The Rockies have not yet approached star third baseman Nolan Arenado about a contract extension, Patrick Saunders of the Denver Post reports in response to a reader inquiry. Both Arenado and his agent say that no talks have taken place about seasons beyond his current arbitration control.
Certainly, there’s no rush to explore a new pact. Arenado, 25, just played out his Super Two year and has three more years of control remaining. He remains under Colorado’s control through 2019.
That being said, the organization’s leverage only continues to diminish as Arenado’s earnings increase and his play continues to impress. He took down a hefty $5MM this year after a big 2015 season, and he has played his way into a significant raise with an even-more-impressive 2016 campaign.
Over his 678 plate appearances thus far on the year, Arenado carries a .293/.361/.567 slash while racking up forty home runs and 130 runs batted in. Those counting stats are highly valuable in the arbitration setting, all the more so since they are both league-leading totals (as they were in 2015).
In actuality, the offensive production is more very good than great, given that half of it has come at Coors Field. Looking further into the numbers, Arenado owns a strong (but hardly earth-shattering) 123 wRC+. Of course, his true value lies in the fact that he delivers that quality production as a premium defender at the hot corner.
Given his age and productivity, Arenado is unquestionably one of the game’s better young position players. And he’s young enough that any control-enhancing extension would cover late-prime seasons (his age 29 season and beyond). With a big arb salary to start, there’s a stack of cash already all but guaranteed to Arenado, so he’ll be in a nice position to demand — and receive — a major guarantee if the Rox do ever take a pass at a new deal.
This guy’s talent is off the charts
He deserves MVP.. Enough with this Bryant bandwagon garbage
I don’t really see how Bryant can be construed as some sort of bandwagon choice… their average and slugging are virtually identical despite the fact that Arenado plays at Coors, whereas Bryant’s OBP is about 20 points higher. And, he’s played third base, left field and center field — all quite well — this season, demonstrating versatility that Arenado, excellent as he is at third base, hasn’t displayed.
I mean, even if you think Arenado deserves the award because he has 25 more RBIs — which I don’t agree with at all, but to each their own — their batting lines are virtually identical, and Bryant hasn’t had the benefit of Coors. At the very least, you can say Arenado edges Bryant out — a sentiment with which I’ll respectfully disagree. But to suggest that Bryant is somehow an undeserving candidate and a product of Cubs hype, when he has an unequivocally better set of ratios and comparable counting stats, just seems strange.
I think that Bryant deserves the award more, but I think what he means is that Bryant gets a lot more attention because of the Cubs, which is partly true. He also gets the attention he deserves because of his skill.
I’m of the mind that it’s pretty clearly Bryant as well. If you want to argue that Arenado deserves it more, that’s fine with me, as I feel that Nolan is certainly in the discussion.
My confusion with the comment was basically the insinuation that Bryant is somehow entirely undeserving of the award and that Arenado is head and shoulders above him.
Steve… While I may agree with you on your assessment of Bryant and Arenado. I still think SF could claim that Sandoval is the NL MVP for moving to Boston. If the MVP was sponsored by Papa Gino’s Sandoval would be a shoe in. Just saying…. also notice how I can turn any conversation into some hateful rant on Sandoval? Go ahead. Try me…
Well said, Mr. Adams. I totally agree.
It’s not like Arenado is a true product of Coors like other players have been. Coors isn’t even a launching pad anymore since the humidors were installed. Arenado also plays at 3 of the least HR friendly parks in the majors (ATT, Dodger Stadium, Petco) Take Arenado’s road stats and give him 162 on the road and he would still be hitting .274/.338/.488 with 32 HR/98 RBI. He’s also almost a lock to win the GG and voters do take defense into account. Arenado probably won’t even get 1 1st place vote which is pretty absurd. If the Cubs were fighting for a wild card spot instead of being far and away the best team in baseball….the MVP discussion would probably be between Seager and Arenado.
If anything that would further cement his claim. The only reasoning people use against him is that he’s a great player on a great team that doesn’t need him. Cusp of wild card only ups his ‘value’.
Holy man I hope you’re trolling. The only guy who can give Bryant a run is Seager, with arenado a distant third. If Bryant doesn’t win it this year it’ll be a travesty
Bryant will win it easily with Arenado and Seager 2nd and 3rd, respectively. It will be a close race between those two for second but Bryant easily wins MVP this year.
