The big baseball news of the day is ‘s 8-year $160 million extension with the bankrupt Dodgers, which will keep one of baseball’s most talented players off the market for the foreseeable future. Mike Axisa wrote about the potential implications of this extension for future roster decisions, such as resigning after his contract. Many people (myself included) thought that Kemp would look very good in pinstripes, and expected the Yankees to pursue him in 2012. With this option off the table, bringing Swisher back past after next season suddenly looks more likely, unless you think Yoenis Cespedes is the real deal or are willing to rely on to hold up into his mid-30′s.
Rather than explore that topic in additional depth, however, I wanted to take a look at what the Kemp extension means for , a player who has been often compared to Kemp for his prodigious talent (and at times, seeming unwillingness to work hard to tap into said talent). We and others have discussed the idea of offering Cano an extension before he hits the market, with some divided opinions depending on whether the extension could truly be at a below-market value, and some uncertainty as to what the market value actually is.
With Kemp’s extension now inked, I think we have a better sense of the value that Cano would likely command in an extension. Both players have averaged about 5 Fangraphs WAR over their last 3 seasons, albeit with some significant fluctuations. Kemp posted a beastly 8.7 fWAR in his MVP caliber 2011, and just 0.4 fWAR in 2010 (brought down by terrible defense ratings due to UZR), while Cano’s production has been somewhat steadier, with only one full season below 4 fWAR in the last 5 years, though his peak (6.5 fWAR in 2010) was significantly lower than Kemp’s 2011.
In terms of past production, the two players grade out fairly similarly, with Cano getting some bonus points for relative consistency, and Kemp getting extra credit for peaking in his most recent season. If you buy that Kemp’s 2011 performance is more reflective of his true talent going forward than 2010 (or even his 5.2 fWAR 2009), then you would have to believe that Kemp should be worth more than Cano in a contract extension, especially because Kemp is also a year younger than Cano. However, if 2011 is more of an outlier year for Kemp and he is going to settle into being a 5-6 WAR player like Cano has become, then the comparison is more even.
When comparing the two players, it would also be important to consider how their skills and performances are likely to decline as they get older. Neither Kemp nor Cano are particular good defenders, though Kemp looks significantly worse because of his awful 2010 defensive metrics. Defensive metrics such as UZR are highly problematic (as we and others have documented before), and significant 1-year fluctuations should be cause for some skepticism. If we trust UZR and assume that both Kemp and Cano are below-average defenders (though the eye test may say differently), then it would make sense to assume that they might have to change positions by the end of their contract. I think it’s less likely for Cano, but I’ll assume that it’s equally likely for Cano and Kemp for the purpose of this analysis.
If they do switch positions, where would they go? Kemp would presumably have to move from centerfield to a corner outfield position, while Cano might move from 2nd to 3rd. In this situation, Cano’s value would be hurt less by the position switch (since 2nd base and 3rd base are considered equally valuable, while left and right field are 10 runs less valuable than centerfield). Kemp would lose 1 WAR in positional value, while Cano’s positional value would stay the same. Of course, this gets even more complicated if you assume that UZR would improve at a less demanding position, but for the sake of comparison let’s assume that Kemp and Cano’s UZR’s increase by the same amount. This might favor Cano as a better investment going forward, since corner outfielders are easier to replace than 3rd basemen (though I truly think that Cano can stick at 2nd base for a while).
As for offensive skillsets, both players have their warts. Kemp has an advantage in plate discipline (6-8% walk rate for Cano versus 8-10% for Kemp), but he also strikes out significantly more often than Cano (about 12-13% for Cano, versus over 20% for Kemp) . Plate discipline is a skill that tends to age well, which would favor Kemp, as he may be better equipped to handle a drop in bat speed, though the difference in strikeout rate is larger. Kemp is also more of a basestealer than Cano, so he may be hurt more when his speed decreases due to age.
So where does this leave the determination of Cano’s value? Based on the comparison of the two players, Cano’s value is roughly similar to that of Kemp going forward. This entails a few assumptions, namely, that Kemp’s 2011 season is an outlier not likely to be replicated, and that he is more of a 6 WAR player going forward. I would not be surprised to see Kemp outproduce Cano over the beginning of the contract, but defense and possible position switches could help Cano close the gap in the later years of the contract. As a result, giving Cano a contract worth around $20 million annually is somewhat reasonable, though I would want at least one fewer year because he is older than Kemp.
