| Name | Age | Level | P1 | P2 | Availability | Years | AFV | Salary | Surplus | Low | Median | High |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jasson Dominguez | Minors | OF | 21.2 | 17 | 21.2 | 25.4 | ||||||
| Aaron Hicks | 32 | Majors | OF | Medium | 4 | 7.3 | 30.5 | -23.2 | -27.9 | -23.2 | -18.6 | |
| Cash | 12 |
Total Value:
10
| Name | Age | Level | P1 | P2 | Availability | Years | AFV | Salary | Surplus | Low | Median | High |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cole Irvin | 28 | Majors | SP | Medium | 4 | 17.4 | 5.7 | 11.7 | 9.3 | 11.7 | 14 |
Total Value:
11.7
An "Absorb a bad contract for a prospect" scenario. Yankees unload Hicks, A's get a prospect and a placeholder in the outfield for a few years at a managable price.
The concept you propose is one I wouldn’t mind Oakland utilizing. They should easily have the room, within certain bounds, of course, to pull something like this off. It’s a creative way to nab a better prospect they might not otherwise be able to afford (trade value wise.) That said, I think the Donaldson deal would be more to my liking. (I’m going to set aside Donaldson’s limited no trade clause for the moment.) the overall money owed is a bit of a wash, 29m for Donaldson vs. 30m for Hicks. The difference is the time involved, one season for Donaldson vs. 3 for Hicks. Donaldson’s one and done contract doesn’t really hurt the A’s next season. They’ll still be in the middle of a rebuild. Hicks’ 3 years could prove an albatross at a time when they are beginning to compete and prevent them from acquiring needed pieces to help with a playoff push. Interesting idea, nonetheless.