Valuing Nolan Arenado’s New Contract
Hey everyone, and welcome to the convergence of two recurring segments. It’s the highly awaited crossover between “Can You Believe the Cardinals Got Nolan Arenado for That?” and “Let’s Value Gimmicky Contracts,” two columns I almost assuredly enjoy writing more than you enjoy reading.
Let’s get the deferred money part out of the way first, because while it’s obviously very important to the Rockies and Cardinals, it has nothing to do with Arenado’s decision-making. He’s getting his cash, and whether the check says Monfort or DeWitt, the cash still spends the same. It won’t affect his decision on whether to rip the whole contract up.
As Jeff Jones reported, Arenado agreed to modify his contract as part of the trade. In 2021, he was due $35 million. Now, he’ll receive $15 million this year, paid directly by the Rockies. He’ll also receive $20 million in deferred compensation, regardless of whether or not he opts out. If he’s still under this contract, that money will be sent to the Cardinals, who will then pay it to Arenado. If he opts out, the Rockies will pay him the $20 million directly.
Finally, if Arenado doesn’t opt out, the Rockies will be on the hook for the $16 million he’s due in 2027. That’s the new year that the Cardinals agreed to as part of the trade, and while it’s unclear exactly why the Rockies chose to pay that part rather than some pro-rated portion of earlier salaries, here we are.
For the Cardinals, this is a great fit. They’d been acting as though cash was a key constraint this year, and getting a year of Arenado at no cost (literally, no monetary cost!) does a good job of making the short-term books work. In the long run, they’re paying him nothing for one year (if he opts out after 2021), $35 million over two years (if he opts out after 2022), or $164 million over seven years.
With that covered, let’s talk about Arenado’s options. The structure is as straightforward as it gets for these kinds of things. After 2021, Arenado will have the option to walk away from the entire deal and become a free agent. If he opts to remain in St. Louis, he’ll get another chance to wash his hands of the deal after 2022. If he still wants to stay, then he’ll be under contract until after the 2027 season.
When Arenado signed his extension two years ago, I covered a probabilistic way of thinking about the value. In the interim, a few things have happened. First, Arenado had a down 2020. Second, Dan “Dr. ZiPS” Szymborski gave me a long-term forecast for Arenado that beats my generic aging expectations. Finally, I’ve added a few bells and whistles to the option model in the interim. For the most part, though, we’re just running it back.
To calculate the value of an opt out, we need a few things. First, a central projection for how good a player will be in the future. ZiPS is all over that. Here’s the next five years of Arenado’s projections:
| Year | BA | OBP | SLG | AB | R | H | 2B | 3B | HR | RBI | BB | SO | SB | OPS+ | DR | WAR |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2021 | .262 | .331 | .471 | 546 | 78 | 143 | 27 | 3 | 27 | 83 | 57 | 91 | 2 | 112 | 10 | 4.0 |
| 2022 | .259 | .326 | .461 | 514 | 71 | 133 | 26 | 3 | 24 | 75 | 53 | 84 | 2 | 109 | 9 | 3.4 |
| 2023 | .256 | .322 | .443 | 492 | 66 | 126 | 25 | 2 | 21 | 69 | 49 | 78 | 2 | 103 | 8 | 2.9 |
| 2024 | .254 | .318 | .431 | 469 | 60 | 119 | 22 | 2 | 19 | 62 | 45 | 71 | 2 | 99 | 7 | 2.4 |
| 2025 | .248 | .309 | .410 | 444 | 54 | 110 | 20 | 2 | 16 | 55 | 40 | 64 | 2 | 91 | 6 | 1.7 |
I’ll assume a standard aging curve after that, which gets us a central tendency for how his career will go.
Next, we need to apply variance. I’ve found in previous studies that projections for players who fit Arenado’s mold — mid-career and projections above 2 WAR — vary with a standard deviation of roughly 1.4 WAR from year to year. We’ll start with projections as a baseline, but to figure out the value of an option — the right but not obligation to do something — we’ll have to simulate 10 million or so different futures, then work out what happens on average.
