Let’s keep it rolling today by projecting three pitchers: Gil Meche, Oliver Perez, and J.J. Putz.

After excellent 2007 and 2008 seasons for the Royals, Meche battled injuries and ineffectiveness in 2009. Given the Royals’ situation and Meche’s salary, his trade value is an issue for Kansas City going forward, and obviously his performance in the coming season plays a large part in that if they don’t trade him during the offseason.

Oliver Perez seems to be another instance of Omar’s folly. Is there any hope there?

J. J. Putz was recently signed by the White Sox coming off of an injury-plagued season. What do we think his role will be in Chicago, and how will he perform?

The Chicago White Sox have pulled off another of their trademark surprising trades by acquiring Juan Pierre from the Dodgers for two players to be named later [as of this writing, I’m reading that they are John Ely and John Link]. The Dodgers will also pick up $10.5 million of the remaining $18.5 million on the horrible contract given to Pierre seemingly centuries ago. The White Sox get Pierre for eight million dollars over two seasons, roughly the market rate for a 1 WAR player.

Primarily relegated to a bench role the last two seasons, Pierre seemingly “reemerged” in 2009 while filling in for a suspended Manny Ramirez, putting up an above average seasonal wOBA (.338, 109 wRC+, .308/.365/.392) for the first time since 2004. That may seem promising, but it’s still only 425 plate appearances against several previous years of less-than-scintillating offensive performance. For 2010, CHONE sees a return to pre-2009 form, .282/.327/.363, 11 runs created below average per 150 games. My own projection is also pessimistic: .280/.328/.360, .309 wOBA, -10 runs/150. Pierre has been a good baserunner in the past, although that has also dropped off the last couple of seasons. Let’s add one run to the CHONE projection and call him a -10/150 offensive player.

Evaluating Pierre’s defense is trickier. While he sports a good UZR for 2009, that was primarily in left field. Apparently he will be playing center field in Chicago. His last few seasons in center have been below average. While his numbers in left are good, they don’t suggest average center field defense. CHONE has him at +6 in left, suggesting he would be below average in center. The 2009 Fans Scouting Report points in the same direction: good in left, below average in center. For defense, then, let’s call him “neutral” — +7/150 in left, -2/150 in center — good enough to overcome the left field positional adjustment, but not good enough to gain the advantage of the center field adjustment.

The arithmetic is easy enough: neutral defense, -10/150 offense, 1 WAR player. So the White Sox are getting what they paid for. Straightforwardly, yes. But:

White Sox General Manager Kenny Williams follows his own muse, and has had enough success that I’m leery of doubting him, even when I don’t understand a move he makes. Still, I don’t understand this move.

[Author’s update, Wednesday, December 16, 11:00 P.M. EST: As noted by numerous commentators below and in my own comment, it turns out that I misunderstood/misread the Sox’ plan for Pierre — he’s apparently slated to play left field rather than center. I apologize for my confusion; not sure how that happened, as I was surprised when I (mis)read that he was going to play center. I’ll leave the original as a testament to my late-night silliness, with this note as an correction/addendum. Having said that, the analysis isn’t really affected. The point about “neutral” defense is that being as much above average in left field and as much below average in center) around 10 runs/162 games is the standard adjustment between LF/CF) as Pierre is amounts to the same thing — a “0” for positional adjustment + projected defense. As a whole, the projected outfield consists of the same players as in my original analysis — Pierre, Rios, and Quentin. I still see Pierre as a 1 WAR player — decent for the bench, not so much as a starter. The same players that mentioned as better alternatives for RF could also play LF (and one could possibly add Kelly Johnson to that mix for LF over Pierre). Thanks for reading, understanding, and (hopefully) forgiving.]

It’s been a big week for Toronto Blue Jays General Manager Alex Anthopolous. Obviously, I’m referring to the bonanza earlier in the week in which Anthopolous filled out his 2010 catcher corps by signing John Buck for one year and two million dollars moments after he was non-tendered by the Kansas City Royals (all set with Jason Kendall), veteran Ramon Castro for one year and one million dollars, and Raul Chavez to a minor league deal.

