The Decline and Fall of Todd Helton.....

[BigRapidsJackass]

Bedir, that's the problem here. And it's why it doesn't seem so appealing to trade Helton right now. But maybe it still makes sense. It really all depends on how good you think Ian Stewart will be.

Assume you can trade Helton and assume 50% of his contract. That's about $8.3 million a year.

Helton's value this year (133 games/82% of the season played; values extrapolated to a full 162 game season, using BP's numbers only because they're readily available):

Hitting Runs Above Replacement: 43.8
Fielding: 23.1
Total: 67 Runs above Replacement

And here's Atkins' totals for this year:

Hitting RAR: 28
Fielding: -6.1
Total: 22 RAR

So let's say you do the obvious. You trade Helton (but continue to pay him $8.3 million/year), you get no player of value in return (maybe a low level prospect; we don't want someone else's problem salary since that would accomplish nothing), you slide Atkins over to 1B, and you install Stewart at 3B.

Let's further assume that Atkins is average defensively at 1B, that Stewart is average defensively at 3B, that Atkins produces offensively at roughly the average of this season (he should do better, but we'll hold his offensive production constant to allow for comparison), and that Stewart also produces at the level of Atkins 2007 season (a real leap there, since that's unlikely).

Atkins' projected offense: 28 RAR
Defense: 9 RAR (since I think that's about what the average first baseman is above replacement)
Total: 37 RAR

Stewart's projected offense: 28 RAR
Stewart's projected defense: 14 RAR (average)
Total: 42 RAR

So ... the 1B/3B combo of Helton/Atkins was (will be) about 89 runs above replacement this year. The 1B/3B combo of Atkins/Stewart would be (under my generous assumptions) 79 RAR.

Atkins' crappy defense is starting to make this look feasible, isn't it? The value of getting him off 3B and getting what we hope is an average fielder there instead is about 20 runs.

So dumping Helton loses you about 10 runs next year. But you've got that $8.3 million to spend, don't you?

Well, then what does that $8 million buy? It would've bought Ted Lilly this year ($7.5 million, although his salary goes up in the next 3 years). But then again, if you sign a Lilly type you get to not sign a Fogg type and save $3.5 million. So if you guess right and get another Ted Lilly, you come out with a pitcher who's 60 runs above replacement instead of a pitcher (Fogg) who's about 24 runs above replacement -- a net gain of 36 runs. And so the net gain from trading Helton, and then applying the cash savings to signing a better pitcher? It's 26 runs.

So:

-- if you really believe in Stewart
-- if you really believe you can be smart in finding the right free agent pitcher (Ted Lilly and not Jeff Weaver)
-- if you really believe Atkins would be at least average defensively at 1B
-- and if you really believe someone will assume half of Todd's contract, at least in the first couple years. After that, you'll probably have to pay at least 2/3 of his contract, so you're mortgaging the future a bit (not much though) to make a run for it now ...

... then you make the move, and if you turn out to be right on all counts, you've got a club that's 2-3 wins better than if you kept him.

It's a gamble, but given the cash-strapped situation of this club and the unlikelihood that they'll be able to bring in any kind of impact player unless they dump Helton, I'd be inclined to roll the dice.

[HoyaRoxFan]

But based on your numbers, isn't there a simpler and better solution? (And God knows simple and uncreative is key with this management team.)

Trade Atkins, you net a higher-yield prospect than Helton (since he's younger, cheaper, etc), and going with a Helton/Stewart combo, you've got 109 RAR; already net +20 runs before you start gambling with the pitchers. Trade him with Fuentes and you can save $4-5 million. What's that get you? Am I missing something?

[BigRapidsJackass]

Hoya, you're right of course. I think the benefit of trading Helton would be additional salary savings in the first couple years ('08/'09) since Atkins probably will make on the order of $4 million in arbitration.

So if you can get someone to take on half Helton's salary, the Rox would have a bit more discretionary spending money to play with right away ... that is, while Holliday is still under control.

