Friday, August 1, 2025

Newsletter Excerpt, August 1, 2025 -- "Movement, Not Action"

This is a preview of the Joe Sheehan Baseball Newsletter, an e-mail newsletter about all things baseball, featuring analysis and opinion about the game on and off the field from the perspective of the informed outsider.

You can subscribe to the newsletter for one year for $79.95 using your PayPal account or major credit card.

--
 
I like to break this down each year: There were 15 buyers, 14 sellers, and whatever you call the Dodgers. That’s shoehorning a lot of teams who did very little into these categories. I guess the Royals bought (Randal Grichuk, Mike Yastrzemski, Bailey Falter). I guess the Red Sox bought (Matz and May). I guess the Braves sold (Rafael Montero). I guess the White Sox sold (Austin Slater). I think if A.J. Preller doesn’t make the inexplicable De Vries trade, we’re telling a much different story about this deadline. 
 
 

 

Thursday, July 31, 2025

Joe Sheehan Newsletter, July 31, 2025 -- "Deadline Day"

 

This is a preview of the Joe Sheehan Baseball Newsletter, an e-mail newsletter about all things baseball, featuring analysis and opinion about the game on and off the field from the perspective of the informed outsider.

You can subscribe to the newsletter for one year for $79.95 using your PayPal account or major credit card.

--
 
The Joe Sheehan Newsletter: Deadline Day
Vol. 17, No. 61
July 31, 2025

With eight or so hours until the trade deadline, no trade has risen to the “write it up and send it” standard yet this year, the first time that has happened since 2021. Am I too picky? Last year I wrote up the Randy Arozarena deal and the Dodgers/Cardinals/White Sox three-way; two years ago it was Max Scherzer to the Rangers. I don’t think the Jhoan Duran or Eugenio Suarez trades rise to those levels. Suarez is a rental bat traded for a package led by the #9 prospect in a decent system. Duran, as good a relief pitcher as he is, is still a relief pitcher. It’s an indication of the weakness of this year’s deadline that those two headline the activity so far.

By my count, there were 13 trades completed yesterday, counting the as-yet-unofficial Suarez deal as one of them and calling the late-night Dodgers/Reds/Rays deal as just one. Eight involved relief pitchers, and of all the prospects on the move, just two -- the ones the Phillies traded for Duran -- show up in top-100 rankings. It was a busy day, but by and large just a super-sized version of the agate-type deals that made up the deadline activity to date. MLB sent a breathless press release pegging the Suarez trade as a “blockbuster,” but it’s just not. 

Here’s what I’ll be tracking today as we approach the 6 p.m. deadline. It’s a great day to join the Newsletter Slack, where #hot-stove-talk will have subscribers talking about the action and inaction all day and night.

-- Will we get a bigger deal than what we’ve seen so far? Even with Duran and a number of other relievers traded, there are others in the rumor mill, including Mason Miller and Robert Suarez. The best starters include righties with ace peaks and middling 2025 lines such as Sandy Alcantara, Zac Gallen, and Charlie Morton. With Eugenio Suarez and Josh Naylor both in Seattle now, the pickings are very slim among hitters -- Marcell Ozuna, Luis Robert Jr., Ryan O’Hearn, maybe Brendan Donovan.

-- Will the trend of teams holding their best prospects continue? Whether any individual prospect is a top-100 guy, a top-five guy in a system, varies, but we can say that no consensus top-100 prospects were moved a year ago. This year, the best ones to be traded are Phillies A-ball catcher Eduardo Tait and Triple-A righty Mick Abel. Maybe that’s “prospect hugging,” but I think it’s just a reflection of the MLB talent on offer. The trend, as illustrated by the Mets’ moves and the Suarez trade, is to trade bulk for rentals without touching the top of the system. Teams trading for the future lean on their pro scouting departments to identify players who will be contributors, even if they may lack the upside or certainty of top-rated minor leaguers.

I expect that by the end of today, Abel and Tait will remain the best prospects dealt.

-- Will everyone get in the pool? Seven teams have yet to make a trade of note during the deadline window, including two division leaders (the Dodgers and Astros) and two others in playoff position (the Red Sox and Padres). All have needs, and all but the Astros have more than enough talent to make a big deal. The Sox have a position player logjam and a need to add pitching and a first baseman. The Padres have been rumored to be trying a buy/sell dance, offering up Robert Suarez and Dylan Cease for some desperately needed hitters.

