Late Monday night, Paul Maholm broke the news via his own Twitter account that he has signed with the Chicago Cubs. This morning, Bruce Levine reported that the deal will pay him $4.25 million for 2012 with a $500,000 buyout of a $6.5 million option for 2013, so the deal will either be 1/4.75 or 2/10.75. This puts his guaranteed money at just slightly less than what the Indians took on to acquire Derek Lowe. If he pitches well and the Cubs pick up the option, he’ll essentially have gotten the same deal as Chris Capuano. The market for this kind of pitcher has been pretty clearly defined.

What can we expect from Maholm? And is he a good fit for the Cubs rotation?

At the end of the 2011, I named Maholm as a Good Risk among the 2012 starting pitcher free agents:

Apparently, the Pittsburgh Pirates may try to shop Paul Maholm in the hopes someone may find his ~$10M club option worthy of throwing a prospect Pitt-town’s way, but if not, he could make an interesting free agent target. Maholm has consistently beat his xFIP for the last three years and could potentially blossom with a strong defense and legitimate team around him.

Well, the Pirates declined Maholm’s option, meaning he is likely to earn less than $10M with the Cubs (assuming the logic holds that if the Pirates would not pay $10M, then the rebuilding Cubs would not either). According to WAR, Maholm has actually been worth a touch over $10M per season over the last four years, but not the last two.

He will be 30 years old in 2012, which — in pitcher years — is like the age of not-young. Given how pitchers age sporadically and mysteriously, Maholm could pitch another 10 years or another 2 — it’s hard to say — but he is not particularly young anymore and he probably is as good now as he ever may be.

For the last three seasons — from 2009 through 2011 — Maholm has sustained about a 7.5% HR/FB ratio (while, somewhat alarmingly, his fastball and changeup velocities have decreased). However, he also sustained about a 12.5% HR/FB ratio from 2006 through 2008. Which do we trust? Well, typically the most recent one (7.5%), which is good news for the Cubs because those higher rates could make him a launch pad in Wrigley’s fickle air currents.

Nonetheless, Cubs fan can and should expect a nice league average FIP from Maholm, who induces a decent amount of ground balls, and can stay relatively healthy. Maholm did miss several starts with shoulder issues in 2011, and his SIERA (4.22) — which has predicted his ERA better than any other stat — suggests his 2011 ERA (3.66) may not be so repeatable in 2012.

With the Matt Garza trade talks continuing to gain momentum, Maholm figures to be a nice stopgap, though certainly a downgrade, in Garza’s potential absence. If nothing else, Maholm delays the returns of such pitchers as Casey Coleman and James Russell to the rotation — pitchers who are simply not ready for MLB starter duties.

Ultimately, Maholm is a decent, average starter (he has a FIP- of exactly 100), quite capable of a 2.0 WAR season, and he is cheap. Also, the Cubs are still in rebuilding mode. As GM Jed Hoyer said before the trade was official:

“We’re not finished acquiring starting pitchers,” Cubs general manager Jed Hoyer said Friday. “We want to have as much depth as possible. At this point, we’re still very much in the process of gathering as many quality arms as we can, and we’ll put those pieces in place as we get closer to Spring Training.”

Indeed, the Cubs are still far from being an elite, consistently competitive team, but good, small moves like this bring them ever closer.

I posted Oakland’s 2011-12 Top 15 prospects list on Dec. 6 and have been forced to revise the ranking twice in the last 16 days. The first move sent young starter Trevor Cahill to the Arizona Diamondbacks, while the second – and most recent – deal flipped Gio Gonzalez (and an inconsequential minor league arm) to the Washington Nationals for four prospects.

There have been a lot of kudos over social media outlets for Oakland General Manager Billy Beane but, honestly, I don’t get the love. My personal reaction upon reading the news was: “Really, that’s it?”

I know Gonzalez is not the end-all-and-be-all of starting pitchers but I can see him becoming a reliable No. 2 starter in the Washington Nationals starting rotation for quite a few seasons. There has been a lot made about the positive impact of his home park, as well as Oakland’s defense behind him, but let’s consider his road FIP (4.40) is not terrible by any means and he’ll be facing weaker lineups in the National League.

Three of the four players acquired by Oakland in the deal made my 2011-12 Washington Nationals Top 15 prospects list. The best player is starter A.J. Cole, who was a 2010 fourth round draft pick out of a Florida high school. I ranked him as the third-best prospect on the list behind outfield stud Bryce Harper and infielder Anthony Rendon. Here is an excerpt from my report on Cole:

Cole has the potential for a very good pitcher’s frame (6’4” 180 lbs). His fastball reaches the mid-90s already and there may be more in the tank. His secondary pitches include a potentially-plus curveball and developing changeup… Cole has the chance to be a No. 1 or 2 starter if everything breaks right for him – and his changeup improves. He may even add a few ticks to his fastball if he continues to add muscle to his slender frame.

