On MLB just now the host were asking what should Baltimore give up to get Miller from the A's

[Gurgi]

Oakland is in a weird place for sure.  If they truly are going to try to build for being good in 2028 for the big splash in Las Vegas.  Then trading for major league or even major league ready players makes little sense.  In that situation you want to trade for a large mass of highly regarded lower tier guys.  But that does not really make sense either to me.  The odds of more than one panning out is not that high. 

I guess the best thing for Oakland would be sit on Miller and see how well he does for the next three years and deal him with two/three years of control left.  If he is as skilled as we think he is he would get more in return with a longer track record and health history.  

Nothing makes sense to me for Oakland to trade him.  I would make a team over pay.  

[baltfan]

If I were Oakland, I would ask for Stowers, Norby, Beavers and a pitcher with upside.  They need bodies.  

[Can_of_corn]

7 minutes ago, baltfan said:

If I were Oakland, I would ask for Stowers, Norby, Beavers and a pitcher with upside.  They need bodies.  

You'd target Stowers and Norby over someone like Cowser or Mayo?

[deward]

8 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

You'd target Stowers and Norby over someone like Cowser or Mayo?

Oakland wouldn't getting those guys as part of a package (doubtful they'd even be on the table); I think the argument was that Oakland should try to use Miller to patch multiple holes.

[Bemorewins]

35 minutes ago, Gurgi said:

Oakland is in a weird place for sure.  If they truly are going to try to build for being good in 2028 for the big splash in Las Vegas.  Then trading for major league or even major league ready players makes little sense.  In that situation you want to trade for a large mass of highly regarded lower tier guys.  But that does not really make sense either to me.  The odds of more than one panning out is not that high. 

I guess the best thing for Oakland would be sit on Miller and see how well he does for the next three years and deal him with two/three years of control left.  If he is as skilled as we think he is he would get more in return with a longer track record and health history.  

Nothing makes sense to me for Oakland to trade him.  I would make a team over pay.  

With a pitcher like Miller who has tremendous velo, there is great injury risk. The longer you hold him, the odds for injury increase. Once he’s hurt/if he suffers an arm injury, it will take at least 18 months to build back his trade value.

With a volatile asset like Miller, it is probably best to strike while the iron is white hot. The thing that makes him appealing (beyond his ability) is the fact that the acquiring team will get him with 5.5 years of control. That is enough time to still extract value given the high probability of an arm injury being backed into that time.

[Can_of_corn]

6 minutes ago, deward said:

Oakland wouldn't getting those guys as part of a package (doubtful they'd even be on the table); I think the argument was that Oakland should try to use Miller to patch multiple holes.

They said they would ask for Stowers and Norby.  Not grudgingly accept, ask.

Me, I'd ask for Basallo.  Work my way down from there.

It honestly sounds to me like someone trying to trade spare parts for a highly valuable asset.

Edited May 9 by Can_of_corn

[Bemorewins]

25 minutes ago, baltfan said:

If I were Oakland, I would ask for Stowers, Norby, Beavers and a pitcher with upside.  They need bodies.  

How does Stowers really help them in the long run. He’s what 26 now? Meaning most of his prime will be spent on their teams who will not be trying to win.

If they put Miller on the open market, they will easily be able to field much better offers.

[Bemorewins]

2 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

They said they would ask for Stowers and Norby.  Not grudgingly accept, ask.

Me, I'd ask for Basallo.  Work my way down from there.

It honestly sounds to me like someone trying to trade spare parts for a highly valuable asset.

That’s what it sounds like to me too. The old something for nothing proposition…lol

[baltfan]

42 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

You'd target Stowers and Norby over someone like Cowser or Mayo?

It’s more than I’m saying that they’re better off taking 4 than taking a single guy like Kjerstad.  If I were them, I would ask for Holliday but it isn’t going to happen.  I was talking about something with some possibility of happening

[Can_of_corn]

7 minutes ago, baltfan said:

It’s more than I’m saying that they’re better off taking 4 than taking a single guy like Kjerstad.  If I were them, I would ask for Holliday but it isn’t going to happen.  I was talking about something with some possibility of happening

I strongly disagree that they would be better off getting four fringy guys over one guy that has a reasoanble chance to become an impact player.

No offense to Stowers but right now he's tracking like a guy you can snag off the waiver wire.

[Bahama O's Fan]

If you were Oakland, what would be the lowest that you would accept from the O's for Miller?

[G54377]

I think Oakland has every reason to keep Miller unless we trade one of our "top" pieces. If they are willing to trade him at all. Those top pieces being Mayo, Kjerstad, or Basallo. For us, I think Kjerstad would be worth it since he gives basically zero defensive value compared to the others. However, you know that is also the clear third ranked player that Oakland would probably want. So it comes down to who else needs to be in the trade. 

[G54377]

Also, I am just ruling out Cowser and Westburg because I think they are clearly not being traded (and Holliday for that matter).

[Bemorewins]

18 minutes ago, Bahama O's Fan said:

If you were Oakland, what would be the lowest that you would accept from the O's for Miller?

Probably one of Mayo or Basallo. And outside chance of settling for Kjerstad, Beavers, and one other lower level, high upside/lottery ticket type player.

[Bemorewins]

9 minutes ago, G54377 said:

I think Oakland has every reason to keep Miller unless we trade one of our "top" pieces. If they are willing to trade him at all. Those top pieces being Mayo, Kjerstad, or Basallo. For us, I think Kjerstad would be worth it since he gives basically zero defensive value compared to the others. However, you know that is also the clear third ranked player that Oakland would probably want. So it comes down to who else needs to be in the trade. 

If I were Oakland, given the instability of my franchise (having no long term home) and given the timeline for trying to amass the Major League talent to win once the franchise’s future is secure (2027ish), I know that holding on to Miller doesn’t do much for me. He is a very volatile asset due to the high likelihood of a significant arm injury that comes along with pitches who through with that kind of velocity. The longer they hold on to him, the more the odds increase that he will get injured and his value will plummet. They are in need of position player talent and franchise cornerstone type players.

If I am Oakland I am not settling for a package of Stowers, Norby, Beavers+ when I know that there will be other offers that are much more attractive to me than that.

Sure it would be great for us to fleece the A’s and only have to give up players who have no future place with our team and in return receive the most elite back end reliever available. However, that is not very probable and IMO it is not realistic. In all probability, you have to give up value in order to receive value in return.