NEWSLETTER
Like every other baseball fan, I have watched breakout Oakland A’s closer Mason Miller with a deep fascination. The things he is doing – at a pitch level, at an at bat level, at an appearance level – are rarely seen. He’s clearly a very special pitcher at this moment.
A 55% K rate and a negative FIP through a month and a half of the season is just … it’s stupid. It’s just stupid.
Miller, 25, is doing crazy things in the big leagues, after a minor league development process that was abbreviated by injuries, and then accelerated by an A’s recognition that this guy has bullets they just want to use ASAP in the bullpen.
And, when a player like that is doing crazy things like that on a team like the Oakland A’s, the perfectly logical reaction among fans of almost every other MLB team: how do we get this guy?
In Mason Miller’s case, it’s not just the fans thinking that way. Yes, MLB front offices are already reaching out:
Typically, you wouldn’t even see publicly-discussed interest in a player with under a year of service time, because those are not the types of players that are “put on the market” for everyone to pursue. Those guys do get traded sometimes, of course, but it’s not usually a sales process, you know? And you would ESPECIALLY not see it discussed like this in early May.
In Miller’s case, the situation is a little unique. Sure, he has five years of team control left, but there is nevertheless some level of trade urgency because (1) he’s performing like this NOW, (2) the A’s are assuredly going to be sellers, and (3) although there are multiple years of control, you don’t actually know how many of them you’re going to get at this level (or close to it) of performance.
So, I totally get why Miller, a waaaaay pre-arb player, is popping up in trade discussions and rumors and reports and speculation in the second week of May. This makes sense to talk about.
But I would be shocked if anything happened before July, and even at the Trade Deadline, I’d be fairly surprised if a trade happens involving Miller. As far as the Cubs go, I’ll add that I’m not even sure I’d want to see a realistic deal happen.
Let’s start with that second part, because I’m sure a lot of Cubs fans will think I’m a dope for suggesting I don’t want Miller on a realistic deal. My initial response there would be to make sure you read every word, and then emphasize “realistic deal.” Of course I’d want Mason Miller for the Cubs on a bargain! But he’s not coming for a bargain. He’s coming for an obsceeeeeeenely large price. That’s a “realistic deal” in May of 2024.
The way Rosenthal describes it, the price tag from the A’s would be either an equivalent young star with as much control left, or a deal involving multiple top-100 prospect types (and not back-of-the-100 guys, either). Heck, even that might be light!
For the Cubs, in a one-to-one swap, you’re talking about, what? Pete Crow-Armstrong? Is that even enough? Let me tell you how extremely uninterested I am in trading an everyday position player (you can almost forget the particulars of the player) for a reliever. Even a very good reliever. There’s just not equivalent projected value there over the course of the controlled years.
So then maybe you say, ok, well what about a starting pitcher like Javier Assad or Jordan Wicks or Hayden Wesneski? Well, I don’t think the A’s are doing any of those deals. And I don’t think I’d want to see the Cubs double up on sending out multiple of those guys for one reliever.
On the prospect side of things, the kinds of deals Rosenthal was talking about are something like Cade Horton and Jefferson Rojas and maybe more. You can play with the words, and dream about different names, but that’s the type of deal the A’s are going to want. And, to me, that’s just so beyond silly that it’s not even worth talking about. If the A’s were instead asking for two of the Cubs’ prospects who are more at the back end of the top-100, then I’m more intrigued – not saying I’d do it for reasons to come, but I’d be intrigued – but I don’t think the A’s settle at that level right now. We’ll check back on that in June and July, I suppose, but I think the price tag this whole year will be “we’re only trading him if you do something stupid.”
Throw in the risks that are somewhat specific to Miller – significant injury history, extreme velocity creates additional risk, reliever volatility as compared to other positions – and I just don’t see it making sense to do something stupid here. Love the pitcher. He’s incredible. I don’t think going way over the top to get him right now is a good idea.
Turning to the broader point that I think a trade is unlikely any time soon, that’s partly because of everything just discussed in the Cubs-specific context (the considerations will be the same for lots of teams), but it’s also partly the A’s situation.
For a team that is about to try to move to Las Vegas, the A’s are going to have an extraordinarily hard time recruiting quality free agents. They don’t really try much anyway, but it’s all just gotten even harder for them to land “name” players. So, right now, when they’ve suddenly got one of the biggest names in the sport, I suspect there’s an extra premium there to be paid in trade.
And, of course, you have the five years of team control, which does create a window for them to keep him, even if, yes, there is some arguable urgency as discussed above. The A’s have to make their bones on using guys like Miller in their pre-arb and early-arb years, and THEN trading them for a nice return. If you can get an obscene return earlier than that, sure, it might be worth it. But shy of that, the A’s have to get actual performances from players like Miller.
Speaking of which, here’s another consideration that’s kind of unique to the A’s. If a team acquires Miller and he breaks in August, that team loses an impact reliever for the stretch run and the playoffs, and, if it’s surgery, loses him for all of 2025, too. So much of what you traded for – the anticipated value on the field – just went poof. If the A’s keep Miller, however, and that same injury happens, well, for one thing, it almost certainly doesn’t hurt their playoff runs, because I don’t think they’re making them. For another thing, because he will have missed so much time, his price tag in arbitration – critically important to a team like the A’s – just went way down. No, they wouldn’t WANT that to happen, but it’s a relative benefit for them compared to an acquiring team.
That is to say, it’s yet another reason for the A’s to hold the line right now on a truly extreme trade package if they’re going to move Mason Miller. The way I see it overall, it makes sense for the A’s to trade Miller at this moment for only a perversely large return, and it does not make sense for most (all?) teams to go to that level right now.
The only way I see a Miller trade happening this year is if it’s much closer to the Trade Deadline, and the A’s recognize that they won’t get THAT level of package for him. In that case, it’s possible they decide that a really, really strong trade package – perhaps involving players that better align with their window of of a franchise move – is better than hanging onto Miller and risking injury or regression.
So, I’m perfectly happy and willing to come back to this conversation in July. But as we sit here today, I do not see a good reason for the Cubs – or any team – to give up a historic return to get Miller in the door in May 2024.
