Here’s an interesting twist: The A’s will be players in the trade market, but not the way you might suspect. 

After selling off the core of their last competitive team (Chapman, Olson, Murphy et al) for questionable prospects (most of whom didn’t pan out), GM David Forst recently disclosed that the team will be actively looking to augment their major-league club in the trade market. He also mentioned that they’re keeping Brent Rooker, who, after a 5+ fWAR season, could easily fetch a haul in trade.

Normally, this would mean trading prospects for veterans who could help the club get to the next level. But this is not a normal situation. On our most recent podcast, Joshua Iversen and I touched briefly on Forst’s comments, and what they might mean. Josh’s read of the situation was that the A’s are signaling to the market that they’re willing to take on bad contracts. I think he’s right.

 

Here’s why:

First of all, the A’s are starting to improve. Their young core – consisting of breakout potential all-star Lawrence Butler, center fielder J.J. Bleday, second baseman Zach Gelof, shortstop Jacob Wilson, catcher Shea Langeliers, and closer Mason Miller, not to mention Rooker, who is under team control for three more years – is starting to gel. The team improved from 50 wins in 2023 to 69 wins in 2024, and even played .500 ball in the second half, surprising many. If they add a couple of veterans to that roster, and you bake in a bit more improvement from the core, it’s not hard to see them as a .500 team in 2025, with an outside shot at a wild card.

Second, they have a ridiculously low payroll. According to Roster Resource, the only guaranteed contract for 2025 is a $1.8M commitment to reliever T.J. McFarland. They will owe Rooker an estimated $5.1M in arbitration, but the only other three players even eligible for arbitration salaries are all non-tender candidates (Seth Brown, Miguel Andujar, and Dany Jimenez). So they’re only likely to pay $6.9M, plus an estimated $22M in pre-arb salaries, which takes their 2025 payroll to about $29M. As a comparison, their 2024 payroll was $63M, which was already dirt cheap.

Third, they are recipients of revenue sharing. In other words, they’re one of a handful of teams taking money from a pool funded by the big-market teams. The quid pro quo of this situation is that they are expected to spend that money on players (the whole idea being to even the competitive playing field).

So they would need to spend $34M more just to get back to parity with the 2024 payroll, plus an additional unspecified amount to spend the revenue-sharing money kicked in by other teams. Despite their reputation for being cheap, there’s actually budget room there.

Fourth, it’s unlikely that they’d be able to spend that budgeted money on free agents. That’s because they’re moving to Sacramento. They’ll be playing the next three years in a minor-league stadium, before their eventual planned move to Las Vegas. Understandably, major-league veteran free agents are not going to relish signing with a team that plays in a AAA ballpark.

 

Solution: Trade for Underwater Contracts

So, there’s too much money, but no one to spend it on? How about they take on some bad contracts?

This would be a classic Moneyball move for the A’s, who like to zag when everyone else zigs. Most teams have a terrible time trying to get rid of albatross contracts, because there’s almost never a taker. 

Now there is. The catch, though, is that the A’s will likely want the opposing team to kick in prospects to even out the deal. That way they get their veteran help, but also some young talent to augment the future core.

This is tricky, though, because the situation has to line up just right. For example, the A’s need a third baseman.

 

Should they try to acquire Nolan Arenado? 

No, because a) the Cardinals will not want to throw in young talent (because they’re trying to rebuild themselves); b) Arenado is owed roughly $61M over the next three years, which is a bit too much for the A’s to swallow; c) Arenado has a no-trade clause, and you can be damn sure he’s not going to veto it to play in Sacramento.

So the contracts they take on can’t be too big, and each partner team would have to be a team in contention mode, who’s both willing to cut costs and willing to part with prospects. That limits the field quite a bit.

So what types of teams would make sense as trading partners? Let’s look at a few scenarios.

 

Reds

Cincinnati is on a budget, and they have a surplus of infielders, made worse by the fact that they signed Jeimer Candelario to a three-year deal last year. Chances are, they’d love to cut and run from that contract, to redirect that money more productively. They also have a strong farm, and might be willing to part with one or two prospects from it to facilitate a deal. Think Candelario (whose surplus value is -$22M) plus Chase Petty (13) and Edwin Arroyo (8.9), with the A’s sending back perhaps a minor prospect to make it worth the while.

 

Brewers

The Brewers are contenders on a tight budget, who likely regret signing Rhys Hoskins (-17.9). The A’s could take on Hoskins’ contract (he’s still owed $22M, of which $18M is owed in 2025, plus a $4M buyout after that), in the hopes that he rebounds from a disappointing season, while also acquiring, say, SP Robert Gasser (10) and OF Yophery Rodriguez (8). They’d offer a throw-in back to Milwaukee to complete the deal.

 

Diamondbacks

Arizona is, at the moment, stuck with Jordan Montgomery (-10.5), who exercised his 2025 player option for $22.5M, despite the fact that the owner publicly acknowledged the team’s regret in signing him. It might be for the best, both financially and culturally, for a change of scenery. The A’s could take on that -$10.5M in negative value, and also acquire 3B Gino Groover (8.9) and SP Spencer Giesting (2), while sending back a minor prospect.

-----

You’ll notice that all three teams above are mid-market contenders on a budget, who need to manage their capital carefully, and have some prospect depth to spare. There are surely a few others – these are just three such examples. In any case, the A’s would be smart to use their (surprising) financial headroom this way, which would both help the current team and further fortify their future core.