[NB: I usually prefer referring to multiple projections, but since I’m discussing more than one player, I’ll keep things simple by sticking with CHONE for both offense and defense. When I averaged various different projections, the overall values I came up with were about the same, anyway.]

On CHONE’s original list of free agents, Ramon Castro rated as the best catcher per 150 games. His projected offensive line is .230/.292/.412, or 10 runs below average per 150 games. His defensive projection is two runs above average. Adding in the positional adjustment, per 150 games Castro projects as a 2.4 WAR catcher. However, Castro also comes cheaply because not only do catchers almost never play 150 games, but the 34-year-old Castro has never played 100 games, and has only played more than 2009’s 57 once, in 2005.

Although I’m personally excited that I might get to see John Buck play in-person, many Royals fans hate him for being part of the return in the 2004 Carlos Beltran trade as much as for his numerous strikeouts and poor defense. The latter is reflected in his -5 defensive projection. As for the former, his offense looks a lot like Castro’s — low average, decent walk rate, above-average power. CHONE projects Buck at .227/.296/.398, or -9/150 for 2010. Together, this puts Buck just below average at 1.8 WAR. Again, catchers typically play much less than that, and Buck spent time on the DL in 2009.

Raul Chavez is a veteran defensive catcher who actually lives up to his reputation with the glove. Offensively, CHONE projects him at .226/.262/.319; -37/150. However, Chavez avoids being replacement level due to his glove (+9). He projects at 0.4 WAR per 150.

The Blue Jays are at the beginning of a rebuild. Before Buck signed, Toronto had zero catchers on their 40-man roster. Someone has to play catcher, and according to CHONE, the only free agent catcher in the same league with Castro and Buck is departing Blue Jay Rod Barajas, who’s seeking a much bigger deal. While neither Buck nor Castro is an iron man, if they each play half of the season, that still projects as around a league average player (2 WAR). Given that the cost of one marginal win on the open market is likely at least four million dollars, the Jays are paying three million for at least eight million dollars worth of (projected) production. Well done by the Jays.

In a way, Chavez’s contract is the most interesting, and not because he’s good. Rather, it’s because Toronto, unlike other clubs this winter, gave a near-replacement level catcher a contract appropriate to his likely contribution rather than six million dollars over two years. It’s a Festivus Miracle!

If you want to enter your own projection for Toronto’s 2010 catchers, click here.

Gabe Gross was non-tendered by the Rays this weekend. It’s old hat to write this, but it is a testament to Tampa Bay’s depth that non-tendering a player of Gross’s quality is the correct move for the organization. With Matt Joyce ready to go at least as a platoon partner for the re-signed Gabe Kapler, and Ben Zobrist and Sean Rodriguez perhaps also in line for time in the outfield, there was no point for a team on Tampa Bay’s budget to go to arbitration with yet another outfielder. Gross still has his uses, however.

Gross had a miserable 2009 at the plate, posting a .306 wOBA after two consecutive years of above-average .332. But we shouldn’t get hung up on one season of data. For 2010, CHONE projects Gross as a .243/.342/.393 hitter, exactly average in context-neutral linear weights. ZiPS is very close, projecting Gross for .237/.330/.397, which I translate to two runs below average per 150 games. My own projection for Gross is slightly more optimistic at .246/.346/.409, or +3/150. Taken together, Gross projects as a roughly league-average hitter in 2010.

Being a league-average hitter usually doesn’t bode well for a corner outfielder, but Gross’s calling card isn’t his bat, it’s his glove. Gross has an extremely impressive career +17.6 UZR/150 in right field. Projecting fielding, especially in the outfield, calls for a great deal of regression. Even so, Jeff Zimmerman’s regressed and age-adjusted UZR/150 projection for Gross in RF is +9. CHONE’s Totalzone projection for Gross in the outfield is +4. The 2009 Fans Scouting Report is also positive about Gross’s defense, having him at +6 runs on my translation. Averaging CHONE and Zimmerman’s projections, let’s put Gross at +7 as a fielder.