Cole suddenly becomes the second best pitching prospect in the organization behind recently-acquired Jarrod Parker, and right in front of 2011 first rounder Sonny Gray. Both Parker and Gray will likely reach Oakland before Cole, but the former Nats prospect could land in the Majors at some point in 2013.

After Gray on the pitching depth chart in Oakland you’ll find the second prospect in this deal Brad Peacock, a right-handed starter. He could potentially become a No. 3 starter if he sticks in the starting rotation but he could just as easily end up as a high-leverage reliever. Peacock is an arm-strength guy with a fastball that sits in the low-90s and occasionally hits 96-97 mph. His curveball shows flashes on plus potential and his changeup has a chance to be average. I had him ranked as the seventh best prospect in the system and said this:

He’s still working on the consistency of his changeup and his fastball command comes and goes. He doesn’t have the strongest frame so durability could be a bit of a question mark once he hits the 180-inning mark… Control and command will be the biggest things to keep an eye on in 2012.

Peacock pitched 48 innings at triple-A and 12 more at the MLB level in 2011 so he’s a near lock to make A’s depleted starting rotation in 2012. I like the right-hander as a prospect, but I’m not 100% convinced his long term big league role with be a starter.

The third best prospect in the deal is catcher Derek Norris, perhaps the most “classic Oakland-like player” in the deal. An on-base fiend, the former fourth round draft pick hits for massive power (.237 ISO) but he’s struggled to hit for average over the past two seasons and strikes out at an alarming rate (27.7% in 2011). The problem with Norris, whom I ranked as the ninth-best prospect in Washington’s system, is that he’s a bat-first catcher who may or may not stick behind the dish – although he has shown improvement. Here is what I recently wrote about him:

Quite honestly, Norris’ development is headed in the wrong direction and he’s in danger of falling out of the spotlight when it comes to the organization’s top prospects. He’ll have to have a bounce-back year while repeating double-A if he’s going to get any traction in his question to become the Nationals’ backstop of the future. Expect the organization to slow his development down.

Norris jumps to the front of Oakland’s minor league catching depth ahead of Max Stassi, whom I ranked as the ninth best prospect in the system after the Parker trade. He should be a decent replacement for currently big league starting catcher Kurt Suzuki who should be expendable (too expensive) any day now.

Tom Milone is the fourth prospect and I don’t get the love for the soft-tossing left-hander. Yeah, velocity isn’t everything when you have pinpoint control but there isn’t much margin for error when you have a fastball that ranges from 85-89 mph. On the plus side he has deception and a four-pitch mix that he uses to keep hitters off balance. Still, I spent my early days of prospect watching pining for the likes of Craig Anderson and John Stephens. I’ve learned my lesson to never overrate this type of pitcher.

Overall this is not a bad deal for Oakland but I’m surprised that it’s the best that Beane could do and it strikes me as quantity over quality. If I’m a Washington Nationals fan, I’m absolutely thrilled with this deal and the new-look starting rotation that includes Stephen Strasburg, Jordan Zimmermann, and Gonzalez.

According to Ken Rosenthal, the Chicago Cubs and the San Francisco Giants are both interested in Nakajima, and — frankly — I am surprised there are not even more teams rather interested in one of Japan’s best hitting shortstops.

Rosenthal got some quotes from a rival scout that are somewhat illuminating on the defensive makeup of Nakajima:

“This kid wants to play baseball,” the scout said. “He’s not going to take Jeter’s place, but he’s capable of being an everyday shortstop in the big leagues.”

The scout projects Nakajima as a .270-.280 hitter who will drive in runs and use his instincts to steal bases, despite being a below-average runner. He lacks arm strength at short, but has great hands, very good range to his left and hangs in on the double play, the scout said.

So does Nakajima fit with the Cubs or Giants?

Cubs
Currently, the Cubs have one of the league’s best young shortstops in Starlin Castro. He has been a nightmare defensively, but at the stupid-young age of 22 (as of next March), there is still time for his glove to catch his bat. Clearly Nakajima does not fit at short unless the Cubs are willing to shift Castro to second, which I HIGHLY doubt they are.

Where the Cubs do have a space for improvement is at second base, however. Darwin Barney deserves credit for being one of the first good, homegrown defensive specialists in the Cubs system for a long time, but that does not make him a starting second baseman for a winning team. In all fairness, Barney may be around a 2.0 WAR true talent player — good enough to start on many teams in the league — but given their veritable logjam of big-contract outfielders, the Cubs may find themselves willing to shift Barney into a super-utility role (a role to which he could be well suited, given he learned second base in one winter after playing shortstop literally 95.5% of his minor league games).