On the sell side, neither the A’s nor the Marlins have moved players off their rosters, while the White Sox have made one small deal. The Sox don’t have much left; Robert Jr. has hit .219/.288/.368 since the start of 2024 and might not be a center fielder any longer. Mike Tauchman (.291/.372/.472) would look good in a lot of lineups, though, and Michael A. Taylor has fourth-outfielder value for lefty-heavy teams. Adrian Houser could eat innings for a better team, though he may not make a playoff pitching staff.

The A’s, notably, held Mason Miller out of a save situation Wednesday night, driving speculation he will be dealt today. They could also move Luis Severino and/or Jeffrey Springs.

The Marlins have Alcantara, the hard-to-price former Cy Young winner who has had the worst season of his career in his comeback from Tommy John surgery. He’s shown some flashes of his former self, and he’s controlled through 2027, making him a bit more attractive than his stat line indicates. Edward Cabrera is controlled through 2028 and pitching better than Alcantara. Peter Bendix doesn’t have to trade any of these guys, and with the Marlins playing very well this summer, may see his team’s path back to the playoffs as featuring these starters, not dealing them.

The Padres, the Marlins, and the Red Sox control the board today. Whether we have a very big deadline or just another agatefest depends on their level of aggressiveness.

-- Is there a surprise out there? With the modern rumorocracy, it’s hard for us to be truly surprised anymore. Just about any player who could possibly be dealt is usually mentioned at some point, especially now that deadline coverage starts around Easter. If we get a surprise, it will probably come from an organization not known for leaking, such as the Rays, A’s, or Marlins. Throw the Dodgers in there if you want.

The Dodgers, with a very old roster driving a win-now mandate and a farm system deep in position players, are the team most likely to come out of the blue with a shocker along the lines of 2021’s additions of Scherzer and Trea Turner in a single deal. Maybe Steven Kwan and Shane Bieber from the Guardians? Alcantara and Dane Myers from the Marlins? Mason Miller and Jeffrey Springs from the A’s? If we get a 6 p.m. shocker, I think it’ll come from Andrew Friedman and Co.

(While this was being edited, the Guardians seem to have traded Bieber to the Blue Jays. Oh, well.)

With MLB clearing the decks for the deadline -- just three games all day, and none going between 4 p.m. and 7 p.m. -- it’s a big day for iced coffee, refreshing [your social media app of choice] and talking ball. I’ll be on Slack all day, will write up any truly big deals if they happen, and no matter what have something for you tonight wrapping the day’s events.

-

Most of the trades yesterday fell into the “we’ll get to them in bulk after the smoke clears” category, but let’s at least touch on a few of the bigger storylines.

The Phillies paid a big price in talent for the best player dealt so far in Jhoan Duran. The Twins’ righty has a career 2.47 ERA and 2.77 FIP, with some of the nastiest stuff in baseball. The 97-mph “splinker” he throws helps him post the second-highest groundball rate, 65.4%, among all relievers (min. 40 IP). Duran becomes the best pitcher in what has been a rough Phillies pen, and probably the one-inning save collector role Rob Thomson has been trying to fill all year. Matt Strahm and Orion Kerkering will set him up, with David Robertson eventually joining the mix, and Jose Alvarado returning from his suspension for some regular-season innings. 

The Phillies didn’t need Mick Abel, their #7 starter now and unlikely to move up past #6 in 2026. They may eventually miss Eduardo Tait, a teenaged catcher who has hit well for his age in A ball, though in the long term he may move out from behind the plate. The Phillies, like the Dodgers, are an aging team in win-now mode; they can move their 2029 catcher without remorse.

The Mets traded six players for two relievers, Tyler Rogers and Ryan Helsley, three guys for each. The first trade was a bit of a shocker, as the deal included one of the outfielders the Mets got for Justin Verlander, Drew Gilbert, and a pitcher who was throwing high-leverage innings in last year’s playoffs, Jose Butto. While three players for 20 innings of relief seems like a lot, after taking a beat I came around on the trade. Not being a prospecthead, I initially reacted to Gilbert’s name, but he’s no longer a top prospect, just a familiar face. The best prospect the Mets dealt yesterday was probably shortstop Jesus Baez, a 20-year-old with a career .243/.332/.401 line in the low minors.

Rogers and Helsley bring depth to a Mets bullpen that was weak behind Edwin Diaz. In adding the two, David Stearns gave Carlos Mendoza both power and funk, Helsley a traditional fastball/slider guy, Rogers a submariner whose groundball rate is just behind that of Duran this year. Rogers also has a history of being tough on lefties even with his unusual arm angle (.232/.287/.335 career, 120/28 K/UIBB, with three seasons allowing a 557 or lower OPS to them). 

