What would it take to acquire Mason Miller?

[psagawa]

The As are not going to compete for at least a couple of years. Mason Miller is having a breakout season in the bullpen. 100mph heat and a wicked slider - an absolute sword machine. We have excess position player talent. Who would you trade and would Oakland accept the deal,?

[Aristotelian]

He is a free agent in 2030. Oakland is not trading him any time soon. Andrew Miller cost us EdRod, so Mason would be worth 2-3X that. Trade Simulator currently has Mason and Jordan Westburg as even steven but Miller is trending up so Mayo would probably be the ask. 

[NashLumber]

2 hours ago, psagawa said:

The As are not going to compete for at least a couple of years. Mason Miller is having a breakout season in the bullpen. 100mph heat and a wicked slider - an absolute sword machine. We have excess position player talent. Who would you trade and would Oakland accept the deal,?

Interesting idea. Following. 

[ThisIsBirdland]

If he didn't carry the cost of someone under control until 2030, I think he'd be an awesome add. I think they'll look for someone performing in July who's set to hit free agency in order to avoid the high prospect cost.

[CaptainRedbeard]

2 hours ago, Aristotelian said:

He is a free agent in 2030. Oakland is not trading him any time soon. Andrew Miller cost us EdRod, so Mason would be worth 2-3X that. Trade Simulator currently has Mason and Jordan Westburg as even steven but Miller is trending up so Mayo would probably be the ask. 

The only reason for Oakland to not be open to trading him is if they think his trade value could increase by holding him longer. He’s under control a long time but he’s also had major injury concerns, including a partial UCL tear, which is why he’s relieving and not starting. They’re going to be horrible for multiple years and Miller’s trade value could be peaking right now / at the trade deadline unless they think he will eventually be a SP again. 

That said, I agree he will be extremely expensive, and Oakland may prefer higher upside younger prospects, which the Orioles are not overflowing with. For instance even if the Orioles were willing to trade Kjerstad, doesn’t make a lot of sense for Oakland to target him given his age. 

I’d be surprised if Elias was willing to trade a lot of value for a RP. I expect Norby and Stowers are on the table for RPs, but even together they’re not even close to getting Miller. 

[Spy Fox]

I know it's Oakland and their situation is bleak from top to bottom, but I don't think they would be looking to trade him. Rebuilding teams don't usually try to deal their best rookies. 

[Aristotelian]

5 minutes ago, CaptainRedbeard said:

The only reason for Oakland to not be open to trading him is if they think his trade value could increase by holding him longer. He’s under control a long time but he’s also had major injury concerns, including a partial UCL tear, which is why he’s relieving and not starting. They’re going to be horrible for multiple years and Miller’s trade value could be peaking right now / at the trade deadline unless they think he will eventually be a SP again. 

That said, I agree he will be extremely expensive, and Oakland may prefer higher upside younger prospects, which the Orioles are not overflowing with. For instance even if the Orioles were willing to trade Kjerstad, doesn’t make a lot of sense for Oakland to target him given his age. 

I’d be surprised if Elias was willing to trade a lot of value for a RP. I expect Norby and Stowers are on the table for RPs, but even together they’re not even close to getting Miller. 

I do think his value increasing is a good bet, but more importantly 2030 is a long time from now. They could easily be competitive by then under new ownership. Would be very unusual for a rebuilding team to trade a propsect with six years of control, even one as far from contention as Oakland. Maybe you can think of an example but I can't.

[DirtyBird]

7 minutes ago, CaptainRedbeard said:

The only reason for Oakland to not be open to trading him is if they think his trade value could increase by holding him longer.

So they can be a crappy team with a solid relief pitcher for a while longer.

[interloper]

Also, the A's are going to actually have to be bad first. They're currently 7-9 and 1 game back of the Rangers in a weirdly mediocre AL West. 

Don't think they'll keep it up, but just sayin. 

[Philip]

It’s pretty clear that the athletics don’t want anybody who is MLB-ready now. They know they’ll be terrible for at least the next couple of years. For Pete sakes, they’re going to be playing in a minor-league stadium.

It’s clear that the owner ownership has not a shred of interest in pleasing the fanbase, because they’re going to get a whole new fanbase when they move.

They want draft picks and solid prospects who are ~two years away. If we gave them Kjested, they would only waste two excellent years of his career. I doubt they even want Povich or McDermott. 

I don’t know our prospect list well enough to know who they might be interested in, but they don’t want any of our ready guys.

[RZNJ]

Forget Mason Miller and think someone like Tanner Scott, who’s in his walk year, was dominant last year, off to a shaky start this year, on a team likely going nowhere this year.   Mason Miller is either not available or would cost an arm and a leg.   

[CaptainRedbeard]

38 minutes ago, Aristotelian said:

I do think his value increasing is a good bet, but more importantly 2030 is a long time from now. They could easily be competitive by then under new ownership. Would be very unusual for a rebuilding team to trade a propsect with six years of control, even one as far from contention as Oakland. Maybe you can think of an example but I can't.

It would be very unusual, but nothing about the Athletics right now is typical. Mason Miller’s huge injury risk also makes it even more of a reason to make them open to dealing him now. If he were a position player prospect it wouldn’t be the same equation. 

The Athletics made Miller a RP because they think he physically can’t handle starting. If they think that’s a permanent shift, they should trade him. No sense in having 6 years of an elite RP when you’re in the A’s position. 

[Aristotelian]

21 minutes ago, CaptainRedbeard said:

It would be very unusual, but nothing about the Athletics right now is typical. Mason Miller’s huge injury risk also makes it even more of a reason to make them open to dealing him now. If he were a position player prospect it wouldn’t be the same equation. 

The Athletics made Miller a RP because they think he physically can’t handle starting. If they think that’s a permanent shift, they should trade him. No sense in having 6 years of an elite RP when you’re in the A’s position. 

Lol, OK. If you gave me 10-to-1 odds on them trading Miller this year I still wouldn't take it. 100-to-1, maybe. If he is on the market for cheap, sure, go for it.

[SteveA]

1 hour ago, Aristotelian said:

I do think his value increasing is a good bet, but more importantly 2030 is a long time from now. They could easily be competitive by then under new ownership. Would be very unusual for a rebuilding team to trade a propsect with six years of control, even one as far from contention as Oakland. Maybe you can think of an example but I can't.

New ownership?  Fisher isn't going to sell the team.

[yark14]

Not sure what it would cost, but his first name would fit perfectly on our team: 

Mason
Adley
Gunnar
Jordan
Colton
Keegan
Dillon