The Nolan Arenado Trade Problem

There have been rumors for much of the offseason that Nolan Arenado might be on the move. Jon Morosi stirred up a ruckus with a pair of reports that the Cardinals were “emerging” in trade talks and that names had been exchanged. As Ben Clemens noted earlier today, the Cardinals do make some sense as a trading partner because Arenado would be a significant upgrade over Matt Carpenter. Arenado would add an immediate three-win upgrade in what should be a very competitive NL Central. The problem with trading for Arenado is not Arenado the player. Any team would be happy to have his steady five-to-six-win performance. The problem with trying to trade for Nolan Arenado is his contract, and it’s not the $234 million owed to him, either. The opt-out after 2021 is a trade-killer.

It shouldn’t come as a surprise that Jeff Passan was throwing water on Cardinals-Rockies trade rumors:

Derrick Goold wrote up a summary of the Arenado activity as well as the Cardinals’ perspective and described the problem as such:

What else is known is how the Cardinals and other teams see Arenado discussions as a Gordian Knot. One source has described them often as “hurdles” to the deal. Arenado has the no-trade clause, and he has the opt-out after the 2021 season. And that’s before a team has to consider the asking price and whether Colorado wants a return on the potential years of control (through 2026) or actual with opt-out (2021). The Rockies are going to want the former; the interested team the latter.

For the sake of argument, let’s assume the no-trade clause isn’t an issue. Let’s next move to the dollars owed to Arenado and ignore the opt-out for a moment. Arenado is owed $234 million over the next seven years. He’s a projected five-win player, and adding in some age-related decline, he can be reasonably expected to put up 27.5 WAR over those seven years. On a dollars-per-WAR basis without making any adjustments, that’s $8.5 million per win. On a per-win basis, that’s exactly what the Los Angeles Angels agreed to pay Anthony Rendon. When we factor in the draft pick penalty the Angels paid by signing Rendon, the cost to the Angels is around a quarter of a million dollars more per win than what Arenado is owed.

There is certainly a lot of logic to the notion that if the Cardinals wanted Arenado, then they also should have been in on Rendon as the latter was available for roughly the same monetary cost without having to give up any players. That logic also extends to Josh Donaldson, who, while older, is currently a player of comparable skill to Arenado and signed for $92 million over four years, a sum that is only $22 million more than Arenado is set to make over the next two seasons. There’s also the matter of Kris Bryant’s availability, though that doesn’t affect a decision for the Cardinals. In fact, now that those other players are gone, Arenado might be the only player actually available who can offer a significant upgrade for St. Louis. While these discussions are focused on the Cardinals, somewhat similar logic is in play for other potential suitors like the Braves or Rangers.

If we acknowledge the current scarcity, then we can talk about reasons why Arenado might be better than Rendon. Arenado is younger and has displayed better health, and playing home games in Colorado and road games without the Coors effect might be slightly suppressing the 130 wRC+ he’s put up over the past three years. If we were to add a one-million-dollars-per-WAR premium on Arenado over Rendon, we end up with Arenado’s projected worth about $30 million above what he’s expected to be paid. Now all of a sudden, Andrew Knizner plus Matthew Liberatore and a couple less consequential prospects looks like a reasonable deal from both sides. But then the opt-out gets in the way.

A year ago, Ben Clemens took a look at the opt-outs in the contracts of Manny Machado and Arenado to try and determine their value. For Arenado, he either performed like a five-to-six-win player for three seasons and then opted out or he averaged a little under three wins per season for eight years. That scenario made Arenado’s opt-out valuable at that time, costing a little over a million per WAR compared to a contract without one. That gap has only widened over the past year with Arenado still playing very well and getting a year closer to the opt-out. With the opt-out, the expected rate of pay per win for Arenado gets up near $11 million per win. Adding Liberatore and Knizner to Arenado’s contract with an opt-out makes the cost of Arenado something like $13 million per win. While it’s easy to say that it isn’t your money and to just go get him, it makes less sense when Donaldson and Rendon were available for significantly less or that paying for wins at that price could enable a team to present an overwhelming offer to get a better player like Mookie Betts or Francisco Lindor.