Finally, we need to figure out how to translate Arenado’s projections into a potential new contract. Converting WAR to dollars misses some team-building effects, and as Craig Edwards showed last year, it’s not as simple as applying a linear conversion. Still, it’s my model, and it’s just for Arenado, not for the dang league as a whole. Let’s start with $8 million per win.
While we’re varying projections, we also need to vary the cost of a win. I assumed that the cost of 1 WAR will increase by an average of $250,000 per year, but with a standard deviation of $800,000. In plenty of years, the cost of a win will go down, even if the overall cost increases over time. There might be, say, a global pandemic, or a shortened season with no fans… wild nonsense like that.
Finally, we get down to brass tacks. When the player reaches his opt out, there’s a simple calculation. Take his new median projection, age it down as appropriate, and come up with a WAR projection for the remaining years of the contract. Multiply that number by the cost per win that we simultaneously calculated, and you have the contract that Arenado would sign, in a perfectly efficient market, if he opted out. I added one quick sanity check: if it’s within $10 million dollars of breaking even, Arenado won’t leave. That represents the uncertainty of finding a new contract, as well as the benefits of familiarity.
If there were only one opt out, our calculation would be simple. After one year, we simply apply an aging penalty and a random change in projection. Then, we use that to price out a new contract. With only one year before an opt out, things are simple like that.
In Arenado’s case, the odds are stacked in favor of him declining the opt out. The average situation (no change in projection) sees him with a $101.5 million contract after this year. He’d need to raise his 2022 projection by roughly 1.5 WAR to merit a contract that would be worth opting out for. How often does that happen? Roughly 14% of the time.
Let’s look at it more thoroughly. Here’s how much he projects to make in each scenario, including the $35 million he’s making in 2021 regardless:
| Scenario | Odds | Total Salary ($mm) |
|---|---|---|
| Opts Out | 14.0% | 264 |
| Stays | 86.0% | 215 |
| Total | 100.0% | 221.9 |
In that sense, the opt out already in Arenado’s contract is “worth” $6 million. It could be worth more, though. Replace our forecasts with the ZiPS forecasts that ignore 2020 (they used 2019’s rate stats again), and instead things get a little spicy:
| Scenario | Odds | Total Salary ($m) |
|---|---|---|
| Opts Out | 32.0% | 273.4 |
| Stays | 68.0% | 215 |
| Total | 100.0% | 233.7 |
Hey, look! If Arenado were projected to be a bit better — and again, injury has at least something to do with why he’s not — then his option would be worth more. Neat stuff!
That’s not why you’re here, though. Or, maybe it is, but that’s not what Arenado’s contract looks like anymore. In agreeing to head to St. Louis, Arenado gained an extra opt out after the 2022 season.
It’s slightly tricky to model nested opt outs like this, where the second one can only be exercised if the first isn’t. In practice, the decision won’t be overly complex. After 2021, Arenado and his agents will model something that looks a lot like the calculations I did above, valuing his existing contract based on his current projections and including a 2022 opt out. That number will come out to something higher than $180 million, because some amount of the time, he’ll opt out after 2022 and get a raise.
With that number in hand, they’ll approximate what he could get on the open market and compare the two. If he thinks he can get more now, on the open market, than the value of his existing contract inclusive of the opt out, he should leave. Otherwise, he should stay and wait the extra year to see what happens.
Unfortunately, that doesn’t work well in my framework. In each of my 10 million simulations, computer Arenado would need to run 10 million simulations to work out the value of his option using this Monte Carlo method. That comes out to one hundred trillion simulations, and it doesn’t even add much precision for our trouble. Instead, I’m just setting the cutoff higher; Arenado will need $15 million in prospective gains to pull the trigger on opting out after year one.
How does this change things? Less than you’d think. I previously calculated that Arenado would opt out 14% of the time; he now opts out 12.4% of the time in year one. With more time to vary, and thus a higher percent chance of improving enough to opt out, he also has an 8.2% chance of opting out after 2022. All together, that looks like this:
| Scenario | Odds | Pre-Option ($mm) | New Contract ($mm) | Total Compensation |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Stays | 79.4% | 215 | 0 | 215 |
| 2021 Opt Out | 12.4% | 35 | 232 | 267 |
| 2022 Opt Out | 8.2% | 70 | 224 | 294 |
| Total | 100.0% | 180.8 | 47.1 | 227.9 |
In the scenarios where Arenado opts out after 2022, he is, on average, quite good. This makes sense, because he’s only opting out in the best 8% of scenarios. If he muddles along, he’s staying. If he has a late-career renaissance, it only stands to reason that he’ll be more valuable. All told, the two opt outs add a projected $13 million to the value of the deal — not bad!
