Making a Robinson Cano Trade Work
As we get closer to deals for Manny Machado and Bryce Harper, the time has come for warnings about mega-deals gone bad. You know about Albert Pujols, Chris Davis, Miguel Cabrera, and Jacoby Ellsbury as prime examples of why guaranteeing big money long-term to players on the wrong side of 30 is a bad idea. Robinson Cano’s current contract is not one of those examples. There were alarm bells when Cano signed his 10-year, $240 million contract with the Mariners five years ago, but he has more than held up his end of the contract by averaging more than four wins per season. If Cano hits his projections next year and continues a normal age-related decline, he could easily live up to the $240 million contract he signed.
Over the past five seasons, the Mariners have paid Cano just over $108 million and Cano, in turn, has delivered 20.7 WAR. According to our values at the bottom of Cano’s player page, his play has been worth around $160 million. He’s currently projected by Steamer for three wins next season. With standard aging curves, here is what Cano’s production and value are expected to be over the next five years.
| Year | Age | WAR | $/WAR | Est. Contract |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2019 | 36 | 3.0 | $9.0 M | $27.0 M |
| 2020 | 37 | 2.5 | $9.5 M | $23.6 M |
| 2021 | 38 | 1.8 | $9.9 M | $17.4 M |
| 2022 | 39 | 1.0 | $10.4 M | $10.4 M |
| 2023 | 40 | 0.3 | $10.9 M | $2.7 M |
| Totals | 8.5 | $81.1 M |
Assumptions
Value: $9M/WAR with 5.0% inflation (for first 5 years)
Aging Curve: +0.25 WAR/yr (18-27), 0 WAR/yr (28-30), -0.5 WAR/yr (31-37), -0.75 WAR/yr (> 37)
Add what he’s done and what he’s expected to do, and Cano ends up a bit ahead of the money the Mariners are set to pay him over the life of the contract. Looking at Cano’s contract in dollars per WAR is one way to evaluate his performance. Another way might be to compare Cano’s outcome to another. Instead of paying Cano $240 million (now $231 million due to last year’s suspension) over 10 years, a team could have opted to spread that money around on other players, potentially reducing their risk and getting more immediate impact. In fact, that’s exactly what the Yankees decided to do. The club opted not to budge past their seven-year, $175 million offer to Cano and then filled three holes by signing Ellsbury to a seven-year, $153 million deal, Brian McCann to a five-year, $85 million contract, and Carlos Beltran to a three-year deal worth $15 million annually.
This is how those three players have fared for the Yankees compared to what Cano has done for the Mariners.
| Cano Cost | Cano WAR | Beltran / McCann / Ellsbury Cost | Beltran / McCann / Ellsbury WAR | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2014 | $24 M | 5.6 | $68.8 M | 5.3 |
| 2015 | $24 M | 2.8 | $68.8 M | 5.7 |
| 2016 | $24 M | 6.2 | $65.0 M | 5.4 |
| 2017 | $24 M | 3.2 | $29.0 M | 1.6 |
| 2018 | $12.3 M | 2.9 | $27.4 M | 0 |
| TOTAL | $108.3 M | 20.7 | $259 M | 18.0 |
This is just one example, and Ellsbury’s downturn couldn’t have been foreseen at this level, but after the Yankees pursued the diversification route, they won the same amount of playoff games as the Mariners over the following three seasons. When they did make it to the ALCS in 2017, McCann and Beltran were both gone from the roster and Ellsbury received just 12 PA in 13 games; he did not get a hit. Even if we didn’t add any money for the competitive balance tax, the Yankees spent way more money on their trio than they would have spent on Cano and have gotten far less production. Even with the $120 million Cano is still owed (and the $43 million Ellsbury is still owed), the Yankees would have been much better off just giving Cano the money.