[Heltonfan]

So:

-- if you really believe in Stewart
-- if you really believe you can be smart in finding the right free agent pitcher (Ted Lilly and not Jeff Weaver)
-- if you really believe Atkins would be at least average defensively at 1B
-- and if you really believe someone will assume half of Todd's contract, at least in the first couple years. After that, you'll probably have to pay at least 2/3 of his contract, so you're mortgaging the future a bit (not much though) to make a run for it now ...

I'll add one more:

... if you really believe that Atkins' 2007 BP numbers are the best estimate of his future defensive performance at 3B. Which you shouldn't. Using ZRs, I have him projected at -6 runs per year right now. Chop off another run due to age, and he's at -7 for next year... still ugly, sure, but nowhere near as bad as he looks by the numbers you're using. That right there cuts one win off the potential benefit of a Helton deal.

So we're at a gain of 1-2 wins, assuming that a) Stewart is ready and b) we find the next Ted Lilly. Which means that in all probability, it doesn't really matter whether or not we trade Helton. That may be anticlimactic and boring, but it's the truth.

[BigRapidsJackass]

HF, I guess that's kind of where I was headed with this.

Helton's contract is the problem, but trading Helton isn't necessarily the solution.

My personal take on this? I think you keep Helton because I don't think Stewart is ready, in that I don't think he'd replicate Atkins' 2007 numbers. By the way, I also think that Atkins will have a much stronger 2008 than his 2007.

So talk about boring: unless some incredible offer comes forward, I'd be in favor of keeping Atkins, Helton, Holliday and Hawpe. I'd aggressively shop only Fuentes and Taveras, and I'd still try to upgrade with a new centerfielder or second baseman (if only because the cost of a free agent pitcher will likely be prohibitive, and a centerfielder or second baseman should provide a bit more bang for Charlie's bucks).

[BigRapidsJackass]

What if Helton had been traded to the Red Sox? In retrospect, we can see why O'Dowd was insisting on Clay Buchholz or Jacoby Ellsbury, and we can see why Theo Epstein wasn't about to part with them.

But let's say it was the deal the Sox proposed: we'd have to take Mike Lowell's contract, we'd also get a Manny Delcarmen or similar, and they'd give us longterm salary relief.

For this year so far (from BP):

Lowell +18 Batting Runs Above Average; +5 Fielding Runs Above Average
Helton +29 BRAA; +13 FRAA
Atkins +8 BRAR; -15 FRAA

Assuming Atkins would be exactly average in the field as a first baseman, and assuming Delcarmen wouldn't really have been an upgrade THIS YEAR over whoever else we used ...

... we'd have gained 20 runs defensively at 3B.
... we'd have lost 13 runs defensively at 1B
... we'd have lost 11 runs offensively

Net loss: a whopping 4 runs.

I think the way the deal was structured we wouldn't really have realized any salary savings in 2007, since Lowell's contract is only about $5 million short of Helton's this year and we would've been paying a portion of Helton's salary. (In future years we'd be saving something like $7 million a year on Helton's salary, but as discussed above that would've been about a wash as far as what we could expect from spending the $7 million on somebody else.)

Proving Heltonfan's point: at this juncture, it doesn't really matter whether Helton is traded.

The overall point: the market for players is remarkably efficient, and you're not likely to find anyone willing to overpay for Helton. In fact, I think the only time you'd get someone to overpay would be when a competitor (say, Red Sox) is in a very tight race at the trading deadline. If the Yankees had made their big move in June-July, the Red Sox might've seen fit to overpay for him in exchange for the short-term benefit of holding the Yankees at bay.

Which is kind of why the wild card ruins things. The Yankees catch the Red Sox and win the NL East!! Who cares!!! The wild card will be the Red Sox, and in recent years the wild card hasn't been at any significant disadvantage in the playoffs.

[hotshotTheGreat]

No?

He has looked old and Slow the last couple of weeks.