Once more, let’s plug in a more optimistic view of Arenado and see what shakes out. This is Dan’s pre-2020 version, where he’s projected for 5 WAR in 2021:
| Scenario | Odds | Pre-Option ($mm) | New Contract ($mm) | Total Compensation |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Stays | 49.5% | 215 | 0 | 215 |
| 2021 Opt Out | 29.7% | 35 | 242.1 | 277.1 |
| 2022 Opt Out | 20.8% | 70 | 229.3 | 299.3 |
| Total | 100.0% | 131.4 | 119.6 | 251.0 |
Again, the better Arenado is now, the higher the chance he opts out, and the more the second opt out is worth to him. In the base case ZiPS projections, a second opt out added roughly $6 million to Arenado’s expected earnings. In this pre-injury case, a second opt out would add more than $17 million.
That’s the gory math of the way this complex contract works. In practice, however, Arenado seems likely to take the Clayton Kershaw route. Kershaw, too, had the choice of opting out of his contract early and becoming a free agent. He used that leverage to get the Dodgers to offer him a new contract, avoiding free agency but monetizing his ability to leave. Even if Arenado improves this year and next, that seems like the most likely eventuality.
What’s an opt out worth? In Arenado’s case, it’s real money in expectation. Add that to the extra contract year that he snagged as part of the deal, and it’s easy to see why the player’s union was okay with him taking deferrals in 2021. Remember, though: even in the scenario where he’s at his best, he still leaves less than half the time. It’s valuable despite being unlikely, and that’s the magic of options.
Ben is a writer at FanGraphs. He can be found on Bluesky @benclemens.
A great deal for the Cardinals. I do feel like I need an accountant on call every time I read about the contract structure!
I’ll take the over on the projections.
And I’d take the under offensively.
This contract is going to be a huge albatross for the Cards.
“I added one quick sanity check: if it’s within $10 million dollars of breaking even, Arenado won’t leave. That represents the uncertainty of finding a new contract, as well as the benefits of familiarity.”
Please tell me more about the benefits of familiarity. Thanks.
–Jeff Bridich, Denver, CO
Yes, presumably, this assumes Arenado will have a Walker/Rolen-esque reception/lovefest, but that seems likely given Arenado’s comments (and StL is unlikely to be as noncompetitive as COL was/is/will be)
I think I followed all – or at least most – of that. As a Cardinals fan, I just hope he rakes, continues to field at a Gold Glove-level, and stays in St. Louis through 2027 or beyond.
The likelihood of how much you want item (C) may vary over time, depending on how well Nolan performs on parts (A) and (B)…
But if he *really* rakes and his fielding stays as it is, he is going to opt out. But if he opts out, then you got one amazing year for free. But then you’d be sad that he’s leaving. These opt-outs make it so hard to decide what you want… obviously if he’s horrible, that’s bad. But is it better for him to be very good and not opt-out, or amazing and opt-out?
Trying to middle it, I suppose – good enough that you enjoy having him there and contributing positively through most or all of the life of the contract, but not SO good that he bolts after 2021 or 2022 (although even that can be forgiven if it lands a pennant or a series).
Seems to me that the Rockies owner placed some large bets on STL making the playoffs before he shipped off his star player for the worst return in sports history. MLB is now unwatchable. I will be calling mlb.tv at the start of the season to call out the lousy commissioner for approving this disastrous trade amongst his other terribleness (letting Astros off with no real punishment etc) Give me competitive balance with all clubs trying to win or else you get nothing from me mlb…
Anyone got some cheese to go with this whine?
