Interesting column about DeJesus—reactions aplenty!

Bradford Doolittle, who pens the “Stat Guy” column for the Kansas City Star, had a really interesting column out yesterday.

In it, he suggested the Royals should trade David DeJesus to capitalize on his value. In light of my post yesterday, I wanted to highlight some points Bradford made, and comment on them.

The main reason now is the time to move DeJesus is what seems to be a decline in his defensive range. According to Ultimate Zone Rating (UZR), a defensive metric from sabermetrician Mitchel Lichtman that many consider the gold standard for the topic, DeJesus’ defense has dropped to below-average levels this season (minus 14 runs per 150 games).

DeJesus has always had borderline speed for a center fielder; a fact that is also reflected in his disappointing base-stealing totals.

If DeJesus loses even a tick of foot speed at this point, he’s going to have to move to a different position. But as a player who has never reached double-figures in home runs, he doesn’t hit for enough power to play a corner outfield position on an everyday basis.

I can’t really agree totally here, in two areas. First, I’m not sure that a move to a corner outfield position would be impossible. After all, Ichiro Suzuki has never hit for power in right field (he’s now in Seattle’s center field, but spent several successful years in right) but was always considered among the best at the position. Now, I don’t mean to say DeJesus is even in Ichiro’s league, but I am saying sufficient hitting at a corner outfield spot doesn’t necessarily mean power hitting, especially considering the future presence of sluggers like Mark Teahen, Alex Gordon, John Buck, and Billy Butler—all of whom should be around as long or longer than DeJesus.

Also, I don’t know that DeJesus’s base stealing numbers can accurately support the claim he’s losing speed—for some reason, he has always been a really below average baserunner. For instance, in the last two years, right fielder Mark Teahen has stolen 17 bases and has only been caught 3 times, but I’d always want DeJesus and not Teahen manning center field. But that’s only a minor point.

My second disagreement is that DeJesus would need to move to a corner outfield spot, even if he lost another step or two. That -14 UZR Bradford mentioned is certainly below average. That puts him, what, about 20th, 25th among center fielders? We’ll say he’ll cost the Royals 15 runs for the next several years. He’s still creating 5.6, 5.7 runs per game offensively (if we assume he’ll be hitting at his ‘05 and ‘06 levels). He finished seventh in 2005 RC/27 among center fielders, as calculated by ESPN, and tenth in 2006. What DeJesus loses for the team in defense he gains back in very solid, strong on-base hitting. Despite his lack of barnburning speed, his high OBP and consistently high pitch counts make him an average leadoff hitter at worst, and a pretty decent leadoff hitter at best. Considering that his contract calls for hundreds of thousands and not millions of dollars, DeJesus is a real bargain at center field, even if he brings sub-par defense.

All that said, it would be foolish to say DeJesus’s defense in center field is league elite or that he’d be just as valuable in a corner outfield spot. He’s certainly not the model center fielder.

While DeJesus may continue to be an above-average performer for the next couple of years, his career pattern gives pause for consideration. He smacks of a player destined for a short peak and a sharp decline.

If the most value in DeJesus’ remaining career is to be found during the next two seasons, then the Royals should move him. By the time the Royals are seriously ready to contend, DeJesus is unlikely to provide appropriate production for the dollars he is likely to command.

Again, this is not to say DeJesus is a bad player. He’s not. But as a marketable, non-impact talent, Dayton Moore should see what kind of return he could get on a potential trade.

I don’t know where Bradford is coming from when he speaks about DeJesus’s career pattern. I don’t mean that as an insult. It’s not that I disagree with Bradford, I just really have no idea what he’s looking at when he says that. I tend to disagree with his statement, but I’d love to see why he said DeJesus “smacks of a player destined for a short peak and a sharp decline.” It seems like a defendable statement. His first full year, 2005, was his best, and he hasn’t really improved since. If anything, it has been his career year so far. By now, his 27-year-old season, you’d hope for a pretty decent chunk of improvement, which he hasn’t shown. So I think some doubt in the longevity of DeJesus’s career is warranted, but I’ll explain why I’m a little more optimistic.

Here’s a list of ballplayers who have had comparable careers to DeJesus so far (through his age-27 year). If you take those same ten players and look at their career totals, you see that most went on to play in the league for many years. One played four years, one played eight years, one played eleven years, four played twelve years, one played thirteen years, and one played fifteen years. And most of the comparables had pretty good careers. One thing that does concern me about DeJesus’s comparables: most were from the deadball era and played in the ‘10s, ‘20s, and ‘30s. One played during the ‘50s, one played in the ‘70s and ‘80s, and one played in the ‘90s. The player from the ‘70s and ‘80s, Steve Henderson, played for 12 years and only had one below-average year offensively in his entire career. The player from the ‘90s, Bernard Gilkey, played for 12 years and had four below-average years offensively but had some really, really great seasons, including finishing 14th in the 1996 NL MVP race. So, long story short, I hold out some real hope for DeJesus’s future, based on the people who have had similar careers to him thus far.

----------

I agree with Bradford overall. I think the Royals should shop DeJesus—my favorite Royal—hard at the deadline this year. He is perhaps the most valuable asset the Royals have, outside of untouchable Alex Gordon, because he’s entering his prime and is still in indentured servitude contract status. The Royals can deal him to a team a little nervous about entering the Andruw Jones/Torii Hunter/Ichiro Suzuki bidding battles but who still want a good center fielder at a bargain price of a few prospects. I wouldn’t want to trade him if I thought the Royals could push for the playoffs next year. But, with Gordon and Billy Butler just now getting the major leagues, perhaps it’s wiser to try to bring in more upper-level prospects for future production in exchange for DeJesus’s production now.

Anyway, I thought it was a really interesting column from Bradford and wanted to pass it along.

I don’t think the Royals will ever trade DeJesus because it would be a big PR risk—KC fans are quick to look at trades of value for prospects as just another Jermaine Dye or Carlos Beltran or Johnny Damon trade. DeJesus is a popular player and is among the best players in KC right now, a guy I doubt Dayton Moore wants to ship out of town. Also, Dayton Moore and David Glass seem very serious about re-signing players when their contract time comes up. So I doubt DeJesus gets moved, but I thought the column from Bradford was really interesting and it provoked a lot of thinking from me.