, the same as many others have gotten this winter. And of which Lowe, by moving parks, might stand to be in line with that... if you're an optimist.

That plus the guy seems to have a strong track record healthwise throughout an otherwise schizoid career.

Jon: You got any DIPS (defense-independent pitching statistics) to add to the discussion?

Jay: As a matter of fact I spent the better part of this afternoon with my DIPS spreadsheet.

Lowe is at a 4.40 DIPS ERA (which has been shown to correlate better to the following season's ERA than the actual ERA does), a run lower than he put up last season. Adjusting for park effects, that puts him in the low 4s in Dodger Stadium, which brings us back to the notion of Jeff Weaver territory. Worth maybe half of what Lowe's going to be pad.

Jon: Park effects perhaps being mitigated in general by the decreased foul territory in Dodger Stadium, though perhaps Lowe, as a ground-ball pitcher, will still benefit more than others.

Jay: Yes.

Jon: How about the rest of the rotation?

Jay: I think if you had to boil down the success of the season, yea or nay, onto one Dodger, it would be Brad Penny.

[True story: Jon's IM crashes. After reboot:]

Jay: Was that milk coming through the nose?:-)

Jon: No, actually, that kinda makes sense. If slightly unnerving.

Jay: Don't use the word “nerve” anywhere near him, please.

Jon: Zing!

Jay: If he's healthy, that's an extra 150 league-average-plus innings at the top of the rotation. if he's not, we watch Jackson, Dessens, or Alvarez get bombed or break down.

Jon: I will say, once you put the dollars spent aside, I'm happier now with the depth in the rotation.

Jay: Yes, it's deeper and that's good. But a true No. 1 would be welcome at the expense of a bit of depth; after all, that No. 5 won't be starting in October, it'll be the No. 11 twice.

Jon: Well, Penny or Perez will probably have to pitch like a true No. 1 for them to make October.

Jay: Given the strength of the NL West? I'm not so sure about that. Solidly above average and healthy would be sufficient.

Jon: Okay, mid-October then. Jake Peavy, I think, will be the division's best pitcher, though. Padres may need to be reckoned with, along with the goin'-for-broke Giants.

Jay: The Padres and Peavy, yes, though I think losing David Wells hurts them considerably. The Giants? I don't want anything I say on this to jump up and bite me in the ass in September, so I'll avoid the easy potshot. But they're so full of old ballplayers and so threadbare in the system (hitting-wise) that it's almost impossible to see how they can realistically survive to contend.

Jon: I'm gonna have to wrap up soon, but give me your thoughts on Jeff Kent, Jose Valentin and Antonio Perez. I like the Kent signing, think Valentin is okay as a platoon player, and am having hopefully not naive hopes that Perez is a player.

Jay: I agree with you on the assessment of all three players there. It's tough to go wrong on the two-year Kent deal especially if his defensive indicators (Ultimate Zone Rating and Fielding Runs Above Average) show that he's a better player than most give him credit for. Valentin has his uses but he'd better get off to a good enough start to keep that average above .200 (with his usual good amount of productivity on top of that) or it's going to get ugly. Perez on paper looks like a guy who can have his uses, if not actually be a star. I like the idea that he might platoon with Valentin (career OPS vs. lefties: .583, vs. righties: .826)

What I really like is that there's a lot of versatility all the way around the infield. Kent can play all three corners, Valentin can move to short, Perez can play second or third, they're at least somewhat covered in the event of an injury or something.

Jon: I like the versatility, although Kent hasn't played third since 1996 or so, so I don't want to see him there.

Jay: Not in any reasonable hurry, no, but it's one of those things that is always nice to have from the manager's point of view. Maybe there's a few times a year it will make sense in the context of a bigger situation that will make everybody look smart - late-inning double-switch or something. Or a deadline deal like last year.

Jon: Anyway, I think they have a competitive team, despite all the changes. They have only three commitments beyond 2006, I think, in Perez, Lowe and Drew (although DePodesta keeps talking about instability now for stability later). They have a flexible roster, and they have a little ability for midseason improvements. I think, if nothing else, the gloom and doom brigade might not get to moan so much once the season starts. Although it wouldn't hurt if Dave Ross hit like it was 2003.

Jay: Agreed. The flexibility, both short term and longer term, is the underlying feature of this organization right now. They're supple if not especially strong in any one area, and I think they'll hold up quite well.

That said, I think this is the beginning of better things to come. The Dodgers have four guys on Baseball Prospectus' top 50 prospects, and another couple of honorable mentions - that's great representation there. The system is going to bear fruit, they'll be able to replace some of these middle-of-the-road guys with cheaper alternatives, and they'll have the room to make big moves here and there.

Jon: Okay. We talked for a long time and could keep talking more, but that's gonna have to do it for now. I pity the fools who read this far when we publish.