It may not make sense to give that kind of contract now, because the Yankees have two option years remaining worth less than Cano’s market value. And when Cano hits the market (assuming no extension is signed) after completing his two option years, it likely would not make sense to offer that kind of contract since Cano will be 31 at that point. I imagine Kemp’s deal would be the starting point for any contract negotiations at this point, and due to the ever-present “Yankee premium”, I imagine that the Yankees would likely agree to meet the average annual value of that deal. This is likely all a thought experiment because I assume that the Yankees will wait out the option years before trying to extend Cano. Nonetheless, it is an interesting topic that may very well be discussed again throughout the offseason.
If you enjoyed this article, please consider sharing it!
I was really hoping to see Kemp as a Yankee but I expected this to happen at some point. Now I expected it to be when the Dodgers ownership situation was more clear, but I never expected Kemp to make it to free agency.
As much as I love Swisher, and want him here for this upcoming season I’m not sure if I want to re-sign him long term. I think we would probably be better off taking the pick and getting someone younger in to takeover. Now Swish does possess a skill set that tends to age well, since he doesn’t rely on speed and the ability to see the strikezone almost never fades. The perfect solution would seem to be to sign Cespedes, and hope he is what we think he could be so he can take over in 2013. But if that doesn’t happen, and Swisher is willing to take a 3 year deal, as opposed to a 4-5 year deal I could see bringing him back.
As far as Cano goes I think you have to ride out the option years, it simply gives you more options and more evaluation time. Cano doesn’t seem to possess a skill set that would age as well as someone like Swisher’s would, so giving him a contract through age 36 and up is risky. The argument for giving Cano an extension now to make the back end more reasonable makes sense, I just don’t see the Yankees doing it.
Since this whole Cano contract thing has become a topic I have often found myself wondering if maybe trading Cano in his last year makes the most sense. Though I think that will never actually be entertained, and at the end of the day he will wait out his two option years and then receive an extension. Though I think one of Cano and Granderson does need to be traded in their last year (which ever one isn’t re-signed) to re-coupe some value instead of simply losing them for nothing. Granderson is the much more likely of the two for this to be considered, and honestly he makes more sense for an early decline than Cano does.
I am not surprised to see Kemp resigned either. I agree with you (as usual) on most points. I don’t want Hamilton, and Swish on the one year deal is fine. Signing Cespedes is something I hopeful the Yankees decide to do. As with any international FA really. If the Yankees use FA to bolster their roster they should flex their might even more so internationally where the players are often younger, less expensive, and don’t cost a draft pick. However after a Cespedes signing, I would trade Swisher. The money it will cost for Cespedes is not bench player money, and Swishers contract and production make him a very valuable commodity. We can include him in a deal with Burnett (pay off the rest of his contract) and Romine to bring back a true number 2 pitcher.
I wouldn’t trade Cano or Granderson though. Cano provides too much value as a second baseman who rakes like he does. We have Cano under 2 more years of control, and Granderson for 1 more year I believe. At that time I would be more partial to moving Gardner than Granderson, and shifting Granderson to LF. At age 30 Gardner’s speed will most likely be on the decline, and thats where all of his value is tied up in. Sell high on him, and put Heathcott or Mason Williams in CF.
If we sign Cespedes it only makes sense to do so if we keep Swisher, and send Cespedes to Scranton. He can’t possibly provide the kind of value Swisher will this year, and he is likely going to need to spend a good deal of time adjusting to life in America and AAA pitchers. He’ll only be making 5-7 million a year and the Yankees can easily afford for a year of the contract to be spent learning in a learning enviornment. I think signing him and expecting him to be ready to start from day 1 is unrealistic. Let him go to Scranton and call him up around Septemeber to wet his feet before giving him the starting job next year.
Swisher’s contract is actually something that holds down his value. Yes he’s only making 10 million dollars this year, but since he’s on a 1 year deal he is either a rental or has to be re-signed to a long term deal. Anyone trading a pitcher wouldn’t want to rent the bat they get in return, and re-signing a 30 year old RF’er to a long term, big money deal isn’t something a team is going to value.
Burnett could be traded as a pure salary dump, or in a swap of bad contracts but there is no way he can be part of a deal bringing in a number 2. He simply doesn’t possess the value, and I honestly don’t see him being traded until next year when he has the 1 year left on his deal.
You’d basically be asking a team to trade a number 2 starter for Romine who is an average catching prospect, a burden, and a 1 year rental. It simply isn’t reasonable to expect that kind of return.