The Dodgers simply are not a playoff team without Seager, the same can’t be said for the Cubs without Bryant. Seager needs a lot more hype for the MVP, he has so many game-changing moments this year, way more than Bryant, who was just one of a giant lineup where everyone was incredible.
As for Arenado for MVP? Bryant, Seager, Freeman, Murphy, Turner, Crawford & Rizzo have all been more valuable position players than Arenado in 2016. So…no.
Crawford and 69 games of Turner have been more valuable than Arenado? A GG 3B and most arguably the most dominate offensive player in the league?
“Arguably the most dominate offensive player in the league” lol. I guess you’re not technically wrong because that is a very arguable point.
IMO, Arenado is currently 4th in MVP race behind Bryant, Seager and Freeman. The way Freeman has been hitting the last few weeks, I’d think very hard about putting him just ahead of Seager.
WOW Murphy gets no love whatsoever from anyone.
No kidding. I don’t know how the top 3 is anybody other than Bryant, Seager and Murphy.
I’m an idiot, I completely forgot about Murphy. He’s top 3.
It would make some sense for the Rockies to come in strong and try to lock up a few FA years before Nolan gets too much financial security as the article states.
I’d argue it would even be wise to overpay a little to lock up those years. This way you’re paying a little more but are getting his age 30-31 seasons as part of the deal, as opposed to waiting until he’s staring down free agency and you have to get stuck signing him for his 29-36 seasons and swallow his decline phase.
I think this is the best way to get value out of homegrown talent. You get their prearb years on the cheap, and you use that surplus value to overpay his first few free agent years and dodge the decline altogether.
Of course that involves the player having interest in an extension, as well as discipline from the team in letting your franchise player walk at 32 years old and absorb the fan backlash that entails.
Maybe they’re just recovering from getting out from under the Tulo contract and so aren’t thrilled to jump back into the same hole.
I’m sure he doesn’t want to commit to a team who has no clear path to contention, and has trouble building a solid pitching staff. The Rockies’ offense is great (obviously). But with Blackmon, D.J Lemahieu, CarGo, Story, Dahl, and Arenado, their lineup is up there with any other in baseball.
But if they can’t get at least an average rotation, and slightly above average bullpen, they’ll never overtake the Dodgers or Giants. I’m sure Arenado likes Colarado, but after seeing Tulo’s departure, and what he went through, I doubt he’s rushing to sign anything.
The Rockies rotation may not be all that bad in 2017, or at the least much improved. A maturing of Jon Gray, Chatwood, and Anderson could possibly be a solid core. Arenado may have an interest in staying.
There’s one random thought that always crosses my mind in these situations, maybe you guys can shed some light…
Why don’t we ever seem teams RIDICULOUSLY front load a contract? Is it player preference to spread it out relatively even?
Say you’re a rebuilding team. You have lots of young cheap players and so your payroll falls to 60mil. But your attendance and revenue streams support a 100mil payroll. So you’re not using 40 of that… It’s not like the owner is going to put that aside and use it to inflate the payroll later. So say you have Nolan right now and he hypothetically agrees to a 6y/150m extension.
Why not pay him 40mil the first three years while you’re still building? Youre still at a comfortable payroll number. And in 3 years when Story is coming up on his arb, and you’re ready to go out into free agency and pick up some big pieces to finish off your build, Nolan is now only making 10mil and you have 90mil left to fill in around him? And if he starts to decline, you don’t have this huge ugly commitment?
I’m talking about teams with a legit desire to compete in the near term, not owners that will happily pocket the unused payroll and go buy an island with it.
And I also get that deflation devalues future money and so it’ll cost a little less in total money to backload it. But why hasn’t it really been attempted?
I thought the same when Lester signed with the Cubs. They obviously had plenty of payroll available while their young talent was cheap, so why not front load Lesters deal? Then when Bryant and Addison and the rest get pricey, Lester is cheap, and you don’t keep stacking and stacking your payroll? This only works during a rebuild obviously, but it seems an interesting strategy, maybe?
I’ve thought that before too. My best guess is that players might fear they could be released if there salary is low enough once they get older
Doesn’t make any sense since if a player is released they will still get all money owed to them. If anything they could potentially get a raise if another team were to sign them….or they could just go golfing every day while getting paid.
I mean they’d get released from the team they want to be on. If a guys making 20 million later in his contract and isn’t living up to it, a team would be reluctant to release him. I guess I meant for the guys who aren’t playing for the money
That’s not how payroll works. Payroll amounts are based upon AAV 150 for 6 years no matter how much you front load it that contract still counts as 25 mill per year against the cap.