The relevant question isn’t what should have been done five years ago (give Cano the money) or whether the Yankees would have been better off with Cano (they would have). Our question concerns Robinson Cano’s trade value today. The Mariners already benefited from the surplus of Cano’s performance the last five years by paying him below market value for All-Star performance. That surplus is set to even out over the next five years, and right now that means Cano’s deal is under water. In order for Seattle to move Cano, they are going to have to pay down some of the remaining contract or take on a significant contract of a player who is performing worse than Cano is.
If we look at the chart showing Cano’s expected performance going forward, we see roughly $80 million in value, with Cano coming close to producing at the level of his contract for three seasons before dropping off for the final two years. That was the scenario in which the swap of Ellsbury (and the $47 million he’s owed) for Cano, which was reportedly discussed in the early part of the offseason per Ken Rosenthal, made sense. Both contracts are roughly $40 million under water, though the Yankees wanted the Mariners to pay more money and Seattle reasonably declined.
It is within a similar value framework that the Mets are aggressively trying to acquire Cano, per Andy Martino. The reported potential framework of a deal involving Cano and $50 million going to the Mets comes close value-wise. The Mets are said to be trying to include Jay Bruce or receive Edwin Diaz or Mitch Haniger. There is a chance Cano could be packaged with Diaz or Haniger for some prospect return, but absent that, those two – particularly Haniger – don’t make sense to include as the Mariners try to rebuild; using those pieces to acquire talent for the Mariners next run at contention would seem to be a far better option than simply having to eat less money. As for Bruce and the $29 million owed to him over the next two seasons, that would likely need to come out of the money the Mariners are paying. Cano plus $30 million for Bruce is a deal that could make sense for both clubs. If the Mets were to insist on Diaz (the more likely supplemental piece to move) in the trade, New York would need to add prospects to the deal, essentially combining two separate trades into one. Regardless, the Mets would have to figure out what do with Jeff McNeil, with Peter Alonso presumably taking over at first base, Todd Frazier at third, and Cano likely sticking at second for now.
The bigger issue than agreeing on a value for Cano is the flooded market for second basemen. In a projections-only vacuum, where Cano actually put up the five-win season he would’ve without the PED suspension, he might be worth something like four or five years and $70-80 million. In the current world, Cano just missed half of last season and is part of a second base market that includes free agents DJ Lemahieu, Brian Dozier, Jed Lowrie, Daniel Murphy, Asdrubal Cabrera, and Ian Kinsler. All are projected to be worth between 1.8 WAR and 2.5 WAR, less than Cano, but not too far off his mark, and are likely to come in at less than half the cost of Cano, even after Seattle sends money. If a team is looking for a second baseman, the free agents are the better values. At first base, Cano would still be a contributor and above-average player, but his value dips as he moves down the defensive spectrum.
If Seattle isn’t planning on contending in the next couple seasons and they can spring a deal eating around $50 million or so, they should take advantage. But there will be a price point at which a deal makes less sense as Seattle isn’t a franchise with financial difficulties, meaning the money the team could free up doesn’t actually provide much additional flexibility. There might not be a deal to be made for Cano right now, and what deals there are could be complicated by Cano’s no-trade clause, which would limit potential suitors. Given those factors, any trade that does take place might look like a lose-lose, where both sides seem to have given up too much, with Seattle sending too much money and the team acquiring Cano spending more than they should have given the other available alternatives.
Craig Edwards can be found on twitter @craigjedwards.
Diaz seems like such a perfect trade candidate, would hate to see him as a throwaway piece offloading Cano.
I think if a team like the Braves or Padres or Reds or Astros are willing to spend their prospect capital on a closer, they should definitely deal. I don’t think any of those teams will do so (especially Padres or Reds) but the premium paid to elite closers is real and it’s the best way they could restart a contention window in a few years.
Nice call on the Reds as a candidate to land (overpay) for Diaz.
The team signs Iglesias to a new deal, apparently to pacify him for lost saves/future market value, as Iglesias starts a “Hader” role.