After adjusting for position, Gross projects as a 2 WAR (roughly league average) player over 150 games. While we should also take into account that his offensive projections are a bit skewed by Gross having been platooned the last few years, keep in mind that (1) splits regress, and (2) Gross’s decreased offensive output if he did have to face lefties would also be offset because (especially taking his glove into account) he wouldn’t necessarily be below replacement level in those situations. Whether he’s platooned or not, then, 1.5-2 WAR seems like a fair and modest projection for Gross. Despite his 2009, it’s hardly out of line with the past, given that Gross put up 2.4 WAR in only 399 PA in 2008 and 2.0 WAR in 252 PA in 2006.

As noted above, the Rays made the right call in non-tendering Gabe Gross. Still, 1.5-2 WAR outfielders don’t grow on trees. It may seem like they do, given the non-tendering of Gross, Kelly Johnson, Ryan Church, Ryan Langerhans (sigh), and others. All of these players could be useful in a stopgap or platoon role on the right team. Gabe Gross should and will latch on somewhere. In the words of resident Rays’ fan R. J., “Hopefully he finds a nice owner with a big yard and a short porch in right.”

How well do you think Gross will perform in 2010? Enter your Fan Projection here.

Gods of Baseball, why must you test me so?

Earlier tonight, before my wife and I went out for supper, I read reports that the Royals had signed Jason Kendall for four million dollars over two years. I shuddered and began thinking about how to explain this silliness to even the most obstinate Dayton Moore-defender. Halfway through the meal I made the foolish (in more ways than one) mistake of looking at my BlackBerry. Kendall had, in fact, signed with the Royals for two years and six million dollars, a contract that, like Ivan Rodriguez’s deal with the Nationals, is appropriate for about a 1 WAR player. I then realized that anyone would understand why this contract is ridiculous.

Let’s get the basics out of the way: The Royals aren’t going to be getting any “interest” from Kendall’s excellent 1999-2004, or decent 2005-2006. They’re getting the 2010/11 model. CHONE projects Kendall to hit a .247/.317/.315 in Kansas City, or 25 runs below average per 150 games. My own projection is roughly the same: .240/.313/.316; -26/150.

The Royals aren’t just paying for Kendall’s “bat,” but for his allegedly tremendous defense. CHONE’s TotalZone system apparently didn’t get the memo, projecting Kendall at -2/150. Other sources are the the same ballpark: I had Kendall at -4.5 runs in 2009. Translating the 2009 Fans’ Scouting Report to runs, I got about -3.

Even with the positional adjustment for catchers, Kendall projects as a 0.5 WAR player per 150 games, and few catchers play 150 games. The Royals managed to acquire a guy who is barely better than a AAA journeyman, will be 36 in 2010, will likely be replacement level or below in 2011 if he isn’t already, and are paying him six million dollars over two years. This would be a bad contract no matter what the team’s situation.

For the Royals, it’s even worse. For one thing, the Royals are at the opposite end of the “value of a marginal win spectrum” from, say, the Rays. If Dayton Moore and Jack Zduriencik switched places today, the Royals probably wouldn’t be ready to contend until at least 2012. Why blow money on a rich man’s replacement player now?

Moreover, the Royals have better internal options. Yes, Kendall will achieve what few could in making Royals fans miss the magic of Miguel Olivo’s strike-zone judgment and pitch-blocking skills. He’s gone, but there’s also a personal (and admittedly irrational) favorite of mine: the soon-to-be-non-tendered John Buck, who (aside from many fans never forgiving him for being part of the Carlos Beltran “haul”) has defensive problems of his own. Since Dayton Moore came to town, he has played Michael Scott to Buck’s Toby Flenderson. While it wouldn’t be worth it for the Royals to pay Buck’s likely arbitration award, as Rany Jazayerli suggests, they at least could have seen if they could non-tender Buck then re-sign him for less than Kendall, as Buck looks to be a 1-1.5 WAR player according to CHONE (if teams are smart, he will get a fair bit of attention once he’s non-tendered).

