6-4-2 — an Angels/Dodgers double play blog

I shouldn't have said I'd made a 120 on the Angels' situation this year; it's really more like a right turn. They shouldn't be getting blown out by pitchers with 5+ ERAs who meekly queue up for slaughter in the postseason. But is it appropriate to write the Angels off? I can see it; I have done it; but the Wild Card still looks plausible enough for me to think it's accessible if they can pound their way past Texas. Boston's idiotic expulsion of Nomar has made them worse. The Sox have stepped on a Claymore mine of their own device.

But -- let's say I were to dismiss the Angels for 2004. (Again.) In which case, I might be forced to look forward to 2005 and what that might portend. As I see it, there are four big problems the Angels have, and their names are Anderson, Erstad, Glaus, and Salmon:

• Anderson since his return hit a flurry of home runs but has subsequently lost all his power, acting for all the world like he's trying out for the Mariners. (Say, now there's an idea...) Recent comments to the contrary notwithstanding, it's an alarming downward trend. Whether Scioscia wants to admit it or not, his defense in centerfield can't make any flyball pitcher feel even remotely safe, as witness the last two days' hammering.
• Erstad can run and field but he can't hit, not consistently; his 2000 was the last we'll ever hear of significant power from him. He's too injury-prone to keep him in centerfield, but he's too much of an offensive liability at first to allow him to stay there, either. And with $16.5M remaining on his contract after 2004, he's a very, very expensive version of J.T. Snow.
• Glaus is probably done for as a third baseman, though we really can't be sure until after we see how his rehab goes. One clue that might lead to the conclusion that the team's flirting with resigning Troy is the appearance of Dallas McPherson in left field in a game against the Memphis Redbirds Tuesday night. But, that might be equally due to McPherson's combined 24 errors at third for both Salt Lake and Arkansas (12 each), and the club's just given up on teaching the lad third. Either way, it's a risk.
• Finally, there's the matter of the grossly overpaid Tim Salmon, whose rep as Mr. Angel earned him a big contract he almost certainly won't earn, even if the metric is the number of chances to hit singles. And, that's really all Timmy's done this year; his SLG is down to .318, behind even nobodies like Shane Halter (aka the Little Glove of Concrete). He can't, really, even handle running the basepaths anymore, and even so much as a single trip to the outfield leaves him panting and breathless. That $9.75M the team owes him will be too much for him to turn down, though, and like all these wheezers, he'll be back at it next year.

Back when I was in college, one of the toughest classes I ever took was combinatorial math. It's really all about counting, but believe me, it's far harder than it sounds; the problems are such that you either have insight into them, or you don't. One of the basics of combinatorics is a rule called the Pigeonhole Principle. Namely, if you have n pigeons and n-1 pigeonholes, there's gonna be a pigeon out of a pigeonhole.

That, friends, is exactly the problem we face here.

Sure, we stop paying Appier, Sele, and club icon Percival and their combined $28M salaries at the end of the year. but the real problem is the logjams at DH, 1B, the outfield, and -- hold on -- second and third base.

• Outfield is the most problematic. I've bagged on Anderson repeatedly for his offense and defense lately, and on Stoneman for resigning him to a contract that, even at the time, made questionable sense thanks to dollars, years, and player age. Not that that's the only bad move Stoneman's made, but at the moment, it's arguably the most dangerous to the club's health. But what happens if we put Erstad back in center? Presto, we end up with another guy at DH, crowding Salmon for at bats. But Erstad's 17.1 VORP at first versus his 3.0 last year suggests that testing his legs might not be a smart thing; my earlier advice to move Erstad back to center until his hammies pop sure wouldn't be a value-maximizing proposition.

  Complicating affairs are the ascending minor leaguers. Maybe I'm misreading the situation, but if indeed McPherson's position shift means they've decided to make a run at Glaus in the offseason. It might actually be possible for him to play third, but that implies Chone Figgins has to go somewhere else. Clearly, he's earned a spot someplace on the diamond; the question is, where? My gut says he'd be reassigned to play second base in a platoon with Adam Kennedy -- or else AK leaves the club in a trade. Figgins is already a far better player than Kennedy; he's more consistent offensively, his speed never slumps, and we've got more reason to think he'll continue to be so in the future.

• The Designated Hitter has become something of a misnomer, with the former power part of the Angels lineup needing a dose of Levitra. I've suggested that Andres Galarraga might replace Erstad at first, booting Erstad to center (for the remainder of the season) and Anderson to DH, but the Big Cat might amount to a big pumpkin, or he might just be a pinch hitter. We won't know, but it's unlikely he'll reach Angel Stadium until September, regardless, and he's not an answer for 2005, anyway.
• First base should have been a mid-term conundrum for the Angels, what with über-prospect Casey Kotchman supposedly banging on the door. But Kotchman attracts injuries like Scott Boras attracts Yankees, and his sudden lack of punch (.250/.302/.386, only 88 AB) in a hitter's park and league is troublesome. In all probability, he'll have to play another year at Salt Lake -- and stay healthy -- before he's ready for the big club full-time. It's unlikely this will be a problem in 2004, but look out in 2005. Also, If indeed Glaus comes back, we have to accept that he might not play third. The Angels could intensify the 1B/DH problems they already face by moving him there. And McPherson in the outfield is a new experiment; if he can't read balls well, he might end up a better-hitting and healthier version of Kotchman.

All this suggests that the team either (a) doesn't have a plan (as Richard suggested in yesterday's comments) or (b) the plan they had fell apart and they had no plan B at the ready. Either way, you have to think that Salmon's collapse, and to some degree, Anderson's, was predictable. I don't claim to have the answers, but 2005 could get ugly, fast. This isn't really a situation money can buy an answer to, unless you're willing to write off some big, long-term contracts. I'm not convinced Arte understands the meaning of the words, "sunk costs".