Could Nakajima be a significant upgrade over Barney? It’s hard to say. The scouting report above mentions a weak arm, which usually sends shortstops to second eventually, but the rest of his fielding skills sound above average to excellent.

Could he be an above average second baseman? Probably. Could he be an exceptional second baseman who hits, fields, and runs well? There’s a chance.

Giants
Last year, the Giants employed a quartet of infielders at the shortstop position: Mike Fontenot, Orlando Cabrera, Miguel Tejada, and top prospect Brandon Crawford. More than likely, Crawford, the strong-fielding, not-hitting shortstop prospect, is penciled in as the 2012 starting shortstop for the Giants. The ceiling for Crawford, though, may be low enough to give him another year at Triple-A to see if he can improve with the bat, making Nakajima a possible fit there.

If not, the Giants also have Freddy Sanchez poised to play second after missing nearly 100 games in 2011 with a shoulder injury. San Francisco has Sanchez’s services for at least one more year, but if they are willing to pay their backup infielder $6M, it is not hard to envision Nakajima being an upgrade there — especially given Sanchez’s recent injury.

Clearly both the Giants and Cubs — at least those two teams; not to mention the Rays (who probably would not deal with the Yankees anyway) and Brewers — could find regular jobs for Nakajima. The question that remains, then, concerns cost.

The Yankees paid a crazy low price to negotiate with Nakajima (see below), and if they cannot get a contract in place (and the promise of a subsequent trade may pave the way for that), then the Yankees do not have to pay anything. So there’s little to lose for them. They can either they sign Nakajima and make him their backup, or the Yanks could just say the negotiations broke down. From what I’ve heard, the Yankees were thinking 2 years at $4M — a paltry sum for a guy with this much potential.

So, the leverage for a trade is all on the Yankees’ side — if Nakajima falls through, they can just grab Eric Chavez again. If the Yankees are not asking for too much, Nakajima could be a much better fit somewhere else.

NOTE: I have updated my chart and graph from the previous post to reflect the absence of Kei Igawa. From what I’m hearing, expect Yu Darvish to ruin the scaling of that final graph.

The A’s traded three-year starter Trevor Cahill, along with left-handed reliever Craig Breslow, to the Diamondbacks for a collect of three prospects: starter Jarrod Parker, reliever Ryan Cook and outfielder Collin Cowgill. It’s a fairly uninspiring return for a young pitcher who compiled more than 200 innings in 2011 and won’t turn 24 until spring training.

The top prize coming to Oakland is former 2007 first-round draft pick Jarrod Parker. I recently ranked him the second-best prospect in the Diamondbacks’ system behind 2011 first – Trevor Bauer. I had this to say about him:

Parker has bounced back nicely from his injury with the help of rehab, and made his MLB debut in 2011. He features a low-to-mid-90s fastball, slider, and changeup. The right-hander doesn’t strike out a ton of guys right now but his rate should increase as he improves his command post-surgery and matures as a pitcher…. At his best, Parker should top out as a No. 2 starter. With the memories of his TJ surgery still lingering in people’s minds, his durability may be questioned for a while but he has the potential to have a long career as a Major League starting pitcher.

Parker is a nice addition. He has six years of team control remaining and — if he reaches his potential — the right-hander’s ceiling surpasses Cahill’s. It is a bit of a gamble, though, especially with his injury history.

Neither Cowgill nor Cook appeared on the Top 15 prospect list and both fell into the 16 to 20 range.

For me, Cowgill is more of a platoon outfielder than a future starter. The 25-year-old appeared in 37 games for Arizona in 2011 and produced a wOBA of just .270. He has below-average power for a corner outfielder and doesn’t have the range to play center field on a regular basis. Although the outfield depth is thin in Oakland right now, a number of the club’s top prospects are outfielders — including Grant Green and Michael Choice — who will find time with the Athletics. Those promotions would make Cowgill expendable yet again.

Cook, 24, was dealt at a perfect time because his value is at an all-time high after a breakout season. Prior to 2011 he was an inconsistent starter who had pedestrian results, but a move to the bullpen vaulted him onto the prospect landscape. He has a mid-90s fastball but lacks consistent control and is still working to improve both his slider and his changeup.

With Friday’s deal, Arizona acquired a young No. 3 pitcher who’s under contract for another six seasons and dealt a potential No. 2 starter and a couple of extra pieces. It was a great move by Arizona general manager Kevin Towers and a questionable move by A’s General Manager Billy Beane.

