But with some clean slate freedom to sign players where they see fit. They have $16MM committed to payroll next year. In the event, that a salary floor is negotiated into place, my earlier trade with the arb eligible players makes even more sense for the A's.

As it stands right now, they $27 MM committed in 2022. Yes, they will need to fill out the balance of their roster, but if they traded Chapman, Olson, Bassitt, Montas and Manaea, they could likely fill out their roster with min salary players. This would put them around $41 MM...if that isn't saving money for a 2024 turnaround, then this ownership group should be eliminated. The point of this trade was to help Oakland achieve the 2024 turnaround with some players who should all be ready by then and allowing for financial flexibility to fill holes that still exist in 2024.

Yes, his rating improved on BA's updated prospect list.

(Responding to your post below...) A prospect's nominal position on a list has nothing to do with his value, to your point. Re-read my comment: his RATING improved on BA's updated list. And that is indeed based on scout's evaluations and performance.

John, I couldn't reply to your comment but I understand why you would use the prospect lists for ease of value, but it seems odd to me that just because a player moves up on a team's prospect list that their value would go up. Those lists are affected by graduations and trades. Not saying that this is the case with Ashby, but let's say the Brewers trade the prospects that I mention above. Would Joe Gray's value raise just because he would move higher on the Brewers prospect list? If so, there is a hole in the valuation process that could use a tweak or two. I would think that the valuation of minor leaguers should be based on scout tool evaluations and their performance, not their movement on someone's list.