Sep 1, 2024; Arlington, Texas, USA; Oakland Athletics relief pitcher Mason Miller (19) pitches against the Texas Rangers during the tenth inning at Globe Life Field. Mandatory Credit: Jerome Miron-Imagn Images / Jerome Miron-Imagn Images
When David Forst held his year-end meeting with the media, he said that the A's would likely have to be a little more active on the trade market because he just wasn't sure what kind reception the team would get from free agents with the Athletics slated to play at least the next three seasons in a minor-league facility.
We aren't even at Thanksgiving yet, and that plan is already at a roadblock.
Ken Rosenthal recently reported in The Athletic that the A's trade plans are going to be difficult because, according to a rival GM, the club is unwilling to part with some of the guys that other teams would be after.
"One rival executive, granted anonymity for his candor, said the A's are the most sincere team he has spoken with, in terms of wanting to add. But here's the problem: Virtually every team is seeking to upgrade its major-league roster. And the A's, as they try to take a step forward, are reluctant to trade the few quality players they have."
David Forst has already said that the team plans to keep Brent Rooker, who hit 39 home runs and earned his first Silver Slugger award. Rosenthal also lumps JJ Bleday, who had a breakout campaign in 2024, in that category. If the A's are truly looking to improve, holding onto Mason Miller also makes a lot of sense given his talent, years of control, and current league-minimum salary.
The A's figure to have a fairly solid bullpen in 2025, but Miller is the only player that feels like a lock of that group. Trading him could disrupt the balance, and it's not like Mason Millers grow on trees.
So if the A's aren't able to make the kinds of trades they'd like because other teams are also looking to improve their own rosters, then free agency would typically be the other route to go, but that one also seems to be closed off to the A's. The types of players that would be available via free agency would be the ones with few or no other options. Not exactly the types of guys that typically help improve the roster in big sweeping motions.
So now there are a few ways this could play out. They could stand pat, throw up their hands and say they tried to spend more money, but nobody was taking it. After years of promises to ramp up in spending once the ballpark situation was sorted, this wouldn't be a great look for ownership, especially if they want people to stop questioning how serious they are about building in Las Vegas. If they're not going to spend $20-30 million to improve the roster, why should people believe that Fisher is going to spend over $1 billion of his own money on a ballpark?
Another option would be to change the type of players they're after. Go for an A's specialty: Pitchers with good stuff and poor command. Players that aren't necessarily locks, but have upside. That should limit the amount that the team would have to give up in a deal. That way they're giving up Sam Moll for Joe Boyle instead of Brent Rooker for Garrett Crochet.
They could also attempt to take on some bad contracts with the hope that those players bounce back after a down season and also bring aboard some extra prospects in the process.
Finally, they could reassess their entire gameplan and potentially make those "off limits" players available and re-tool the roster a bit. Brent Rooker, while a superstar in the making and one of the ten best bats in baseball, is also about to enter his age 30 season, and is under team control through 2027. Even if the A's proposed ballpark in Las Vegas is ready in 2028, there is a decent chance Rooker wouldn't be on that team unless the Athletics extend him in his early-to-mid-30's.
Mason Miller was absolutely fantastic in 2024 and blows triple digits by the best hitters in baseball. However, he's a reliever and has dealt with some injuries in the past. Should the A's forgo five years of team control to build up the rest of the roster?
These are legitimate options that are impossible to know the right answer to. How close the front office feels they are to real contention will likely play a role in the final decision.
There is also the wrinkle of playing in Sacramento, where the team doesn't know exactly how the park will play. What if they trade away one of these immensely valuable pieces of their team and the centerpiece of that deal is hurt by the new park factors and unable to reach his full potential? They may want to get some games under their belts in the new park before they make any big decisions.
The biggest piece of the puzzle is less about the on-field product, and more about what they are offering up for the new fans in a new city. If the A's come to town having just traded away Rooker or Miller or both, then they'll be less the shiny new attraction in Sacramento and more of the same old A's that just trade anyone you've heard of away. Ownership needs that excitement in Sacramento, and that means that they can't run plays out of the same playbook anymore.
This could arguably be one of the toughest off-seasons that Forst has had in his time with the A's.