It's been almost automatic for me this year. Adrian Beltre's name is mentioned, and inwardly I sigh.

Beltre is a player I have always rooted for, whom I have never stopped rooting for, even now that he wears some other city's uniform.

One year ago, I wanted - and expected - Beltre to do well in 2005, and to do well in a Dodger uniform. Neither happened, and frankly, I haven't wanted to deal with it.

Though Beltre continued to play excellent defense in his first season with the Mariners, his offensive statistics declined dramatically from his near-Most Valuable Player season of 2004 - even when adjusted for the tough hitting environment of Safeco Field in Seattle. Beltre batted .255 this season with an on-base percentage of .303 and a slugging percentage of .413. Using park-neutral statistics, he ranked 15th among 20 major-league third basemen with 475 or more plate appearances in VORP (Value Over Replacement Player) and 13th in EQA (Equivalent Average) according to Baseball Prospectus. His OPS+, or on-base percentage plus slugging percentage relative to a league average of 100, was 90, according to Baseball-Reference.com.

Nevertheless, in a world where many decry the $55 million signing of J.D. Drew - who was twice as valuable (31.0 VORP) offensively in 72 games this season than Beltre (15.1) was in 156, people still make the case that letting Beltre go to the Mariners for $64 million was a mistake.

It's a multi-point case arguing that Beltre:

1) would have signed for less money to stay with the Dodgers, had Dodger general manager Paul DePodesta made a more personal effort.
2) plays a valuable defensive position and plays it well.
3) plays almost every day.
4) is 26, meaning his career peak is probably still ahead.
5) was adjusting to a new environment, whereas in his Los Angeles comfort zone he would have done better.
6) was a True Dodger.

Again, speaking as someone who wanted the signing to happen, who completely bought into Beltre's transformation in 2004, let's see how the arguments hold up.

1) Beltre would have signed for less money to stay with the Dodgers, had Dodger general manager Paul DePodesta made a more personal effort.

At some level, this is probably true. If DePodesta had somehow become Beltre's best friend (and I mean that sincerely, not snidely) and then made a competitive offer, it's hard to imagine Beltre leaving.

But how much of a discount would Beltre have granted? Five million dollars? Ten million? Even under the best of circumstances, as long as Beltre agent Scott Boras was negotiating the deal, it's hard to imagine the cost of Beltre's contract coming down very much. Furthermore, isn't it just as likely that in order to make Beltre feel loved, DePodesta would have had to back up his perfume and roses with pretty much the same dollars he would offer someone he didn't love?

While I think the hometown discount argument might be true at some small level, I don't think it's true at a relevant one.

2) Beltre plays a valuable defensive position and plays it well.

A true statement. That the Dodgers struggled to fill third base defensively this year makes it even more pointed. But, speaking again as someone who adored Beltre, it's hard to say that his defensive contributions outweighed his offensive deficiencies enough to make him worth retaining for at least $11 million per year. (And offensively, in 2005, Antonio Perez was better.)

3) Beltre plays almost every day.

Beltre has played more than 150 games in four consecutive seasons and five of the past seven, while suffering from a botched appendectomy in a sixth. In 2004, we watched him play - and even thrive - with painful foot and ankle injuries. He is a gamer.

Where there is doubt going forward, especially in an eight-figure contract, is whether those injuries might reduce his effectiveness, even if he is in the lineup. For example, we have seen Beltre steal 43 bases in 59 attempts during his first three full seasons, then decline to 19 steals in 29 attempts over his next four. Is that a warning sign, or just a tangent?

4) Beltre is 26, meaning his career peak is probably still ahead.

I spent a good part of 2004 arguing that not only was Beltre's offensive explosion in 2004 real, it was not a fluke. (Or are "real" and "not a fluke" the same thing? Oh well - I really just needed a way to link to two past articles.)

Contrary to the belief of even some of his supporters, 2004 was not Beltre's first good season. In 2000, he had an OPS (on-base percentage plus slugging percentage) of .835 with 20 home runs, 30 doubles and 56 walks - excellent for almost any third baseman of any age and absolutely outstanding for one who was 21. This followed a .780 OPS season in 1999, quite nice for someone at age 20. As I showed almost three years ago, it is not unusual for a young talent to start strongly, regress slightly, then regroup to become better than ever. For years, Beltre's offensive career track has most closely mirrored perhaps the best player of all time not in the Hall of Fame, Ron Santo. That, combined with the observable changes in Beltre's batting style in 2004 that showed him taking outside pitches to the opposite field instead of trying to pull them, led me to believe that Beltre would fulfill his superstar promise for many years to come.