I’m not sure how calling mlb.tv will help, unless you want to buy a full-season or half-season package…
This something that hasn’t been discussed much. At least not here. In Jaffe’s wonderful price on Aaron, he mentioned how the commissioner told the Braves to play Aaron on the road when he was close to his record because they should try to win ever game. The league is certainly better when teams are trying to win. It does make me think if the game would be better today if the comish vetoed trades for on this basis. I’m not sure it would help though. It might even cause more harm as risk adverse teams would now how even less incentive to sign their stars long term.
Dr. ZIPS is strong villian name.
It’s amazing how quickly a shoulder injury and a national pandemic can effect someone value. The original contract was looking like a solid deal going into the 2020 season. He was signed at roughly market rate and than went on to have his best year yet. At that point, an opt out was probably more likely than not, especially if the Rockies weren’t fielding a competitive team. Had the Rockies tried to trade him after the 2019 season (pre-COVID), they probably could have gotten a similar, possibly better, return AND paid $0 of his contract. There’s no way the front office could have seen this coming but in the end it cost them $50M.
I think the bigger variable in the contract value is what the cost of a win will be and how it will increase/decrease over the course of the contract. It’s certainly possible that values will bounce back to pre-COVID levels heading into the 2022 season, possibly even higher. Probably still very unlikely, but all things considered, Arenado opting out is a more reasonable possibility than I initially thought.
The Rockies contract was valuable in terms of performance.
It was an albatross in terms of how unmarketable it was in the way it restricted demand. The same deal with no opt-outs would have resulted in a higher return for the Rockies. It’s inexplicable why they made that deal without committing to building around it, and that predates COVID.
We’ve talked about this before, but I am of the mind that the deal was a decent but not great value for a free agent, and a slight an overpay for a guy a year from free agency.
The Machado contract is the obvious comparable–elite glove, above average hitter, at third base. The big difference was that Machado was two years younger. tung twista broke it down pretty well when the deal happened here: https://blogs.fangraphs.com/rockies-arenado-gets-his-mountain-of-money/
“Rockies are additionally committing $234M for Arenado’s 29-35 season. (7 years)
Padres are paying $300 for Machado’s 26-35 season. (10 years)
Assuming Machado and Arenado’s 29-35 seasons are expected to be similar, which seems reasonable to me, the difference becomes $67M/3 years for Machado’s 26-28 seasons.
That, most people would agree, is a huge bargain.
For the record, ZiPS projects 22.5 war for Machado’s 29-35 season and 19 war for Arenado’s 29-35 season.”
In the bigger picture, there seems to be a real lack of self-awareness on the Rockies’ side. If this is the team that is worried they’d get hamstrung by a $35M player, then maybe don’t give him that? Yes, the pandemic is different, but there were a lot of other ways to save money this offseason (frankly, to save more money this offseason than what they are saving now) than doing this, and the team has been tight with money almost immediately after giving Arenado that deal. And on top of that, it’s not like Arenado hadn’t made his displeasure known long before the beginning of the 2020 season; I think he actually had requested a trade.
I think that’s a fair criticism, however, hindsight is always 20/20. When Colorado signed Arenado, it was overwhelmingly viewed as a good signing. The Rockies have been really bad in a lot of areas but they’ve also had some terrible luck too. Here’s a list of players that have performed below expectations since Arenado signed:
Charlie Blackmon
Brandon Rogers
Kyle Freeland
David Dahl
Ian Desmond
Ryan McMahon
Garrett Hampson
Raimel Tapia
Nolan Arenado
I can’t think of a player that has exceeded expectations since that time. They have also gotten zero from their minors as well. Certainly a lot of the blame can be attributed to player development as well but I don’t think there’s any denying that this team just can’t catch a break. There were certainly scenarios where this could have broke the other way and the Rockies would still be viewed as playoff contenders and Arenado’s contract would be around market value.
I think Trevor Story has been performing above what would have been expected 2-3 years ago. Even so, they probably have a 90/10 split on underperformed vs. overperformed
I don’t really see him opting out. If you look at the projected war his contract seems to be quite fair or even slightly under water (depending on how much you factor 2020 into projections).
With the current economy I don’t see owners paying big the next two years as likely there won’t be many fans in the stands either.
Crazier things have happened but he would need a pretty substantial upgrade to leave the certainty of his contract.
If he opts out it will be after 21 though, maybe a huge season (like 7 war) could lead to that. 2022 I don’t see that, testing the market at 31 usually is not that great.