With Cahill now in Arizona, he makes Joe Saunders more expendable and there have been rumors that Saunders could be non-tendered at the deadline Monday night. More likely, though, the Diamondbacks will find a trade partner because of the barren free-agent market.

Haren compiled 15.1 WAR during his two-and-a-half seasons with Arizona and later was flipped to the Los Angeles Angels for Saunders and another crop of youngsters that included pitchers Tyler Skaggs and Pat Corbin.

In case you have been living under a rock, Votto followed up his 2010 National League Most Valuable Player campaign with a 2011 that was almost as good. It was his third season in an row with a wOBA over .400 (career .408). Over the last three seasons, Votto has been the third most valuable position player in baseball according to Wins Above Replacement. The only hitters with a better wRC+ over that period are Albert Pujols and Miguel Cabrera. In short, Votto is an amazing talent.

For trade purposes, we are interested less in what Votto has already done and more in what he is likely to do in the near future, his true talent. As a hitter, Votto has an impressive combination of skills. He has impressive power to all fields. Unlike many sluggers, he keeps his strikeout rate at about league average. However, Votto is no hacker, and has had walk rates almost double the league average over the last two seasons. That would be enough to make him a good hitter, but he also manages high BABIPs. While BABIP is subject to more random fluctuation than other components, it is only one part of Votto’s offensive game, and after three years in a row with BABIPs of .349 or higher, his BABIP skill seems to be on the high end. At 28, he is not likely to get any better, but it is not as if he is on the steep part of the decline, either. Oliver’s 2012 forecast for Votto is for a .403 wOBA (.306/.399/.535). That is about 48 runs above average in this run environment.

Votto is generally considered to be a good defensive first baseman by both scouts and metrics, although the spread in talent between the best- and worst-fielding first baseman is not as great as at other positions. He is probably a couple of runs above average in terms of true talent. An aspect worth looking at more closely in Votto’s case is his injury history, or, more properly, his relative lack thereof. Despite various dings and day-to-day issues that most players deal with, the only time that I can find that Votto has ever been in the disabled list was a period in 2009 when he was dealing with depression. Obviously we are aware that this is a serious issue that has to be dealt with properly. However, it is not a physical issue in the same sense as a shoulder or leg injury that might directly effect Votto’s ability to do his job. There are treatments available to deal with it, and, in Votto’s case, he has been able to do his job, and do it quite well. I am not trying to dig into Votto’s personal life, I simply bring this up to point out that 2009 was the only season since Votto has been a full-time major league player that he has played less than 150 games, and even then he played 131. I rarely feel like projecting a player to play 150 or more games going forward, but in Votto’s case, I think it is a fairly safe projection given his age, good physical health, and recent performance.

For those who really want to see the “math”: +48 offense +2 fielding -12.5 first base positional adjustment + 20 NL replacement level all adjusted for 90 percent playing time puts his 2012 projection at a bit over 5.5 wins above replacement. That is outstanding. Votto has two years and $26.5 million remaining on his current contract. With a relatively conservative average cost of a win of about $5.5 million, a small average annual increase of 7%, and a typical rate of attrition, if Votto were to get an “average” deal on the free agent market this off-season lasting only two years, it would be worth about $60 million dollars. That leaves about $35 million dollars worth of surplus value.

[I am leaving aside any potential draft pick compensation for Votto post-2013 since that is something that may very well change in the new Collective Bargaining Agreement. Adjust your expectations up accordingly if you think that will be a factor.]

What does that mean in terms of possible return on prospects? Looking at this summary of Victor Wang’s research from a couple of seasons ago, one finds that $35 million dollars in surplus is approximately the average surplus value of the most coveted sort of prospects — i.e. top-10 hitting prospects. Another way of looking at it that might be more helpful in concrete terms would be to compare the Votto situation to a recent trade that involved high-end prospects. In July 2010, Cliff Lee was traded to by the Mariners to the Rangers with just half a season (at $9 million) left on his contract. There seems to have been a pretty established value for Lee at that point, as the Mariners got back Justin Smoak plus two potentially useful parts, choosing that over a similar offer from the Yankees of Jesus Montero and two possibly helpful pieces.

The point is not whether the Mariners made the right choice, but the established value of half a season of Lee (who was making the same salary in 2010 as Votto will in 2011): top-10 hitting prospect close to the majors plus a couple of decent additions. Votto and Lee are roughly comparable in terms of their on-field value. However, remember that a) a team getting Votto would be getting him for all of 2012 as opposed to just a half-season as in Lee’s case, and at about the same 2012 salary as Lee in 2010; and b) the receiving team would also get him in 2013 at $17 million, which only seems steep if one ignores that Votto will still likely be at least a five-win player — which means at least another $10-$15 million in surplus. Put simply, there is probably at least twice the surplus value available with Votto as there was for Lee, and the Reds should be looking for an appropriate return.