However, Beltre supporters should at least consider the fact that for three of the past four seasons (we'll ignore the appendectomy year), his OPS has not topped .730. His EQA has not exceed the major league average in those years. There is certainly a great deal of risk that in a given year, Beltre is not going to deliver up to expectations. And that's a big deal when he's a cornerstone of your payroll.

5) Beltre was adjusting to a new environment, whereas in his Los Angeles comfort zone he would have done better.

This, I have to say, is perhaps the most peculiar argument I've seen Dodger fans have. A significant part of Dodger lore is the player who messes up in the L.A. whites, or is traded too soon, then goes on to have great success in another city. In fact, I would suspect that one of the few unifying threads between sabermetrically inclined and sabermetrically disinclined Dodger fans is this notion. So really, I'm surprised to see the argument materialize that the new surroundings hurt Beltre, and I have to think it's specifically a way to defend Beltre out of loyalty, love or hope - if not also a method to discredit DePodesta.

It's safe to say that you can find plenty of ex-Dodgers who needed no adjustment period with their new teams. It's also safe to say that any player who is worth $64 million should be talented enough not to require an adjustment period - that making this very argument undermines the overall case for signing him.

Furthermore, consider the players the Dodgers retain (yes, critics, there are some). Is there any kind of correlation, let alone causation, between repeated seasons in a Dodger uniform and maintaining performance?

Sure, it's completely possible that in the unique case of Beltre, leaving Los Angeles did harm him. We've all needed to adjust to new jobs, new homes, new cities, new bosses, new friends. We've all needed to adjust to distance from our families. But to what extent? Ultimately, it's a speculative argument, the kind of argument that could be made to justify signing any number of people.

At best, we're talking definite maybe on this one.

6) Beltre was a True Dodger.

Yep. Beltre was a home-grown hero. I sure didn't want to lose him. While I will always make the case that fans respond to winning, and that no one would be arguing for Beltre today if the Dodgers had won 91 games without him, I'm not going to criticize someone for wishing a player whose development they invested so much in was not let go. I think one can contend that in a year where he was so key to the team's 2004 success, and so young, and by most accounts so likeable, that DePodesta should have been willing even to overpay for him.

Even if you believe in DePodesta, hindsight now allows you to make a big-picture argument that in order to preserve himself as the long-term administrator of a plan to make the Dodgers a perennial World Series contender, he needed to throw a bone to sentiment - whether that meant not trading Paul Lo Duca, re-signing Jose Lima (gulp) or hanging onto Beltre. The team might have still gone 71-91, but perhaps the outrage would not have been so high. That's not my argument, but I can see it.

So ...

There you are, 1) through 6). Was it a mistake to let Beltre go? Man, I think you have to be awfully generous to Beltre to shout "yes" with any confidence. After all that's been said, Beltre was a flop in the first year of his new contract, worse than Drew, worse than Derek Lowe, worse than Brad Penny, certainly worse than Jeff Kent.

He wasn't worse than Jose Valentin - and look, if money is no object, I'll take Beltre 2005 over Valentin 2005 any day. But money is an object.

Within four years, we'll find out emphatically whether letting Beltre go was a mistake or not. I still think there's every possibility he'll return to All-Star status and make us rue the day (or continue to rue the day) that he left. But it pains me to say it that I'm less confident that day will come, and more open to the possibility that we were saved from witnessing a disappointing five years. After all, there was a time when I was not alone in thinking Raul Mondesi was going to the Hall of Fame.

* * *

I am scheduled to be a guest on KSPN-AM 710's "The Big Show" with Steve Mason and guest host Matthew Berry at 3:40 p.m. today (with a possible rerun of my appearance in the 6 p.m. hour). Listen kindly.

Update: The interview has been postponed until approximately 5 p.m.

* * *

Update: Jeff Angus of Management by Baseball has Part 2 of his series on the McCourts and DePodesta.