Add in…. a blustery lead owner who already proclaimed a 67-win team will “acquire pitching” and “have a record team payroll.” (Wise moves or not.)
Senzel? Greene? Trammell? There are guys in the Reds system that would fit Dipoto’s re-tool/re-start…whatever the hip Pacific Northwest term is for the M’s plans.
The thing about the Reds is that their front office/ownership has a really hard time getting to a “yes” in terms of deals. It’s been that way for a while, and I think that’s part of the reason why the Cozart trade to the Mariners completely fell apart a couple of years ago (they literally ran out of time because the Reds took too long on other deals).
It doesn’t make any sense for them to do it, and it’s not clear they are organized enough to pull off big trades like this, so I don’t think it’s happening. But if they wanted to, the Reds could offer a ton of value.
I don’t think Cano has nearly the value that some people think he does. He’s aging, expensive, and tainted with suspension. Seattle’s best hope if they move him is to take back another bad contract and eat some salary. They can’t rightly expect to get back any real talent for him. He’s a mansion they no longer want to pay the pool service on.
I don’t disagree, but on the other side of the coin, Cano’s suspension has already been served and there is evidence to suggest the physical benefits of PHDs can last 2-3 yrs after use (depending on the cocktail), even at his age. I hate to compare the two because Nelson Cruz was incredible from every angle, but that’s exactly why I bring him up. Not just for his performance, but despite arriving with a similar stigma, Cruz departs Seattle as an all-time favorite player/personality/humanitarian among many M’s fans, even those who were morally opposed to his signing in the first place. Cano almost certainly will not experience the same success as Cruz, but I wouldn’t be afraid to call the M’s about his price tag either.
Choo, you make excellent points. For the flip side to your flip side, we could look at Robbie’s mentor and former “work-out” buddy, A-Rod. His age 36 through 40 seasons were not pretty. Total of 4.2 WAR combined over the four seasons, not including his suspended year obviously.
Cano was an iron man for 11 consecutive years. I wonder if the Mariners know something other teams don’t about Cano’s future durability/utility?
A-Rod’s hip issues dated back to 2009, making the comparison tenuous at best.
He also had 5.7 WAR in 316 games from 36 to 39, before falling off a cliff at the age of 40.
Also fine points. Fine points all around. The Mariners HAVE to know something about Cano other teams don’t. Perhaps Cano has a permanent foot thing or a degenerative hernia bone socket or rare disorder that makes it difficult for him to swallow gelatinous foods without gagging despite his unwavering commitment to frozen yogurt my medical degree is on the wall.
I don’t think they HAVE to know something like that about Cano. A rebuilding team wants to trade an expensive veteran. What else is there to explain?
Why are the Mariners dumping Cano? They save something like $11M/yr for the next five years (after they buy down $65M or so of his current deal). What can they do with $11M/year — bottom-fish with the Rays in the February FA market? Sign more international players? Sign CJ Cron-types? The M’s aren’t a small-market team, so they don’t need to dump Cano to do these things.
They also lose his 2-3 wins/yr or so for the next 3 years (he looks non-rosterable in years 4 & 5 according to Steamer), so maybe they’re trying to tank for a better draft position?
Unless they see something salvageable in Jay Bruce or Jacoby Ellsbury, I’m not seeing a big payoff from dumping Cano. If they could buy down more of Cano’s liability and actually get some prospects, I could see it.
Same thing applies to DBacks and Greinke. If anything these trades make more sense at the ASB, when contenders are willing to give up prospects because they’re fairly sure Cano and Greinke can get them to the playoffs and help them in the playoffs. (Especially a SP like Greinke.)
Maybe DiPoto is given a 5-year payroll budget so if he reduces it in early non-contending years, he can flex it up in the 4th or 5th years if the M’s return to contention?
I think that most good organizations allow for higher payrolls when they’re close to contention, so that could be it.