Does that mean the Reds should hold out for, say, two of the top ten hitting hitting prospects in baseball and change for Votto, or a top hitting prospect and top pitching prospect? It would be nice, but that is not likely to happen for several reasons. There simply are not teams that have that kind of talent in their system. Even if they did, teams are more wary than ever of trading away cost-controlled talent for relatively short-term gain. There are very few teams who would be both willing and able to “double” the Smoak and Montero packages, even for an outstanding talent like Votto.

Of course, the Reds do not have to limit themselves to prospects; they could get some help already in the majors. Who that is depends on just what the Reds think their needs are (pitching, anyone?). Perhaps (just as one example) a package of one good major-league player already signed to a team-friendly contract and some prospects might make more sense as a way for the Reds to get value without having to demand two top prospects and change.

Although I have some teams in mind, I do not want to get into speculation, especially since, as noted above, “willing to listen” does not mean much as far as trade rumors go. Instead, I will simply note four conditions that an appropriate trade partner for the Reds on Votto probably needs to meet: 1) the team getting Votto needs to believe they can contend in 2012 and/or 2013 (after which Votto will be a premier free agent); 2) the team needs to have an open spot at first base or the ability to make space there (this is a bit tougher than just bumping a number five starter out of the rotation); 3) the team needs to have very good prospects and/or good players signed to team-friendly contracts that they are willing to move and that they can contend without in 2012 and 2013; 4) the team needs to have space on their projected 2013 payroll for Votto’s $17 million contract.

A number of teams can meet two of those conditions, but finding teams that meet three or four of them gets progressively more difficult. But if the Reds really are doing more than just “listening,” they are still doing the right thing by doing it while Votto is still in his prime with has two big years of surplus value left rather than one. After all, the Reds do not have to trade Votto this off-season. Starting to field offers now not only gives them a potentially greater return, but allows them time (i.e., prior to the next trading deadline or off-season) to sift through different offers to find the best fit for their needs, and also to compare the return and their team situation with what they might get for Yonder Alonso, whose presence is the main reason the Reds might feel better about trading Votto.

The early bird does not always get the worm, but getting up earlier certainly helps. If the Reds had given Votto an extension prior to his 2010 MVP campaign, they would probably be in a better position to keep him beyond 2013 at an affordable price, or at least wait longer to trade him and/or get a larger return. Hindsight is always perfect, of course. In the present, by fielding offers for Votto now (and perhaps comparing them with offers for Alonso at the same time), the Reds give themselves an additional window prior to future trade deadlines and the 2012-2013 off-season to negotiate the difficult task of finding a good match rather than getting into a situation where they end up with a pu-pu platter ([c] Bill Simmons, Honor on the Internet!) for one of the best hitters in the game.

From 2005 to 2008, Reyes averaged 157 games a year. During that time, he averaged 5.2 WAR per season and accumulated the thirteenth-highest combined WAR among all players. His wOBA was .347.

Over the past three years, though, it has been a different story. Reyes looks to average around 100 games played per season. The decrease in days comes from four trips to the disabled list and dozens of games missed because of smaller injuries. Even though his .353 wOBA is higher than his four previous seasons, he has only averaged 2.9 WAR per season.

When it comes to teams looking at him on the free market, are they going to value him as a reliable, everyday player or as the oft-injured shortstop we’ve come to know? Assuming that his base running and fielding will be league average, here’s his projected WAR for playing 150 games and getting 600PA or 100 playing games and seeing 450 PA.

If teams think he’s only going to be available for 100 games a season, Reyes might not get the same payday as he would had he been healthy. Instead, a team might discount his value to the tune of around 1 win (WAR) per season. With the going rate of $5 million per win on the open market, his injury history could cost him about $20 million on a four-year contract. That’s some serious cash. If Reyes is a .350 WOBA player looking for five years at 2.5 WAR per year, his contract could be around $62.5 million. A 3.5 WAR/year production would put his contract near $87.5 million.

Reyes says he wants a $100 million — or larger — contract. It might be tough for him to get that. Historically, teams usually don’t spend large amounts of money on players with checkered medical pasts. Looking at the 16 position players* who’ve signed contracts in excess of $100 million since 2002, only two of those players spent time on the DL the previous season. But they’re two pretty big names: Troy Tulowitzki and Joe Mauer. In those cases, though both men signed with their original team. The Rockies and Twins knew their work ethic and the nature of their injuries.

