Ranking the Trade Value of Nolan Arenado, Mookie Betts, Kris Bryant, and Francisco Lindor
Earlier this week, I asked our readers to rank the star players rumored to be on the trade block. I asked just two questions. The first asked readers to rank the players by how good they are right now. The second asked readers to rank the players by their trade value.
The first question proved to be an easy one, as 42% of the more than 2,500 responses had the exact same ranking.
To provide a little more context, here is how often each player ended up at a particular ranking:
| 1st | 2nd | 3rd | 4th | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nolan Arenado | 5.4% | 23.4% | 56.9% | 14.3% |
| Mookie Betts | 71.1% | 17.3% | 5.1% | 6.4% |
| Kris Bryant | 0.8% | 7.3% | 16.6% | 75.3% |
| Francisco Lindor | 22.6% | 52.0% | 21.4% | 4.0% |
There’s a very clear majority at each position, with the ranking going Mookie Betts, Francisco Lindor, Nolan Arenado and Kris Bryant. It likely isn’t a coincidence, but that is also how the players are ranked when it comes their 2020 projections on our Depth Charts. Given the players’ contracts and years of team control, asking for a trade value ranking is a much different question. Betts might be the best player, but he’ll be a free agent after this year and makes $27 million. Lindor and Bryant have similar salaries (around $18 million) and will both be eligible for free agency after the 2021 season, assuming Bryant’s grievance goes against him. Arenado can also be a free agent after the 2021 season, but he makes twice as much money as Lindor and Bryant, and has a player option at the end of the 2021 season for five years and $164 million.
The results of the poll provide a clear first place finisher, but the results in the middle are somewhat muddled:
Lindor occupies the first spot in the top five results. That the sixth response that has Lindor first only ranks 10th among the choices probably has more to do with the names that follow him than his standing with the readers. The percentages by vote looks like this:
| 1st | 2nd | 3rd | 4th | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nolan Arenado | 17.2% | 14.7% | 27.0% | 41.2% |
| Mookie Betts | 13.6% | 31.5% | 34.7% | 20.2% |
| Kris Bryant | 2.5% | 32.5% | 28.2% | 36.8% |
| Francisco Lindor | 66.7% | 21.4% | 10.1% | 1.8% |
It’s clear the readers favored Lindor, and it certainly looks like Betts is the second choice given that 45.1% of readers put him either first or second, which is 10 percentage points higher than Arenado or Bryant. After that, there’s a decision to be made about how to weight first place votes against last place votes. More than 40% of respondents put Arenado in fourth place, but the Rockies’ third baseman also received the second-most first-place votes. Here’s how each player looks when considering head-to-head matchups:
| v. Arenado | v. Betts | v. Bryant | v. Lindor | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Arenado | N/A | 40.3% | 46.8% | 20.0% |
| Betts | 59.7% | N/A | 57.7% | 22.0% |
| Bryant | 53.2% | 42.3% | N/A | 5.3% |
| Lindor | 80.0% | 78.0% | 94.7% | N/A |
When we compare head-to-head results, Arenado is clearly last, but there are a lot of people who feel strongly about his trade value in a way almost nobody seems to have felt about Bryant’s. If we did a 4-3-2-1 point system, Arenado comes out ahead of Bryant. Nearly everyone felt that Arenado is better than Bryant, but most of those same people believed that their respective contract situations made Bryant a better trade value than Arenado. That makes sense given that Bryant will earn about $45 million over the next two seasons before free agency while Arenado will earn $70 million. If Arenado is good, then he’ll be a free agent, too. If his performance falls off, he’ll decline to opt-out and take the $164 million he’s owed for his age-31 through age-35 seasons.
If we were to compare the responses to Kiley McDaniel’s Trade Value Series in July, we also see some disconnect. Like the readers, Lindor was clearly the best, coming in at number 13 on McDaniel’s list. That’s where the paths diverge, however. Bryant was ranked 25th although with around 20% of his team control gone since that time, he would almost certainly be ranked much lower relative to his peers if the list was done today. Both Betts and Arenado made the Honorable Mention section, but were behind Bryant. The biggest disparity seems to come in the rise of Betts and the fall of Bryant. The Cubs’ star didn’t close the year completely healthy, which likely played a role. For Betts, there’s the appeal of simply getting the best player, even if he leaves at the end of the season.
For the most part, I think the results are fairly predictable and likely representative of the sport as a whole (as well as the order I would have chosen when looking at the head-to-head results), but the Arenado first place votes really stick out relative to the rest of the results. That’s probably worth another post by itself.
Craig Edwards can be found on twitter @craigjedwards.
Does the Red Sox scandal, and potential loss of draft picks, affect Betts’ value? And if so, how much?
I don’t think it changes Betts’ value at all.
P.S.: I don’t know why everyone downvoted this. It seems like you’re just asking a question.
this scandal, and its connection to Cora specifically, unfortunately throws a little doubt on Betts. Cora came into Boston in 2018, of course, and:
Betts 2013-17 wRC+: 122
Betts 2018 wRC+: 185
Betts 2019 wRC+: 135
It could just be coincidence, but that outlier career year at the plate with Cora coming in is now subject to some questioning.