I think the overall reason is that for a team like the Mariners, Cano’s likely to be totally worthless in a few years. So if the team isn’t able to compete in the next 2 years it’s a good idea to dump him now so they can spend that money later (when they’re more competitive).
(WRT the deadline deal issue: I have heard some players are less interested in waiving a no-trade deal in the middle of the season. This may or may not apply to Cano and Greinke).
It’s about saving money, tens of millions. They can’t compete with the Astros and most likely the A’s the next few years.
They had a $156 million payroll and attendance that really hasn’t gone up much in the last four years.
The majority owner is a guy with a supposed net worth of 1.1 billion and he supposedly paid Nintendo $660 mil two years ago to up his/his groups ownership % to 90%.
It does seem like time for a rebuild.
People get confused about this all the time. Rebuilding is about trading current wins for MORE future wins. “Saving Money” is a side-effect of this process, though it’s obviously more of an imperative the lower the payroll a team typically operates at.
I understand your point Shalesh, but most of the current owners seem to be prioritizing finances over future wins with alot of these deals.
Alot of these prospects bust, and bust hard. Attaching Diaz to Cano shows how desperate Stanton was to unload Cano and how limited his market was thanks to age, taint, money and his ntc.
Roland, if the deal with the Mets as currently reported closes, you may prove to be right. Here’s why:
Previously, we thought Diaz would return as much as Kimbrel did a few years ago: Margot (55FV) + Asuaje (45FV) + 2 FV40’s.
But Diaz seems to only have returned Kelenic (50FV) + Dunn (45+) + Bautista (40). From Craig Edward’s recent work on prospect value, the drop from Margot to Kelenic is $18M-$22M and the lack of a 2nd FV40 is another $2M. So, say for simplicity, a loss of $22M versus the Kimbrel deal.
We thought if Cano were a FA now, he’d get something like a 3 yr, $55M deal. He’s owed $120M, so the M’s need to buy down $65M just to give him away for free. The M’s are taking back Bruce & Swarzak who are owed $37M and will give the Mets some cash as well.
Something tells me, the M’s won’t give back $28M cash but more like $6M cash after subtracting the loss they take from settling on Kelenic as their headliner instead of a 55. Thus, to save ~$75M ($120M – $37M – cash they give to Mets), they settle for an FV50 headliner instead of an FV55 in return for Diaz.
*I’m making some crude assumptions like Bruce & Swarzak will produce 0 WAR for the M’s and FanGraphs’ BOARD is the consensus view of the prospects. The values may shift a bit if we tighten these up. Namely, if the Mariners expect Bruce & Swarzak to produce 1 win, they may view the prospects they’re getting at $9M more than The BOARD would imply.
Shalesh, Andy Martino is reporting some crazy numbers. Let’s see the final deal and try and make some sense of it.
Thanks for posting this Craig. Some of the trade speculation swirling right now is devoid of any reasonable sense of value. Your article provides some terrific ways to think about Cano’s value moving forward.
1. “But there will be a price point at which a deal makes less sense as Seattle isn’t a franchise with financial difficulties, meaning the money the team could free up doesn’t actually provide much additional flexibility.” Key insight to my mind. Would trading Cano set the Mariners up for a run at a current free agent? Harper? Machado? Who are the significant free agents in 2020 or 2021?
2. “If a team is looking for a second baseman, the free agents are the better values.” I’m not so sure. I think in order to evaluate this statement we need to account for the values over a comparable time frame, i.e., 2-5 years. Of the listed 2B free agents, several are crowdsourced for 2-year contacts; some even slated for 3-year deals. Seems reasonable to me that Cano could put up +3-6 WAR over any any of the listed 2B free agents, over the next 2 or 3 years. Years 4 and 5 are another matter, but Cano’s versatility in those years might see him at 1B or DH in final 2 years of his current contract.
Cano is a risky asset. We don’t know how he will produce without the chemicals, and we also don’t know if he will get suspended again in which case he is a total loss most likely. The Mariners are not getting sticker price unless they find someone very dumb or very desperate. Of course, the Mets qualify in both regards which explains their interest.