Buck is likely a dead issue at this point, but the Royals also have Brayan Pena, who was acquired off waivers in 2008 in one of Dayton Moore’s smarter moves (insert joke here). CHONE projects his bat at league average and his glove at -5 — a 2.7 WAR catcher. That is probably optimistic; but if Pena is a -5 hitter and a -10 defender, that’s still about a 1.5 WAR player — much better than Kendall. Even if Pena is a -10 hitter and -15 defender… you guessed it, that’s about the same as Jason Kendall projects for 2010, minus about $2.5 million in salary. Maybe the Royals will “get smart” and sit Kendall for Pena, but a rebuilding team that puts itself into the situation of paying a backup catcher three million dollars a year doesn’t bring the word “smart” to mind.

Buck and Pena aren’t the primary issue here. They are examples that emphasize both the overpayment and pointlessness of the Kendall acquisition, particularly on a team that will be lucky to win 75 games in 2010. It is tempting to turn this into a rant about Dayton Moore, but frankly, this probably won’t be my last chance to do so this off-season. Instead, let’s have some words from the man of the hour himself, Jason Kendall:

“There were other offers,” [Kendall] said, “but one thing about Dayton and the Royals is, they called me the first day I became a free agent. That’s something that kind of speaks for itself.”

Indeed.

If the rumor mill is accurate, one minor subplot of the off-season is an ongoing, bizarre, and (sadly) predictable bidding war involving many the usual suspects over a rather horrifying group of thirty-something catchers ranging from the Somewhat Acceptable Stopgap (Rod Barajas) to the Corpse of a Legend (Ivan Rodriguez) to the Virtually Worthless Veteran Leader (Jason Kendall). Things look like they are going to get ugly, and although it’s easy to find a perverse pleasure in mocking foolishness, when it’s unabated, the charm wears off.

That’s why I was happy to read that the Colorado Rockies bought out Chris Iannetta’s three arbitration years for a reported $8.3 million with a five million dollar club option for a fourth year. It was good to be reminded that some clubs realize that they are allowed to give a catcher a multi-year contract even if he isn’t 35 with a projected on-base percentage south of .300.

What are the Rockies paying for? $8.3 million guaranteed over three years isn’t all that much on the open market, but remember that the Rockies are buying out arbitration years in which Iannetta would be paid less than his supposed market value. As a general rule, the three years of arbitration are assumed to be paying the equivalent of 40, 60, and 80 percent of the player’s free agent value. Spreading the money evenly over the three years and dividing by 40, 60, and 80 percent, we get an “open market equivalent” of about $15 million. Assuming that a marginal win currently costs $4.4 million, a half-win per season decline and 7% salary inflation, Iannetta is getting paid as if he’ll be a 1.5 WAR player in 2010. Is he worth it?

Catcher defense is notoriously difficult to measure. CHONE does defensive projections for catchers, and Ianetta comes in at three runs below average. That seems fair, although it’s worth noting that my own take on catcher defense had him above average for 2009, at least. The Fans Scouting Report for 2010 also has him rated slightly above average. I’ll stay with Rally’s minus 3 to be on the conservative side — he probably isn’t worse that that.

Offense is easier to measure and project. CHONE projects Iannetta to hit .259/.370/.463 in 2010. My own projection gives a similar line: .254/.373/.477. ZiPS is a bit less optimistic at .241/.353./.437, but is in the same general neighborhood. The CHONE projection (as well as mine) would be about 20 runs above average per 150 games, but we also need to adjust for park and league. CHONE gives us neutralized linear weights of 8 runs above average per 150 games.

