Empoleon8771
Registered User
Damn Puk would have been a nice piece to acquire on top of Chisholm. Oh well, it's not like they need him but he would have been nice to get.
The Mariners have shown themselves willing to trade anyone and everyone at any time, so I can never discount them. That said, why wouldn't they be all over Rooker primarily? They need hitting period and Rooker is the best pure hitter on the market.I expect a big part of it comes down to what else is on the table. The Mariners are arguably more desperate than us and also have a better group of prospects to trade from. They are in a dog fight and probably need to win the division to make the playoffs. It's too hard to speculate without know much more specifics, but if their sights are set on Jazz, it's possible that his value gets driven up.
It's a good question. I think that there might be a bit of intra-divisional tax, and then in addition, it really sounds like the A's might not necessary move anyone.The Mariners have shown themselves willing to trade anyone and everyone at any time, so I can never discount them. That said, why wouldn't they be all over Rooker primarily? They need hitting period and Rooker is the best pure hitter on the market.
It's a good question. I think that there might be a bit of intra-divisional tax, and then in addition, it really sounds like the A's might not necessary move anyone.
It sounds a little strange, but if you think about it, the A's have historically not made a lot of pure rebuilding trades. They value floor and depth, and on the MLB roster, they value interchangeable guys and guys who are dirt cheap. Rooker still fills the latter criterion for them.
I think if they got a very strong offer for him, it might change their situation, but for now it actually seems like they may stand pat with Rooker and Bleday.
If they ended up making the move, I'd be very happy with Davis+ for Rooker if they went that route. I just don't think it fills a huge need for the team, but getting a guy who can hit like he does is worth it even if you need to figure out the positions otherwise. That just wouldn't be my primary option.
If they could transition Rooker to 1B, I'd be significantly more interested in him long-term. That doesn't make sense for this year with Tellez on the roster, but going forward I could see that making a lot of sense. Have Reynolds as the DH and Rooker as the 1B, or flip their roles there, is totally worth it.
This doesn't have anything specific, but does confirm that we are scouting Jazz and also mentions we are scouting Bryan De La Cruz.
Nothing about De La Cruz leaps off the page. He basically gives you a slightly below average bat with some legitimate pop, but he's not really a great defender. That said, it's a little bit tempting to view the situation as a one stop shop for our outfield woes. You can do worse than De La Cruz hitting somewhere like 6th or 7th, and he would also work well in a platoon with Palacios or Suwinski. Given that it's unlikely we shop for a corner OF in free agency (and there don't seem to be many), acquiring both doesn't strike me as the worst idea.
Yeah it's not really an exciting profile other than some cheap HRs, but I think that's what he does offer above Olivares. He has actually produced in MLB over multiple seasons. He's not really what you want in the corner on a contender, but we are so bad that it doesn't strike me as worth turning our nose up at it if he would come relatively cheap along with Jazz.I have always liked BDLC in a scouting sense but his production and value is meh. Theoretically Olivares was a similar player and he underwhelmed here and is now toiling away in Indy for the rest of the year.
Of course I would take BDLC but I wouldn't give up much. Id peg his value as similar to Suwinski's at this point
I bet Arozarena's high arbitration salaries had a lot to do with his diminished return. The arbitration process basically anchors on the prior year's number. Arozarena will go 8 this year --> 12 next year --> 16 in '26 regardless of performance.
Chisholm will come much cheaper and this I expect the price to be higher.
The odds have never been this good, though. Skenes is a rookie. He’s probably the best pitcher in baseball right now. He theoretically has six more years of team control after this one, though if he finishes in the top two in Rookie of the Year voting, you can lop that down to five (hence the asterisk in the table above). The point is, he costs roughly nothing, he’ll be around for forever, and there is no one better than him at what he does right now. It’s not like the thing he’s best at is niche, either. It’s literally PITCHING.