The Reds made a couple of peculiar trades, adding a glove man in Ke’Bryan Hayes and a homer-prone starter in Zack Littell. The swaps made them buyers, but maybe not better. Hayes is one of the most extreme players in baseball. a non-hitter who plays a gorgeous third base. Hayes is signed to a team-friendly deal through 2030, and even with a .236/.279/.290 line this year is on pace for about a two-win season. I can see an argument for acquiring him, especially given the limited cost in talent (Sammy Stafura, a walkcentric A-ball shortstop who will get the bat knocked out of his hands at higher levels). He’s just a strange fit for the Reds, who needed to improve their offense and probably made it worse in this deal.

Noelvi Marte, in the middle of a breakout as the Reds’ third baseman, will now move to right field, as the Reds continue their tradition of taking good young third basemen and trying to break them. Before yesterday Marte had played eight professional innings on the grass. If the team really wants to play Hayes at third, I’d rather see them install Marte as the everyday DH and use Austin Hays and even Gavin Lux on the outfield corners. Marte is too valuable to force him into on-the-job training just when he’s finally getting things together at the plate. The move is all downside risk and it’s not like playing him out there to squeeze Lux into the lineup is necessary. 

The Reds backed this up by acquiring the pitcher who leads MLB in homers allowed, Zack Littell, to pitch at Great American Small Park. Littell has the 19th-highest flyball rate among 64 qualified starters this year, leading to 26 bombs while with the Rays. Adding any starter provides some insurance against Hunter Greene’s fragile body, and this could let the Reds make Chase Burns a relief pitcher down the stretch. The Reds are going to want to manage Burns’s workload -- I’ve been heard on whether that’s a worthwhile endeavor -- but I think it may be the best way to deploy Burns. He could become the team’s best relief pitcher before the season is out, and the dominant righty they simply do not have in the pen right now.

The Reds seem to want to get better on the margins without making a serious investment in the roster. They haven’t done enough yet, and they are a team with a lot on the line today. Nick Krall has to commit.

After midnight, the long-awaited Eugenio Suarez trade happened, with the Mariners bringing back their former third baseman without moving talent anywhere near the top of their strong farm system. Even with Suarez’s big 2025 season, and some evidence to suggest it’s real, the Mariners got Suarez for volume in a package led by the next Ty France, Tyler Locklear. 

I’d said a few times that I think the Mariners would be fine with Ben Williamson at third base and adding a DH. I think that’s still the case; were I Dan Wilson, I would leave Williamson alone at third and make Suarez the everyday designated hitter, turning Jorge Polanco (.210/.282/.345 since May 1) into the backup infielder or maybe even an ex-Mariner. Suarez can move to third when Cal Raleigh gets his half-days off at DH. The defensive gap between Williamson and Suarez is very large, larger than the gap between the bats of Willamson and Polanco. With the decline of J.P. Crawford on defense, a Crawford/Suarez left side could be quite damaging. The team’s best alignment lets Williamson field, Suarez hit, and Polanco watch.

 

Tuesday, July 29, 2025

Newsletter Excerpt, July 29, 2025 -- "Potpourri"

This is a preview of the Joe Sheehan Baseball Newsletter, an e-mail newsletter about all things baseball, featuring analysis and opinion about the game on and off the field from the perspective of the informed outsider.

You can subscribe to the newsletter for one year for $79.95 using your PayPal account or major credit card.

--
 
I think we need to figure out where the prospect/minor leaguer line is. Almost all of the players dealt so far are really “minor leaguers” rather than prospects. You can...you will...find sunny commentary on every one of them, and dozens more to come, but we’re mostly talking about players who will never crack five WAR in the majors, or even make the majors. They’re filler.

The interesting thing, though, is it doesn’t work both ways. Those eight guys on the move, the ones worth a combined 5.5 WAR? Any of them could go off for two months. Pretty much all of the top 1200 players in the world are capable of running very hot for two months. The deadline is very much a lottery. Variance swamps everything. 
 
 

 

Joe Sheehan Newsletter, January 28, 2025 -- "Payroll Cap"

 

This is a preview of the Joe Sheehan Baseball Newsletter, an e-mail newsletter about all things baseball, featuring analysis and opinion about the game on and off the field from the perspective of the informed outsider.

You can subscribe to the newsletter for one year for $79.95 using your PayPal account or major credit card.