Adding it all together with the prorated positional adjustment for catcher, per 150 games Iannetta projects as a 3.7 win player. Almost no catchers play 150 games, and Iannetta has only played more than 100 once in the last three seasons. Conservatively assuming he can only play 100, he still projects as a 2.5 WAR player, and given that the new contract (hopefully) means that the team is over Yorvit Torrealba Fever, he should get more playing time in the coming seasons. This is a very good deal for the Rockies.

Iannetta gets the security of a guaranteed contract, but sacrifices potentially larger arbitration awards. The club option also may cost him. No worries, though, Chris. If you manage to stay at catcher until your mid-thirties and absolutely can’t hit, your agent can always convince some general manager that you’re great at handling a pitching staff and get you a series of multi-million dollar deals for replacement level performance.

Tim Brown of Yahoo Sports reports that Ivan Rodriguez has signed a two-year, six million dollar deal with the Washington Nationals. While a quick glance at his career suggests a Hall-of-Fame level player, Pudge’s (isn’t there some law about recycled nicknames?) best years, or even decent years, are clearly way off in the distance, and at 38 years old, he’s likely on his last contract.

Rodriguez always had a good defensive reputation, and a glance at Rally’s WAR suggests that it was justified, particularly in the late 1990s, when he put up several seasons in the +20 range. That was a long time ago, however, and as you’d expect his skills aren’t what they used to be. CHONE projects him as a +3/150 defender; above average, but not spectacular.

As for his bat, Pudge had some great seasons back in the day, but one thing he’s never been known for is a willingness to take a walk.

Rickey Henderson he isn’t. It is interesting that the one season in which “I-Rod” was actually above average in walk rate was the surprising 2003 Marlins championship team. He has consistently swung at pitches outside the strike zone 15% more often than league average. That approach worked well when he was younger and could regularly post a batting average over .300 with some power, but the “swing at everything” approach is a young man’s game, as Pudge has slipped from a still-valuable-for-a-catcher .330 wOBA in 2006 all the way down to a .287 wOBA in 2009. CHONE projects I-Rod as a .250/.285/.371 hitter for 2010, or -28 runs/150 games. I have him ever-so-slightly better, at .252/.279/.376, or about -24/150 (.282 wOBA).

Per 150 games, let’s say he is a -26 hitter, +3 defender, +12 for catching, +20 replacement level = 0.9 WAR player. However, catchers, particularly 38-year old catchers, almost never play 150 games, and Rodriguez hasn’t played 150 since 1997. 120 is optimistic. With that in mind Pudge is closer to a 0.5 WAR player than a 1 WAR player.

There’s not much left on the market in terms of free agent catchers this season, especially with Gregg Zaun already signed. Apparently, even Miguel Olivo is drawing interesting from multiple teams. And the Nationals’ catching situation in particular doesn’t look promising — Jesus Flores isn’t a world-beater (although CHONE says he’s better than Rodriguez), and is coming off an injury-marred season. Still, what is the point of signing a 38-year old formerly great catcher for 2 years for the Nationals? If he’s a 1 WAR player (and that’s pretty optimistic), this might be a slightly good deal for the team, but what is the potential upside? Is the one extra win Rodriguez might provide over a cheaper alternative going to launch the Nationals into a wildcard spot in 2010?

Ivan Rodriguez may have something left to offer someone, but not as a starter for this kind of money on a rebuilding team. I look forward to reading quotes from the Nationals about how Pudge is a “legend” who is a “veteran presence in the clubhouse” and will “work well with our young pitching staff.”

I imagine it isn’t unique to my fantasy league, but in our auction, the last part of the draft is known as “dollar days,” that is, when owners are almost out of fantasy dollars and the players being drafted are mostly filler, and thus go for one dollar. Of course, an owner or two usually spends a lot in the first part of the draft, puts himself in “dollar days” right away, and ends up waiting around to fill his roster.