Granderson is the one who’s decline is going to come quick and when it hit will get ugly. He is a small framed power hitter who relies on bat speed and quick hands to generate all his power, this simply isn’t the kind of thing that carries well into mid 30′s. His defense is also completely wrapped up in his speed. Unlike Gardner, who makes great reads, he tends to hesitate when judging balls off the bat and often makes bad reads on balls. He tends to get away with this by outrunning the mistake and catching back up with the ball. This is the same thing Damon did for years, but when his speed went he became a real liability in the field. Granderson should be sold high on to re-coupe value from his trade, and to make sure we don’t re-sign him to a long term extension which he will for sure decline fast and hard during.
If you are going to sell high on one Granderson has way more value, and he has way more risk. Gardner is still cheap, and even if we re-sign him it won’t be for a big deal. Granderson is going to want a 4-6 year deal after 2013 and you will regret the contract sooner than later.
I’ve long ago come to the conclusion nobody’s contract year is predictive of anything other than future disappointment, and basing a long-term contract on one as such is silly. Barring injury, contract years almost always show up as uncharacteristic upticks in even a casual scan of most players’ career stats. Correspondingly, since contract years do tend to bring out max effort in players, I believe the Yankees would only be shooting themselves in the foot by extending Robbie before his contract is done. At that time, if his health, effort levels and future upside are still looking rosy, then he will simply be worth whatever the Yankees have to pay to keep him, regardless of Kemp’s deal or anyone else’s. (I think it’s far from a given Kemp’s deal will be a starting point for anything in two years. It may be mentioned, but since so many long-term deals wind up looking bad, I think they do as much to suppress similar future deals as they do to foment them.)
In essence, extending a player before his contract ends is a sucker bet; with the player wagering he won’t be worth more in the future and the team betting he will. The reason the Yankees have a longstanding policy of non-extension is because it’s the strategy that over time will result in paying the most realistic value for players. It may not create many bargain bonanzas, but it’s the safest play for the team and strongest incentive for maximum player performance.
Honest question: why do people think Cano will age well at 2B? Historically the aging curve has been pretty hard on those who played the position (Robbie Alomar, Brian Roberts are two recent examples). While it’s not impossible for Cano to avoid the harsh effects of 2B-related decline, it’s nevertheless something the Yankees have to really think about.
My feeling is that signing Cano to an extension now probably doesn’t make sense in light of how rare it is for 2B to remain productive much past their 33rd birthday and, in relating this thought back to the original question, that Kemp, not Cano, is the better bet to age well given the less taxing nature of the OF.
That’s an interesting question, and one I was thinking about as I wrote this. I guess part of my answer why Cano might be different is that his game does not rely as much on speed compared to most other 2nd baseman, which may mean that his skillset is more sustainable long term.
Cano has also been incredibly durable throughout his career, which might bode well for how he holds up over teh remainder of his career. Also, the possibility of moving to 3rd base (where I believe Cano has the skillset to be a fine fielder)could help slow Cano’s decline.
Regardless, it’s something that we will definitely have to pay attention to going forward, to see if Cano fits into that pattern.
I do agree that a move from 2B to 3B might help reduce age- and positional-related issues for Cano although one must still wonder if there’s a point where the damage has already been done.
Perhaps, in the interests of saving Cano, it makes sense to consider moving him to third in advance of his 33rd birthday, just so we get the most out of him over a longer period of time?
Finally, one minor point which isn’t intended to sound nit-picky: while I agree that speed isn’t Cano’s calling card, the effects of playing 2B still takes a toll on the lower half of a player’s body and would impact the ability to generate power from the lower half. As A-Rod has shown us, bad hips and knees pretty much destroy one’s ability to hit with much authority. Just something to consider.
I actually agree MJ, he doesn’t seem like a player who will be playing at an eite level at age 35 and up. Besides just playing 2B he is also a player who relies on a lot of bat speed and bad ball hitting, with next to no concrete eye for the strikezone. As he ages, and he can get to less and less bad balls he could before you will see his ability to hit for average go down. Normally this isn’t a death nail because you can offset it with OBP, but I doubt that Cano will ever really learn the strikezone and take walks well enough for this to be the case. Even if his power remains I have doubts that what makes him a great player will.
I’ve mentioned on here several times that one benefit of going year to year with these options is the possibility that you could pick up Cano’s final and trade him. I don’t think this will ultimatley ever be done, but I think it would be the smarter move. Cano would be at a premium value and could return a high profile starter, while avoiding his eventual steep decline. However like I said above I think they re-sign him and hope he somehow avoids skill erosion.