Am I the only one who’s tired of ‘opt outs’? Essentially if I’m worth what you’re paying me then I’m leaving (or negotiating) for more but if I’m not you’re on the hook? I get they’ve become part of the ‘business’ of baseball but the uncertainty doesn’t do anything to endear them to the fanbase…
I think this is going to the be the end of the “straight” opt out, where the player is making the same amount before the opt out and after the opt out. I think everything probably realizes this was a huge mistake. What I see happening going forward, and what expect Trevor Bauer to get if he signs with the Mets, is a contract that pays way more per year before the opt out than after the opt out. Something where the years before the opt out pay like $35m each year and after the opt out pay $20m each year. Something that basically says what we all know to be the case, you are asking for this opt out to cover yourself should things go very wrong for you, but we cant be stuck with all the full downside and no upside, since you are going to leave if you are playing to the level we hope we are getting.
but at the same time, if the post – option years are too much lower the player is more likely to opt out because he can get that money even if he isn’t playing he best – this would make the option more likely to be exercised and thus worth more to the player.
Right, but my point is that i think teams are realizing that they take on too much risk this way, so if players wont do it that way, I dont think they will happen at all. Just look at how little the Cardinals gave up as proof that no one was really touching this one, I’m sure the Rockies would have rather not paid any of the money and Arenado would have loved not to defer any money. Teams understand that this contract is a bit toxic.
You saw this already with Hosmer, Heyward, and Darvish, and I believe both Arenado and Darvish (and maybe Heyward too) lost their no-trade clauses after the opt-out. I’d expect that to accelerate a bit.
Realistically though, if the opt-out comes late enough, it’s not much of a thing to worry about even if the player is playing “well”, because as this simulation shows well, the chances he’s playing so well that the back end will be worth it are pretty small. According to Ben’s model, he’d have to put up 5 wins in 2022, and while that’s certainly possible it is not probable at all. If Arenado puts up a 4-win season in 2022 and opts out, the Cardinals should be fine with the idea that Arenado thinks there’s a bigger fool out there.
Everyone worries far too much about opt outs.
I highly doubt players prioritize fan endearment over getting the best possible contract
Mr. Trout says hi
It’s important to note though that the players are paying for the opt-out. They’re essentially signing for lower than market value to have the options to test free agency should they outperform their contract. Considering most contracts don’t drastically decrease in annual payout as the contract progresses, it’s typically unlikely a player exercises that option. I do think you’ll see less of them going forward as players are seeing that they’re more likely to leave money on the table than get a larger contract down the road. Teams are also seeing how difficult it is to move a player if things go south. There’s really minimal upside for the player and large downside for the team.
I wonder if some of this has to do with marginal utility- $8 million more, above a $200 million deal, doesn’t move the needle much. But $80 million? That does.
I think one way of reading this is that players are saying “I’d rather have $200 million and a 10% chance at making $280 million than $208 million”. It’s another way of guys betting on themselves, and making what seems to be a pretty smart trade. In their shoes, I’d be pretty happy to give up $8 mil for a chance (even small) at $80 mil, I think
While players are more likely to leave money on the table than to cash in on a larger contract later, I’m not sure that’s too much of a concern for the type of mega-free agent that typically has opt outs in their deal. E.g., leaving $20M on the table 80% of the time for the chance to make $80M more 20% of the time. The type of player who signs a contract with an opt-out in it have made a lot of money in arb already and the FA contract is already worth a ton of money, so being less risk-averse is appealing to some of these guys.
Ask A-Rod or Strasburg how that worked out for them. Guys like that are probably happier they signed a deal with an opt-out to a greater degree than guys like Stanton and Darvish are unhappy that they signed one and didn’t exercise it.
Owners don’t want to pay market value so they pay with opt outs instead
If a good player opts out, he gets blamed. If an owner fails to pony up the money for a good free agent, he gets blamed. I can understand some of an owner’s incentive to give opt outs instead of cash.
This article, as perverse as it might seem, is my very favorite kind of article.
NEEEEEEEEEEEEEEERRRRRRRRRRRRRRRDDDDDDDDDD!!!