From what has become public about the Red Sox sign stealing so far, someone had to be on base to relay the sign to the batter.
https://www.si.com/mlb/2020/01/07/boston-red-sox-sign-stealing-allegations-video-replay-room-2018-investigation
So if it was a factor, we should also see a difference with men in scoring position.
Here are Bett’s situational splits.
Year wRC+ Bases Empty/Men on Base/Men In Scoring
2014 146/100/105
2015 111/135/131
2016 127/148/168
2017 82/146/155
2018 191/172/200
2019 141/124/126
There’s not much of a pattern in that, but it is not a coincidence that he had an outlier career year at the plate in 2018.
Betts BABIP 2017: .268
Betts BABIP 2018: .368
Betts BABIP 2019: .309
Is there a way to measure Bryant’s potential defensive versatility? I wonder if his ability to play multiple positions moves him closer in value to the other three being elite defenders at just one position apiece.
Does moving down the spectrum count as versatility?
lmao! He can also DH in AL games!
I’m guessing the first place votes for Arenado are assuming that a) this winter is a sign that contract values are going to grow again, making his contract more palatable going forward; and b) that he will hit similarly outside of Coors.
I voted Arenado first because you know what he is going to be paid in future years, unlike the others with Boras. That’s value.
Yeah, but with Arenado, you have to pay that much regardless of performance. With the others, you don’t. That’s risk, not value.
Actually, you don’t. Arenado can opt out of his contract after 2021, which (assuming he doesn’t win his grievance) would be the same time Bryant hits the free agent market. And Arenado already costs more than Bryant now. So, if you are a potential trade partner, there is no upside to Arenado’s deal. If he outplays it, he will opt out and re-enter the market. If he declines significantly, that contract just becomes a millstone like Jason Heyward’s deal.
Let’s hold the opt-out aside for the moment, since I agree that diminishes Arenado’s trade value. If Arenado was only under contract for the next 2 years at 2/$70M, would you offer him an extension now for 5/$164 starting in 2022 when he turns 31?
Rendon isn’t quite the perfect comp since he’s a 6-win player and Arenado/Bryant are more 5-win, but he got 7/$245M at age 30.
I don’t see what your point is. We are discussing trade value. That means which player will extract the most value for his team if traded. If you look at it as a 2 year deal that you will have the option to extend or a deal with an opt out makes no difference. His contract kills his trade value relative to the other names on this list.
I suppose I was responding more to GregQD, but wanted to address the option too. If you’re willing to extend Arenado, then that implies that his contract has positive trade value both now and 2 years from now.
Edit: For everyone else, please vote “up” if you would extend Arenado now at 5/$164M following his opt-out and vote “down” if you would not. I’m curious what readers think.
Let’s do it on this comment.
Then the answer is no. I’m not willing to extend Arenado’s contract at its current rate at this time to take effect in 2021. I think that given his age, and removing him from the well documented Coor’s field effect adds far too much risk. Thus, based on your scenario, I consider Arenado’s contract a net negative to his value, both now and in 2 years.
Shalesh, your comment would make sense if it were a team opt-out, but it makes no sense at all relative to a player opt-out.
Mariner, I’m posing a hypothetical to see if people regard Arenado’s contract (excluding his opt-out) as positive or trade-able. So far, people see 7/$234M as too rich for a 5-win 29yo. This implies that his opt-out is (nearly) worthless since he can’t do better than this contract (unless he breaks out into a 6-win or better player). It also implies that Bryant will only get ~7/$200M when he becomes a FA at age 30.
You must rank Miguel Cabrera and Chris Davis similarly high in that case?
BTV guy here: These findings align with the valuations on baseballtradevalues.com, which have been up for a while. (One pedantic note is that we currently have Bryant and Arenado effectively tied for 3rd, only because we’re viewing Bryant’s situation probablistically, as if a trade were to happen today, before the ruling; if we were to assume he loses his grievance, as this does, his value will go up a bit, leaving Arenado in 4th.)
God, what a shameless plug.
Never heard of this site before, but it’s really interesting, and links FG.
I get that Bryant finishes in 4th place among these top notch players. He should; but not as wide of a margin that it appears. Bryant was forced to bat in the 2 spot for much of the 2019 season, resulting in less rbi opportunities and more situational hitting. Thanks to Theo for providing that roster to Joe… anyway, if MLB teams, share this ranking, then now is the time to steal him for a lower price IMO. Multi-positional players allow teams to get to max of 13 pitchers on the 26 roster, instead of perhaps 12. With the must face 3 batters rule, and some guys Terrible at splits, the bullpen mounds will be like rush hour in middle innings.
Are… are you trying to use RBI to justify value on Fangraphs?
The 2/3/4 slots in Major League lineups last year had mostly indistinguishable slash stats, and the 116 OPS+ was tied with the #3 hole. The 2 is where many, if not most teams, put their best hitter now. (Major counterexamples include Lindor and Betts, interestingly enough).
