Athletics
| Name | Age | Level | P1 | P2 | Availability | Years | AFV | Salary | Surplus | Low | Median | High |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Zack Britton | 33 | Majors | LHRP | Low | 1 | 0 | 15 | -15 | -15 | -15 | -15 | |
| Luis Gil | 23 | Majors | SP | Low | 6 | 17.8 | 5.7 | 12.1 | 9.7 | 12.1 | 14.5 | |
| Clarke Schmidt | Minors | RHP | 6.8 | 5.4 | 6.8 | 8.2 | ||||||
| Anthony Volpe | Minors | SS | 59.8 | 47.8 | 59.8 | 71.8 |
Total Value:
63.7
Yankees
| Name | Age | Level | P1 | P2 | Availability | Years | AFV | Salary | Surplus | Low | Median | High |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sean Manaea | 29 | Majors | SP | High | 1 | 28.6 | 10.1 | 18.5 | 14.8 | 18.5 | 22.2 | |
| Matt Olson | 27 | Majors | 1B | High | 2 | 71.2 | 30 | 41.2 | 37.1 | 45.3 | 53.6 |
Total Value:
63.8
If the Yankees do not want to go over a salary cap, one way is to in effect pay to have some one take Britton. They would be able to add Manaea and Olson, and only increase payroll about 5 million. The cost is 3 of their top 5 prospects. The A's get a bigger haul, and since they are selling off their big 5 (Chapman, Bassitt, ...), who cares if they get a injured guy, they can just cut him. It is more like a NBA deal.
They're trading to reduce payroll for the coming season. This trade would dispose of two of those trade chips for a total 2022 savings of about $4M, which is a good bit less than ideal. Britton having had TJS 4 months ago and not being able to play the only year left on his contract certainly doesn't help, but the other big no factor is that they'd still have to PAY him. Helloo, Trevor Rosenthal the Second.
I guess the big question for the A's ownership is are they trading to lower payroll because the can not afford to field a major league team or do they look at their current team, and realize that they are not good enough to win, so time to rebuild. I hope it is the 2nd one. If it is the 2nd one, then taking on a Britton to add better prospects is not such a big deal. If it is the 1st, then hello new ownership group.
It's neither the first OR the second. No one hates John Fisher like A's fans. Even though he seems to set payroll at 50%± of the previous years revenue (which is about league average), he does not give more later in the season "if the team's doing well". What Beane/Forst get for payroll is what they get, period. Fisher does not believe in the concept of investment, is not interested in selling, and owning 80+% of the team there's no way to force him out.
1 and 2 make 3. And my sense is Fisher is going with option 3 because he wants to get out of baseball with pocketfuls of money AND the legacy of building a new stadium. Glad you liked the insurance angle. It's pretty much a WAG on my part and it's entirely dependent on how far the payroll cuts are going to go. If Beane has a $40 or $50 MM payroll then not even 5D chess can make that math work.
If you wanted to go 4D chess with this... if Britton's contract is insured AND that policy would transfer over to Oakland then the A's would only end up paying him around $4 MM out of pocket. Given his age and recency of the surgery there's almost no chance he'd make it back on the the field (and voiding the terms of a typical policy). But Schmidt is another guy with a barking elbow and Gil struggles to throw strikes. I'd want to consider different pieces before making the deal.
Grover Cool additional idea of the insurance. Interesting spin. Yankee probably do not care so much about the money, as the tax and other stuff that comes with the tax. thanks