In “real” baseball, the Detroit Tigers have clearly been in dollars days since the the last out of the season. This isn’t a criticism or a compliment — it’s a fact. Continuing their belt-tightening ways, the Tigers re-signed Adam Everett to a one-year deal reportedly worth $1.55 million according to Ken Rosenthal.

Everett is legendarily bad at the plate. His career wOBA is .286, peaking with the unforgettable dream season in 2004 when he hit .273/.317/.385 for a .313 wOBA. For 2010, CHONE projects Everett to hit .236/.292/.329, or 29 runs below average per 150 games. My projection is more optimistic: .240/.294/.342, or -25 runs per 150 games.

Of course, that’s not the whole story with Adam Everett. As bad as he’s been at the plate during his career, he’s been just as awesome with the glove, good enough to be an average player or better for most of the early part of the decade. Age and injuries have robbed him of some of his skill in the field, but he was still able to put up a 13.6 UZR/150 in 2009. Rally’s TotalZone projection has him at +12/150 for 2010, as do Jeff Zimmerman’s UZR projections. Adding it all together, per 150 games we get -27 offense, +12 defense, +7 positional adjustment for shortstop per 150, +20 replacement, and Everett projects as a bit over 1 WAR per 150 games.

Keep in mind that Everett hasn’t actually played in 150 games since 2006. Still, he was able to put up about 1 WAR in only 118 2009 games. Having a 1 WAR player as an everyday starter isn’t exactly a recipe for a divisional championship, but the Tigers came awfully close to winning the dreadful AL Central with Everett at shortstop for most of 2009. More importantly, with the Tigers in a severe budget crunch and currently without other decent shortstop options at the major league level, by signing Everett for $1.5 million in a market when a marginal win is going for around four million, the Tigers can at least be respectable at the position while staying within their budgetary limits. Frankly, one could argue that with Marco Scutaro off the table and Miguel Tejada out of their price range (and perhaps headed to third base anyway), Everett is as good or better than any of the remaining free agent shortstops out there such as Khalil Greene, Bobby Crosby, and Orlando Cabrera. This is a good deal for a team who started the auction in dollar days.

Earlier today, Erik posted on the market for Mark DeRosa. I won’t rehash that analysis with which I substantially agree. Quick take: CHONE has him as .255/.333/.414 hitter next year, which Rally translates to -2 linear weights per 150 games. My projection is roughly the same: .263/.339/.431 for +5/150 (my lwts must differ in terms of individual weights and baseline). As an infield defender, DeRosa is below average at both second and third. Assuming he’s in decent health, he projects as about a 2 WAR player. That’s useful (league average) of course, but at 35 years old, DeRosa seems short on upside and high on risk.

Still, some teams might need a DeRosa type to fill a (high-priced) super-utility role or an infield/outfield spot, and there is only one DeRosa… or is there? While I dislike dealing in shadowy realm of rumor, Braves second baseman Kelly Johnson has been mentioned in multiple places as a non-tender candidate given his 2009 performance and replacement by Martin Prado in Atlanta. Johnson is due a substantial raise in arbitration, one that Atlanta seems unwilling to pay to a player who they don’t see as a starter.

Johnson has struggled defensively at second base, but despite his down year offensively in 2009, he still projects as an above-average hitter. CHONE projects Johnson to hit .268/.346/.436 (+3 runs/150) in 2010. My projections have almost the same “three-slash,” .268/.346/.441 (+9/150 according to my lwts). Both sets of projections have him hitting better than DeRosa in 2010.

Moreover, their defensive skill set seems to be roughly the same. Both are in the minus five to minus eight range as second basemen. I’m not sure whether Johnson could handle third base on a regular basis, but DeRosa isn’t exactly Mike Schmidt out there. DeRosa has played good outfield defense in the past. Johnson’s UZR numbers for left field reflect an incredibly small sample. Still, the Fans Scouting Report as well as his excellent speed scores imply that Johnson would be probably average at worst in left.