If I were a team interested in Reyes, I’d first see how interested the Mets are in him. If the Mets aren’t offering a large contract, I would be leery of giving him one.

The time Reyes has missed this year will probably cost him some money this off-season. How much depends on the playing time that teams think they can get out of him. So what can Reyes do in the meantime? It’s pretty simple: get on the field, play hard and give interested teams a one-month audition. Oh, and don’t get injured.

* Alex Rodriguez, Joe Mauer, Mark Teixeira, Troy Tulowitzki, Adrian Gonzalez, Miguel Cabrera, Carl Crawford, Todd Helton, Alfonso Soriano, Vernon Wells, Jayson Werth, Ryan Howard, Jason Giambi, Matt Holliday, Carlos Beltran and Carlos Lee. I looked at player only since 2002 because DL information is only available for 2001 and later.

All salary information is taken from Cot’s Baseball Contracts

Does anyone recognize this player?

Centerfielder.
Former top prospect, ranked as one of the top 5 in baseball at one time.
Great plate discipline (11% walk rate), but strikes out at a high rate (20+%).
Batting average hovers around .250.
Above-average power, posting around a .160 to .180 ISO.
Called out in the past for “attitude” issues.

Oh, you were thinking of Colby Rasmus? Sorry, I was describing B.J. Upton.

Colby Rasmus is an alluring player. In 2009, he was rated by Baseball America as the third best prospect in all of baseball, sandwiched between current stars David Price (#2) and Tommy Hanson (#4). That’s what happens when you’re a center fielder and you hit 29 homeruns in Double-A; everyone goes bananas about your potential.

But since then, Rasmus has generally failed to live up to expectations. Don’t get me wrong, he’s still been a great player — it’s not every day that a 22-year-old hits 16 homeruns and posts a 2.8 WAR season as a rookie. Rasmus followed that up with a spectacular year last season, hitting 23 homeruns and posting a .366 wOBA, before slumping back down to a .327 wOBA so far in 2011. He’s still an above-average center fielder and is on pace for just under a 3 WAR season, but Rasmus has yet to develop into the All-Star talent so many people expected.

Again, sound familiar?

As Dave Cameron pointed out in the trade value post yesterday, that’s the real problem with Rasmus: potential vs. production. Rasmus now has over 1400 plate appearances in the majors, and his skill set is becoming increasingly clear. He’ll walk around 10% of the time, strike out around 20% of the time, and steal a handful of bases each season. Unless he posts an extraordinarily high BABIP (like last season’s .354 BABIP), his batting average will fall around .250. Power is still his strength, and it’s possible that he could match last season’s 23 homeruns and .222 ISO again, but it’s looking more and more like he’s a 17 homeruns per season guy rather than 25.

Does Rasmus still have potential? Of course. Is he still valuable, even as just a 3.0 WAR centerfielder? For sure. But my point is this: it will be difficult for the Cardinals to get a fair return for him, as there is so much uncertainty about his peak value. The Cardinals are going to want to get a return back for him that factors in Rasmus’s potential, while other teams are going to be hesitant to pay that much for a player that is looking more and more like he may never reach that potential. Unless the Cards are willing to sell low on Rasmus, they’re likely stuck with him.

There are so many different comparisons you can make with Rasmus. Over the last year, he’s posted a .332 wOBA — very, very similar to Hideki Matsui, Coco Crisp, and Johnny Damon. Over his career, his offense has been 9% above average; Brett Gardner has been 7% above average and B.J. Upton has been 8%. He’s still only 24-years-old and could break out at any time, but at the same time, there have been many top prospects that have never reached the ceiling expected of them.

So how much patience do the Cardinals have? How likely do they think it is that Rasmus will reach his ceiling? It’d be a bad idea for them to sell low of Rasmus right now, but it’d also be a poor idea for another team to offer a package for Rasmus based on his potential. As much as Rasmus may frustrate the Cards, odds are they’re stuck with him for now.

In no particular order…

Chris Snyder (age 30), Pirates
Projected Rest-of-Season WAR: 1.8
Contract: $5.75 million for 2011, $6.75 million club option for 2012 with $0.75 buyout (All contract information in this post is taken from Cot’s).