These deals make sense, but I think the Yankees and Mets are well aware that the Mariners are hamstrung by the no-trade clause and are willing to hold out for a better deal. And I’m not too convinced either team is dying for an upgrade at 2nd base. Torres is probably the 2nd baseman of the future, and McNeil is a potential 2nd baseman too.
If I had to guess what a trade would look like, it would be something like Jay Bruce and Swarzak for a Cano plus a lot of cash, with the Mets figuring out how McNeil, Frazier, and Cano all fit together later. I don’t think it would be a good move for the Mets, but it would dramatically increase the infield depth.
Torres could also be the 3B of the future, with Andujar at 1B (or flipped for pitching).
I’ve seen lots of different things on that front, about whether Torres would be a good third baseman or not. I seem to recall a lot of people saying that Torres looked good at 2nd when they tried him out there in the minors, but that he didn’t have the lightning-quick reactions to let him stand out at 3rd. Of course, he wasn’t that great at 2nd.
If they do think Torres can be good at 3rd, then Ellsbury for Cano is a fair swap and would probably improve the team.
A conversion to 2B from SS takes a while – players say they literally have to do everything backwards. Considering that most of his issues stemmed from errors rather than range, I think he’ll be fine.
And, of course, Cano’s also a possibility at 3rd for the next couple years. Dude’s got a cannon.
I wouldn’t mind that kind of deal at all from the Mets’ perspective — just adding some infield depth at little significant cost to the on-field team, presuming that the money coming back still brings Cano down to a reasonable AAV for a late-30s player (like, in the single-digit millions). And Bruce is the kind of guy you could see Seattle viewing as a nice little short-term addition while getting out of the long-term commitment. This is the kind of deal that would make some sense to me for Cano, more than the pure dead-money swap that someone like Ellsbury represents.
Craig is probably in the right ballpark with Bruce going and his $26 million going back to the Mariners and the M’s sending along $30M to defray the cost. He’s got $24M coming over the next five years, so that slices off $11M per year (on average). But I also think that the Mets know that Cano has a no-trade clause and the number of trading partners is probably limited to the northeast (which is where I think Cano lives?), so you’re probably looking at throwing in Swarzak (or someone with a similar contract) too, which makes it about $13M off on average over the life of the contract.
For a guy who is projected to put up 3 wins next year, that’s a pretty sweet deal for the Mets. Maybe they throw in d’Arnaud since and/or Flores and/or Dom Smith and/or Gavin Cecchini since they’re non-tender/DFA candidates anyway? Overall, I think that that deal would be a win for the Mets and probably the best the Mariners can do.
Also, those “3 wins” are based on his putting up his worst defensive numbers in over 10 years by suddenly becoming a -10 defender.
3.5-4 wins is a more realistic assumption, given a 122 wRC+ over 650 PA (over the past 4 years, he’s been worth 4.1 WAR/650 with a 125 wRC+).
There’s no way to bring Robbie’s contract down to “the single-digit millions” over the next 5 years.
Nor should they, for a guy who projects to be worth $16m a year over the life of his remaining contract, even using Steamer’s nonsensical defensive projection for a player with a 3.5 UZR/150 over the past 3 seasons.
A couple of points I’d like to make.
Lincoln and Nintendo didn’t give Cano a $240 million dollar contract based on how his surplus value would out perform his salary in the early years of the contract. They signed him to sell tickets, attract eyballs and try to win in the post season. In short, to make money.
“But there will be a price point at which a deal makes less sense as Seattle isn’t a franchise with financial difficulties, meaning the money the team could free up doesn’t actually provide much additional flexibility.”
Ok, this is flawed thinking. Stanton would like to save tens of millions of dollars over the remaining life of Cano’s deal as well as minimize the risk that he falls off a cliff in his late 30’s, especially if PED’s were aiding his performance.