The solution to this Gordian knot is to simply cut the opt-out, a part of the contract that came from the Rockies’ front office. No reasonable trade can be made with the opt-out still intact. Colorado could offer to conditionally pay $8 million per year if Arenado doesn’t opt out, but agreeing to pay $40 million and still not getting a great return package isn’t that feasible. If Arenado was willing to accept a $30 million team option on an eighth year with a $15 million buyout, that wouldn’t come close to the value of the opt-out, but it might provide enough incentive to waive that opt-out. Unfortunately, adding that $15 million guarantee also decreases the potential return. Maybe Knizner and Dakota Hudson are enough to headline a package for Arenado, but if the Rockies want Liberatore or a better prospect like Nolan Gorman or Dylan Carlson, then Colorado should expect to kick in some money, something like three million to five million dollars per year over the life of the contract.

It’s difficult to find a palatable deal for both sides despite Arenado’s considerable talents on the diamond. His opt-out serves to ruin any trade value he might have because he provides potentially two good years of play, but just as likely are seven seasons that are only slightly above-average for more than $30 million per year. Eliminating the opt-out should be a precursor to any deal and the trading team will have to accept more financial responsibility, but if the Rockies actually want a good return, they are going to have to respond by paying down some of Arenado’s salary. There might be an avenue to get to a trade, but there are still quite a few bumps that could prevent teams from traveling that road.

We hoped you liked reading The Nolan Arenado Trade Problem by Craig Edwards!

Please support FanGraphs by becoming a member. We publish thousands of articles a year, host multiple podcasts, and have an ever growing database of baseball stats.

FanGraphs does not have a paywall. With your membership, we can continue to offer the content you've come to rely on and add to our unique baseball coverage.

Support FanGraphs




Craig Edwards can be found on twitter @craigjedwards.

newest oldest most voted
hombremomento
Member
hombremomento

I still find it hilarious people try to suppress Arenado’s value by bringing up Coors. It’s still 347 feet to left and 390 to left-center, places Nolan normally hits. Plus, humidifiers.

Monsignor Martinez
Member
Monsignor Martinez

He’ll be a good hitter wherever he plays, but Coors field makes it easier to hit for avg as curveballs don’t drop as much, and the outfield is far more spread out.

Cave Dameron
Member
Cave Dameron

And then players struggle on the road because they’re not used to seeing breaking pitches with that much break. The Coors hangover effect is real and pretty well documented, and deserves to be brought up any time someone points out the obvious fact that everybody hits better at Coors.

MikeS
Member
MikeS

Maybe it’s because over his career he hits 324/380/615 in Coors and 265/323/476 everywhere else.

Shalesh
Member
Shalesh

DJ LeMahieu 2018 Home: 317/360/433, Away: 229/277/422

He then produces a 5.4 win season with the NYY in 2019 after a 2.1-win season in 2018.

Mike Petriello, for MLB.com in 2015, found no effect for Matt Holliday, Dexter Fowler, Seth Smith, Chris Iannetta and Clint Barmes. Corey Dickerson has thrived after leaving Coors.

There is NO Coors Effect. Move on.

cs3
Member
cs3

“There is NO Coors Effect. Move on.”

Ignorance is bliss eh

Seamaholic
Member
Seamaholic

There IS a Coors Effect, and it’s NEGATIVE, not positive. That’s the previous poster’s point, and it is correct.

tylitetony
Member
tylitetony

Coors effect is negative? LOL

Jon
Member
Jon

Uh, remember me? Love, Vinny Castilla

fredsbank
Member
fredsbank

Are people still out here in 2020 pretending that Coors doesn’t make it dramatically more difficult to hit on the road?

Shalesh
Member
Shalesh

My apologies. You were only reporting the home/road difference about current Rockies players. Not saying that difference caused their trade value to decrease. I shouldn’t have snarked at you. I’m sorry.

Max Power
Member
Member
Max Power

Maybe the reason for his good health is those humidifiers are helping him with congestion

PC1970
Member
PC1970

Maybe the new team can bake the cost of a netty pot into the trade discussions.