Snyder was made expendable in Arizona and did not impress in 142 plate appearances after coming over to the Pirates last season. However, he’s off to a good start this season (.291/.392/.430, 129 wRC+). He’s due for BABIP regression, but he’s always drawn a lot of walks and he had some good seasons in Arizona prior to 2009. He’s not a defensive wizard, but he’s not terrible, either. The contract (he’s probably owed less than $4 million for the rest of the current season) is also quite reasonable, and the club option for 2012, should Snyder continue to play well, is attractive for both the Red Sox (whose catching prospects may or may not be able to take over) and the Giants (in case Posey needs a caddy when he comes back; if not, the Giants can always pick it up and try to trade Snyder, who is affordable at that price). The Pirates, in return, could get at least a couple of C prospects, and potentially a low-end B prospect if the buying team is really motivated to make a move. Snyder is 30, so he isn’t going to be part of the next contender in Pittsburgh, so while the trade might hurt in the short-term, it’s probably the best move for the team, especially with Snyder playing well and prospect Tony Sanchez looking like he might be ready in 2012.

Ryan Doumit (30), Pirates
Projected Rest-of-Season WAR: 1 WAR
Contract: $5.1 million in 2011, $0.5 million club option after season for both 2012 ($7.25 million) and 2013 ($8.25 million) seasons

Okay, this is probably stretching the the definitions of “catcher” and “trade target” and “1.0,” but like I said, it’s slim pickings. Doumit is sort of the poor man’s Mike Napoli — not just with the bat, either. Catcher defense is hard to measure, but Doumit might be even worse than Napoli with the glove, so much so that the Pirates even tried him in right field last season. Doumit is probably worth about his salary or a bit more for the rest of the season, but he doesn’t have much value to either the Giants, who really need a guy who they can live with behind the plate on a regular basis, or the Red Sox, who might not be getting much of an upgrade over Varitek with Doumit. Doumit’s “versatility” isn’t much use, either, since the Giants already have enough first basemen and mediocre outfielders, and the Red Sox are set at first, DH, and right field. In other words, neither team really needs a Napoli. This isn’t to say that Doumit is totally unappealing or useless to these or perhaps other teams, but it would be pretty much a straight-up salary dump for the Pirates — if they throw in money they could get something like an A-ball “live arm.”

Rod Barajas (35), Dodgers
Projected Rest-of-Season WAR: 1.3
Contract: $3.25 million for 2011

Some might argue that this violates the the exclusion of Molina/Treanor types from the opening paragraph, but if Barajas does fit into that category, he’s a superior example of the type. A wOBA around .300 isn’t good, but it’s decent for a catcher in this run environment, and unlike a a lot of his truly batless peers, Barajas’ actually has a decent defensive record. He can’t get on base to save his life, but he’ll pop a few homers and block some pitches. He’s cheap, too. It isn’t clear that he’d add much to the Red Sox unless they want to give up on Salty. The Dodgers might not want to trade him to divisional rival San Francisco yet, but they’ll probably be out of the race soon, Barajas isn’t part of their future, and Dodgers GM Ned Colletti worked for Giants GM Brian Sabean prior to taking his current position. It’s not likely, but stranger things have happened. It wouldn’t cost much in talent, either, maybe a C prospect to take on a Benjie Molina-role for the rest of the year with Posey out.

Kurt Suzuki (27), Athletics
Projected Rest-of-Season WAR: 2.0
Contract: $3.4 million in 2011, $5M in 2012, $6.45 million in 2013, $8.5 million club option in 2014 with a $0.65 million buyout.

Suzuki is probably a surprise entry to many reading this, given that the As aren’t totally out of it yet, Suzuki is pretty good, and he’s signed to a club-friendly contract through his twenties. I’ll admit that I partly threw Suzuki in to “spice up” a rather unspiring group. However, keep in mind that this is Billy Beane: more than many other GMs, he understands that signing a good young player to team-friendly contract makes that player a valuable trade chip, too. His trades of Nick Swisher and Dan Haren are examples of such thinking.

Suzuki isn’t an obvious standout, but he’s good defensively, his bat is good for a catcher (particularly considering the park), he’s been pretty durable, and he’s only 27. Suzuki wouldn’t be a good fit for the Giants, given that Posey is coming back. However, he’s better than Varitek or Salty. Much would depends on how much faith the Red Sox have in prospects Ryan Lavarnway and Luis Exposito down the road. Suzuki would give them a player they can start right now and give them security at the position in the future. Although Suzuki isn’t the kind of player for whom teams normally trade top prospects, the Red Sox probably would have to give up at least one B prospect and one C prospect, and perhaps more, given Suzuki’s age, skill, and contract. They might be hesitant to do so after giving up a number of prospects in the Adrian Gonzalez trade.

I’m not saying it’s likely, just that it’s a possibility given the circumstances. The As rightly like Suzuki, but they liked Swisher and Haren, too. They may not be ready to concede now, but that could change with a few more losses. Max Stassi isn’t ready, but they could make other moves for a stopgap fill-in or try to get a catcher back as part of the trade.