Johnson and DeRosa have similar defensive skills (bad infield defense, decent outfield defense), and Johnson probably is the better hitter. Johnson is also 7 years younger. Teams could wait to see if Atlanta will non-tender Johnson, or, if they really want to get a jump on the market, he could probably be had for very little given Atlanta’s lack of leverage in this situation. Johnson may have a fairly big arbitration award coming, but it seems unlikely to be as large as what DeRosa would command on a one-year deal. Teams interested in this type of player should be viewing DeRosa as a backup plan if they can’t get Johnson, not the other way around.

Last offseason, many bloggers sighed when Ryan Langerhans passed through waivers. Despite one horrific season in 2007, Langerhans profiled at about 1.5 Wins Above Replacement (WAR), and perhaps even league average (2 WAR). Langerhans didn’t “look like” an average corner outfielder. His value lay more in his outstanding glove than his questionable bat. But he was a good fourth outfielder (at worst) who could have been had for next to nothing. The Nationals signed him to a minor league deal, then traded him to the Mariners mid-season for the legendary Mike Morse after the Ms’ outfield depth was compromised by an injury to Langerhans’ conceptual older brother, Endy Chavez. Although Langerhans didn’t play much, he turned out to be what we thought he was — mediocre hitter, great defender (check out Langerhans’ 2009 versus average).

Langerhans was celebrated not because he was a star, but because he was decent and came for nearly free. This is the kind of player about whom we go nuts. Who will be this year’s undervalued outfield hero? While I (and others) called it weeks ago when the 2010 CHONE projections were released, I wanted to see some other projections. The appropriate ZiPS projections came out this week, and I am ready to predict the winner of the 2010 Ryan Langerhans Award For Undervalued Outfielder That Teams Should Be Trying To Acquire On the Cheap: Jeff Fiorentino.

Drafted in the 2004 by the Orioles, Fiorentino has seen scattered playing time in the majors. He went back and forth on waivers between the Reds and As during 2008, and returned to Baltimore via waivers later that year. Given their crowded outfield situation, the Orioles are letting him go as a free agent.

How good is Jeff Fiorentino? CHONE projects him as exactly a league average hitter (.267/.342/.399 line). ZiPS projects him at .266/.329/.391; converted to linear weights, I get about four runs below average per 150 games.

The big question is his defense. If Fiorentino can play a decent center field, he might be a league-average player. His UZR numbers tell us almost nothing, given the extremely small sample. CHONE’s TotalZone projection for 2009 saw him as a +2 center fielder. Still, given that teams have moved him around in the minors, we should be wary before slotting him in as a center fielder. The Fans don’t help us — there was exactly one ballot for Fiorentino in 2009.

Given the limited data, let’s play it safe and postulate that he’s somewhere between an average center fielder and an average corner outfielder, such that his defense + position is between +2.5 and -7.5 runs per season. Combine that with a range of 0 to -4 offense, Fiorentino projects somewhere between 1 and 2 WAR . 2 WAR might seem like a stretch, but 1.5 WAR is reasonable. He isn’t a great hitter, but he can get on base decently. He might not be an everyday center fielder, but he can hack it out there if you need him to, and his glove profiles well in the corners. He’s a good fourth outfielder/platoon player who can be a stopgap starter. Sound familiar? Fiorentino will be only 27 in 2010.

It wouldn’t shock me if Fiorentino ended up getting nothing more than a minor-league deal. More power to the team that makes that deal. Still, older outfielders with less talent will get more than that. I look forward to seeing who is smart. One more problem: if some team is smart and signs Fiorentino over, say, Scott Podsednik, or gives Fiorentino the minimum instead of shelling out millions for Rick Ankiel, is he still eligible for the Langerhans Award?

If you want to try and project Jeff Fiorentino in 2010, click here.