I don’t think of Aaron Judge and Mike Trout as engaging in much situational hitting.
First, the position other than leadoff that most often comes up with the bases empty is… the 3-hole. It would be more accurate to discuss 3-hole hitters getting fewer RsBI oppos.
But second, am I utterly misreading this, or are you arguing that making each pitcher face a minimum of three batters will… lead to more pitching changes? I’m misreading that somehow, the same way, all four times… right?
Bryant vs. Arenado is weird, because I’m pretty sure Arenado is going to be more valuable than Bryant next year IF he’s in Colorado. If I’m trading for Arenado or Bryant, I’m less sure. I still think he’s going to be good, and it’s not like we can just dial into the road splits and take that (it’s way more complicated than that) but I’d want to do a lot of work if I were trading for Arenado to make sure that he’d fit well with my ballpark. Bryant will be about the same value anywhere.
I put Bryant before Arenado, but I can see the other side, since I do think he’s like to perform better than Bryant this year if neither one is traded.
More to the point, I don’t really see how Arenado has any surplus value and his deal is complicated enough that it’s hard for Colorado to pay down the contract and get prospects back. He is signed to roughly a market-rate deal (just a little bit under Rendon’s contract) if he doesn’t opt-out, which he probably won’t. So take Texas, who is probably the most logical landing spot for Arenado from a contract/need/ballpark perspective. A “fair” deal is probably something like Hans Crouse for Arenado. That probably won’t do, because it’s hard to sell trading the franchise cornerstone to get out from under the salary. But the opt-out makes kicking in money to get better prospects really complicated; if COL decides to say, kick in more money to get Sherten Apostel and Sam Huff and Bubba Thompson, then if Arenado opts out, then Texas wouldn’t get the benefit from that money being kicked in beyond 2021. I think he’s probably in Colorado until that opt-out date passes.
Can anyone imagine Mookie Betts or Kris Bryant being traded for nothing but salary relief?
Great illustration of why Surplus Value is obsolete. I’ve never even heard of Hans Crouse, lol.
More seriously, I think the Rox would still get pretty close to an FV55 and an FV45 or FV50 for Arenado. They’d just have to kick in a lot of cash or take a bad contract from the acquiring team.
But that’s the point. If the Rockies agree to pay $5M a year and the Rangers send over nicer prospects and then Arenado opts out, then they don’t really get that benefit. This was part of the complication of A-Rod opting out of his deal, because the Rangers were still on the hook for paying down his salary. Once he opted out, the Yankees lost all of that offset. There’s no easy way for a team to pay down a contract with an opt-out to get better prospects…teams can and will do it in some cases but it’s just a lot harder to make it work.
Oh, so you’re finally understanding that opt-outs are negative-value from the team’s POV. Great!
That’s why I posed Arenado’s trade value as a 5.5-win player (I mistakenly tacked on a half-win extra) under control for 2 years in Craig’s previous article and then offered a slight decrement for his opt-out and an additional slight decrement (paid mostly in cash) relative to Bryant for his higher pay during the next 2 years.
No, actually, in this case (like many others), Arenado would have substantially more value if he opts out. Unless you think that he’s going to produce $30M+ value on average from 2022-2026. If you think that, then we’ll just have to agree to disagree. That back end of the contract is going to crush whatever team has it if it’s not paid down.
And it’s a pain to figure out how much to pay down. You seem to think that there’s an easy way to account for how much money the Rockies can send over. There isn’t. If the Rockies agree to pay down $5M per year, they could wind up paying the Rangers $10M or $35M. If it’s $7M per year, it’s either $14M or $49M. You think the Rangers are going to be thrilled sending over extra prospects knowing they might never see the benefit of getting the contract paid down? This deal could happen but more than likely, the Rockies are going to suffer through a couple more years with Arenado being there, and then Arenado will either opt-out or he’ll be traded.
Sounds like you would not offer Arenado a hypothetical 5/$164M extension now that would start in 2 years. His opt-out is irrelevant to that discussion. (As v2micca says above, he would only exercise it if he thinks he can get better than 5/$164M 2 years from now.)
You say Surplus value is obsolete, but then say the Rox would have to kick in cash or take a bad contract which is basically saying that they would need to take on negative surplus value to balance out the high surplus they are getting with the high FV players….
Fair enough. I wouldn’t use it as a guide to which prospects I’m getting back, which is the most interesting part of the trade. I would use it to determine the cash that I need to even it out.
The surplus value theory is silly with elite players like this. It’s based on the premise you can just go out in the market and pick up a 5 or 6 war player as long as you have the cash whenever needed.
I could see Arenado being traded before the opt out date, but part of the deal would almost have to be Arenado agreeing to remove the opt out clause in his contract in exchange for some sort of value, likely a 2027 team option with a large buyout.
Betts needs to come with an apple watch if a team is trying to get his current value. It’s really not a coincidence that his 2018 was far and away better than any season he has ever had while the red Sox cheated their way to a world series