Their is no cap in baseball and all payrolls are determined by actual salaries. AAV serves no purpose in baseball other than to show how overpaid/underpaid a player is compared to his peers.
And the teams that are actually paying luxury tax probably don’t have to make such considerations as they have plenty of money to spend regardless.
I’m thinking more along the lines of the Royals or something that have a very limited amount of money to spend each year based on their revenue. Actual year to year payroll that they’re cutting checks for is more important than what an AAV says they’re spending.
It’s a soft cap essentially. There is still a luxury tax and escalating scale tax year by year so by definition it is a cap, just not a hard. And yes payroll is actually determined by AAV not salaries to try and prevent competitive advantages such as extremely front loading a contract although they still occur. There are obviously loopholes and if you not over or close to the “threshold” it doesn’t matter.
@dodgerblue88 I misunderstood you. The problem that remains in doing so is allocating a significant amount of money to one player. If they get injured or underperform they are essentially immovable until they are on the backend. It also sets a precedent with agents that the next big FA is expecting the same up front money with more money on the back end. It’s not a trend owners would be found of. But yes it is an interesting idea. I just don’t see it working beyond theory. For example Grienke you’d probably have to guarantee the first three years at 50 mill to put the last half at what 15 mill for 4 years. That in itself creates an inequitable market especially for a rebuilding teams. If you’re the like the Cubs or Astros etc. and have three or four young stars within a year or two you need or like to lock up you cant dedicate 120-160 mill.
You’re right that it doesn’t work in every instance, but I still think there’s times it can be an interesting tool.
I don’t think the Greinke contract is a great example because he was coming to a team that thought they were already in contention. And so were spending money to take a shot and damn the costs, not as a long term strategy.
Also the point of this is to have the money to pay for your young players when their salary spikes. You don’t extend and front load every extension you make.
It’s specifically for the teams who are clearly in a building stage but then go out to get that one veteran to start their build/give credibility/top off their build.
The Lester deal, the Werth deal that someone else mentioned, or the Cano deal as well comes to mind off the top of my head.
Front load the big FA contract so he’s expensive when the kids are cheap. And then in the back half of the deal, the veteran is cheap while the kids are expensive. Your total money doesn’t really change, it’s just laid out in such a way to prevent payroll spikes. And then the bonus is:
A) their production more closely resembles their payroll figure (high to low from start to finish)
B) his bulky contract doesn’t impede extending key players going forward, and also makes him easier to move later in the deal without having to eat 80% of his contract.
C) if he stays good through his entire contract, you have a great trade asset that is outperforming his contract cost
But you’re right in that it doesn’t work in all cases. You really only get this chance with a young cheap roster and then you bring in a few pricey veterans. That’s the only way this works.
It definitely goes counter to the trend right now of
GM: “let’s backload and defer everything, it’ll make our problem magically disappear!”
Same GM 5 years later: “… Crap”
You’re kinda smart for a Dodger fan.
I have thought the same thing. I kept thinking of this when Nationals signed Werth. They basically had just one big contract (RZ) back then.
Also wouldn’t it make more appealing to trade those front loaded contracts down the road?
For example, if Nationals had signed Werth to such a deal and wanted to trade him now, he would be more attractive chip than he is now.
DeGrom for Arenado?
They have Wright.
lol Wright, who looks old and decrepit
Oh man….I’m a diehard Met fan and I love deGrom…but they’d be crazy to turn down Arenado, no? I can see the Rockies wanting more bc they seem to overvalue their guys pretty regularly. Remember what they were asking for w. Tulo for the better part of 2+ years?
It’d sting, but deGrom for Arenado would have to happen…actually BECAUSE of Wright, who has not shown an ability to stay health since his dx of spinal stenosis. David was a great player and is a standup guy, but we have already seen what happens when you pencil him in.
Of course, the Mets have Reyes for 2017, but in no way would that block Arenado (lol). Reyes could fill the super utility role that Wilmer had sporadically throughout this past year.
Nolan arenado to red sox
Where would Pablo play? They can’t move him somewhere just to accommodate arenado
They don’t care where Sandoval plays, as they displayed from the start of the season when they benched him. They’ll pay him to sit in the clubhouse and eat blueberry cake doughnuts if they have to.
He’d man the hotdog stand and maybe a couple times a week DH.