Kidding, I love it too…we tend to think of discrete outcomes – either this happens, or it doesn’t, in the case of the opt-out – and of course that’s the way it has to play out, but I really enjoy probabilistic thinking and valuations.
I deal with a lot of it in my day job – either this loan will go bad this year/next year/in 10 years/over the life of the loan, or it won’t – but it helps to think about it more probabilistically (and recent accounting pronouncements are intended to push banks in managing their loan portfolios in that direction).
ZIPS seems to suggest a median projection of 14.4 for the first five years, and I think the standard aging curve would show 0.5 WAR (or more) decline for the next two years (so 1.2, 0.7). That adds up to 16.3 median projected WAR over the rest of the contract.
And yet the Cards were willing to pay out $164 million plus several players. I haven’t seen a clear estimate of the player’s value to the Cardinals, but it must be at least several million (let’s say $5m). Plus the value of the opt outs! Let’s use Ben’s $13M, which seems mathematically credible. So, at a minimum, Cards are valuing Arenado at $182 over 7 years ($26m/yr).
But that means they are paying $11.16M per win! I have a hard time believing the Cards would do that. Going the other direction, assuming $8M per win, gets you 22.75 WAR over 7 years. To get there, Arenado basically needs 5 WAR in 2021 and a standard aging curve as a median projection. I like that!
The Cardinals are also at a prime spot on the win curve, if I recall correctly, meaning each win is worth more
To me the most important aspect of Arenado is beyond total value of fWAR/$ that he brings to St. Louis: Arenado and Goldschmidt bring a dynamic attraction of the Cardinals to other players for the next 5 years. The money coming off the books after 2021 is huge in provided flexibility. This is the unique window of opportunity to compete for the next 4 years with a young Flaherty and a diverse core – especially with a National League Central division of questionable contenders.
Is this article presuming that future negotiations are going to resemble other recent op-outs because all of these scenarios assume various things that are almost certainly not going to happen? Teams are continuing to blindly throw money around in a manner that would make a person think that the next two years are going to approximate normalcy. That seems impossible as things stand now. How many fans are the Dunedin Blue Jays, the major league version not the Florida State League team, going to draw? Whether the amount of losses incurred in 2020, and almost certain to be matched or even exceeded in 2021, are correct or simply pulled out of the ether, the economics of baseball in 2021 are not going to offer the teams their normal revenue streams. This is guaranteed if the players receive their entire salaries while the 40% of revenue from game day operations does not return. When 40% of operating revenues disappear, and do so for an extended period of time, even the most successful businesses feel the pressure and it comes on very quickly. This is a very strong argument for the teams going into what, as of now, appears to be very difficult, contentious negotiations on a new CBA. The National Hockey League just had to take out a $1B loan, like a billion dollars, to keep operating. They can put any phony euphemism on it that they want but it is what it is. With this backdrop it seems like there isn’t going to be much that an aging Arenado can do that will be better than what he has now. Add in that he is now playing in St. Louis, a very desirable location with a great fan base and I expect to see him complete this contract with the Cardinals.
For reference: Donaldson came off an approximately 5-win season, went into an excellent free agent market with lots of teams looking to spend, and came away with $92M over four years.
Arenado, if he opts out in 2022, will be about 8 months younger than Donaldson was then, but the chances the free agent market will be quite that lucrative are not good. He’d be passing on $100M. And, because he’d be opting out, the Rockies wouldn’t be subsidizing the four years left, so in order to retain the Cards as a bidder they’d have to be willing to pay $3M more plus whatever else Arenado is asking for.
And this all presumes that Arenado puts up a 5-win season in 2022 which, as Ben rightfully points out, is not good. In this unlikely scenario, Arenado can probably leverage the Cards into tacking on another year at $10-$15M at the end or something. But that scenario is probably not happening anyway.
The opt out, like so many other opt outs, are just not that important.
That’s not what I remember Dave huffing and puffing about.
A+ on this article.
Apologies if I missed this, but when are the deferred payments made? Next year? In ten years? Annual payments? Do we know?
That reminds me, the Cardinals actually own Pujols a couple million a year in deferred money starting this year for his 2004-2011 contract.
That was a pretty good contract for them. They better not complain.