The teams attendance jumped 300,000 in Cano’s first season and it has hovered between 2.1 to 2.3 million fans the last four years. What impact the “reimagining” will have on attendance remains to be seen, but my guess is the bean counters will surmise the savings on offloading Cano will impact the bottom line positively.
These are business decisions, not fantasy baseball
That’s a lot of words for little to no actual substance. Plus a nice little attempted insult at the end to really hammer home how stupid of a comment this is.
Eh, I actually see the point.
With a contract this large, ownership will be involved.
They’re not close to the luxury cap, so the question ownership will ask is almost certainly “will the damage to ‘Butts in Seats’ be greater from trading him be greater than the savings from trading him+the ‘Butts in Seats’ generated by the return?” not “Will the return offer a higher net $/WAR than keeping him?”
There’s also an interesting wrinkle for a full-on big teardown by the Mariners, because the Mariners own 60% of their RSN. That means that the Mariners take a revenue hit from lower TV viewership / ad revenue to a degree that most teams simply don’t. (It’s relatively common for teams to own some stake in their RSN’s, but these are generally in the range of about 20% ownership, not majority ownership stakes.)
I think their ad revenue would take that hit regardless if Cano and Diaz were still in the fold. They really can’t be expected to contend in that division. Makes sense to just move on from that contract.
We also have no real idea how profitable the M’s are, and what the new owner’s financial position and goals are.
It’s entirely possible.
Either way, the calculus ownership is making is based more closely on the relative financial impact of keeping vs. trading him than it will be on the minimal return they can expect.
Only my Mets would be involved in a “lose-lose” deal.
Mariners!
Cano has $120 million left on his deal (Spotrac). Mariners will have to eat $50-60 million for his value to be recognized in a trade. His aging curve must account for incremental downside risk of PED use and actual injury. Cashman knew the contract would be ugly in out years- and it is.
” they won the same amount of playoff games”
You mean same number of playoff games.
Yes, please go ahead and downvote. No one likes a nazi of any sort.
Cano+50 mil for Dexter Fowler? Who says no?
(and yes, I am aware of the no trade clauses involved)
Can I ask: where does the assumption of 9 mil/war come from? Top free agents don’t get that much (A 7 war player isn’t going to get $63 mil a year). Teams don’t pay ever intend to pay that much for one win over replacement. If they are, the player is under-performing Curious how that number is arrived at. I’ve seen values like that thrown around on here for a while, but never bought into that number. It always seemed way to high to me.
IIRC, the Yankees did not choose Ellsbury + McCann + Beltran > Cano, although it ultimately played out that way.
Ellsbury was the first domino to fall, and they were fully in on Cano until he signed with Seattle.
They were rumored to be in on McCann for much of the entire season leading up to that offseason. I don’t think Cano’s decision swayed them much in that regard.
Beltran, on the other hand, was absolutely fallback after Cano signed with Seattle as the team needed another bat. He would not have been a Yankee if they were able to resign Cano. But then, they did trade Beltran for Dillon Tate, who was flipped for Zach Britton, and Erik Swanson, who was just part of a package that netted them James Paxton. So maybe it worked out better than alluded to..?
How about to Marlins for package centering on Cano for Wei-Yin Chen & potentially Martin Prado. Combined Prado/Chen will earn $35M in 2019 & Cano $24M. Reduces the cash outlay of Marlins FO prior to new tv deal kicking in and adds a far more marketable centerpiece to the team. Plus, reunites with familiar faces in the FO. For discussions sake, Cano is guaranteed $120M over the next 5 seasons. Prado/Chen combined owed $57M. That’s the start of a realistic discussion.
Trading for Cano and trading away Thor sounds like the dumbest thing I can imagine
Are the Knicks in on Cano ?
It seems there may be resolution to this discussion pretty soon, maybe as soon as tomorrow (Friday), per MLBTR.
Or the M’s could just fleece the Mets’ new GM, who has no prior front office experience.