What, you wanted another paragraph about Rod Barajas?

Billy Butler and the Royals

Billy Butler has been the best offensive player on the Royals over the last few years. The Royals right now a glut of players that fit into the 1B/DH role. There could be a case made for Kila Ka’aihue, Clint Robinson, Wilson Betemit or Jeff Francoeur being moved to the Royals DH spot. With Hosmer entrenched at 1B, Butler is expendable.

Just this offseason Butler signed a team-friendly extension of $3M for 2011, $8M for 2012 to 2014 and $12M for 2015 (with a $1M buyout). Using these values, I estimate how much surplus value in dollars Billy is worth if he were traded half-way through the 2011 season:

Using the entire length of the contract, Butler looks to have surplus value of around $11M. Now if his $1M buyout is enacted, his surplus value jumps to $13M.

A note on how things can change in a week. I ran the values initially before Fangraphs added in UBR (baserunning values into the WAR calculation). Before the values were added, Butler looked to be near a 3 WAR player. He loses close to 0.5 WAR each season due to his baserunning. Using the WAR from just over a week ago, the surplus value of his contract had an extra 2.25 total WAR added to it leading to a total surplus value of $22.5M. Who says speed doesn’t matter?

The Void That Is 1B and DH for the Rays

From 2010 to so far in the 2011 season the Rays have accumulated 41.2 WAR from their position players. Over that same time frame, the DH and 1B position have added 1.3 WAR (1.5 from 1B and -0.2 WAR from the DH position) to that total or 3.2% of the team’s position player WAR. In the last two seasons, the Rays have used such players as Dan Johnson, Carlos Pena, Casey Kotchman, Manny Ramirez, Johnny Damon, Brad Hawpe, Hank Blalock, Rocco Baldelli, Pat Burrell and Willy Aybar at that those 2 positions. Butler accumulated 3.7 WAR over that same time frame.

The Rays seem to pride themselves with their defense, so Butler, a horrible defensive player, would be an affordable DH. Having Butler as the DH would probably give the Rays an extra one or two wins worth of production this season. In the ultra competitive AL East, those wins could be quite important at the end of the season.

The Royals will probably begin looking at the Rays top prospects to find needed help. The Rays have a fairly stacked minor league system with several top prospects such as the following players ranked in BA top 100 for 2011:

6. Jeremy Hellickson, rhp
15. Matt Moore, lhp
22. Desmond Jennings, of
27. Chris Archer, rhp
71. Jake McGee, lhp
88. Josh Sale, of
92. Hak-Ju Lee, ss

Using the work of Sky Kalkman and expanded on by ColinJ, the preceding prospect’s surplus value would range from $16.3M (Jake McGee) to $33.3M (Desmond Jennings). All of the player surplus values would be worth more than Butler’s surplus value. The one item that the Rays need to take into account is the how much extra it would be worth to the team to make the playoffs this year.

The Proposed Trade

The Royals are in need of starting pitching this season and in the future, so it would best for them to try to get a starting pitcher from the Rays. Since McGee has already begun his MLB career and thereby having a little less trade value, I see him as a nice trade option for the Rays to send the Royals for Butler. Another possible option would be for the Royals to look at trying to get a couple lower rated pitching prospects like Alex Torres, Alex Colome, Jake Thompson or Alex Cobb (which has made his major league debut, but was not as highly rated as the other pitchers at the beginning of the season).

The best trades are the ones that work out for both sides. In this trade, I feel that both sides come out ahead. The Royals move one of their many 1B/DH types for starting pitching they need. Tampa on the other hand, gets some much need help at the 1B or DH position and gives up one of their pitching prospects, but not one of their best pitching prospects.

Almost everyone has expected the Royals to trade Greinke this off season, but not particularly to the Brewers. Greinke is only signed for two more seasons and the Royals #1 rated minor league system will not have many of its pieces in place on the major league team until at least 2012. At that point, Zack will be in the final year of his contract and heading on to richer pastures.

The Royal’s management got the help they desired up the middle. Escobar should be a small improvement at shortstop for the Royals over Betancourt. Their hitting is similar (they don’t), but Escobar would be an improvement in the field.

What seemed like an off season where the Brewers looked to be rebuilding, they are now reloading to make a run at the NL Central crown. The Brewers got an ace to add to their already improved pitching staff after also adding Shaun Marcum this off season. I am not sure that Greinke will be enough to put them over the top, but it sure will help.

There had been many Greinke trade rumors this off season, but I could not remember one about him going to the Brewers. The trade definitely adjusts the balance of power in the NL Central and probably puts the Royals in line for 100 plus losses for 2011.