--

The Joe Sheehan Newsletter: Payroll Cap
Vol. 16, No. 146
January 28, 2025

Over the weekend, new Orioles owner David Rubenstein continued his year of being disappointing by coming out in favor of a payroll cap in MLB. While in Davos at the World Economic Forum -- the people who own baseball teams are the kind of people who go to Davos -- Rubenstein told Yahoo Finance, "I wish it would be the case that we would have a salary cap in baseball the way other sports do.”

On Monday, The Athletic’s Evan Drellich published a profile of Rob Manfred. Buried in there was a quote from Steve Greenberg, former deputy commissioner under Fay Vincent and current power broker with Allen and Co., in which he said the quiet part out loud: “The perception around baseball is that without a salary cap, its [franchise] values will lag behind, at least behind the NFL and the NBA, and that’s been the case.”

Fans, who as a class would just as soon see players play for the minimum wage and wash their own uniforms, have been clamoring for a payroll cap in baseball for years. That clamor reached a peak last week when two-thirds of respondents to an MLB Trade Rumors poll indicated they would trade the 2027 MLB season for a payroll cap in the years to follow. 

A salary cap -- what I call a payroll cap and what is more accurately described as a payroll band -- is the Holy Grail for owners in major sports leagues. It’s an agreement to only spend so much on talent, to limit teams’ competition for players. In the NFL, NBA and NHL, the owners have the upper hand on largely impotent players’ unions, and can all but dictate terms of those leagues’ bargaining agreements. That MLB does not have a cap is mostly a reflection of its union, even in a lessened state, still being intact rather than broken by scabs and lockouts. The quotes above make a point that I and many others have made for years: Payroll caps are big wins for owners and losses for players.

The way caps work is that the league and players agree on how the league’s revenue is to be divided. In today’s NFL, the players get 48% of revenue, the owners 52%. (Risk of brain damage is less equally split.) That 48% share is divided among the 32 teams and becomes the cap figure. In 2024, that was $255 million per team. NFL cap rules are complicated and outside the scope of this newsletter, but team payroll must land in a very narrow range. Every team must spend, over a four-year period, 89% of the total cap amount; if a team does not, it has to pay the difference between what it did spend and that bottom number. (This doesn’t happen.) At the league level, everyone must spend 95% of the total figure accounted for.

In 2024, NFL cap payrolls ranged from $217 million to $261 million. That’s a range from 85% to 102% of the $255 million cap figure. In 2023, with a $225 million cap, team payrolls ranged from $200 million to $232 million, or 89% to 103%. You get the picture. It’s a cap and a floor and the two are very close to one another. 

The NBA, which has a softer payroll cap -- loosely akin to MLB’s tax system -- and an individual salary cap, is likewise complicated. Players are guaranteed 51% of the league’s basketball-related income. By rule, the cap is $141 million and the floor $127 million. Those figures would represent a range of 95% to 105%. In practice, those figures are fiction. NBA payrolls this year range from $127 million to $237 million. Twenty-nine of the league’s 30 teams are over the nominal cap, which means you don’t really have a cap. The average NBA payroll is $180 million, which means that the payroll range is from 71% to 131% of the league average. Changes in the most recent CBA are designed to make the cap harder, but those will take years to have an effect.

What do those ranges look like in MLB? Last year, MLB teams paid $5 billion to players, an average of $166 million per team. (This is cash payroll as calculated by Sportrac. The conclusions won’t change if you use tax payrolls.) Team payrolls ranged from $315 million at the top to $62 million at the bottom. MLB imposes significant penalties for exceeding tax thresholds, but there are no mechanisms to prop up the lower end. Do the same math as we did for the NFL and NBA, and you find that the range of MLB payrolls runs from 37% to 189%.

Let’s break up this big block of text with a chart.

Ranges (top and bottom payrolls as a percentage of the average)

       Top    Average    Bottom
MLB   189%      $166M       37%
NFL   102%      $255M       85%
NBA   131%      $180M       71%


Now, that right-hand column, the low end of spending, may jump out at you. There has been a vocal call for, at the least, a payroll floor in MLB, to raise the spending of the cheapest teams. That sentiment is well-intentioned but pointless. Caps and floors have gone hand in hand in every system; you won’t have one without the other. If you’re calling for a payroll floor, you’re calling for a payroll cap. Again, all these systems are more accurately described as payroll bands.

The NFL system is the one that gets the most praise from fans and media, in part because the NFL is perceived to have the most competitive balance in our major sports. It doesn’t. This is well-covered ground. The erroneous perception of higher competitive balance is mostly about playing a 17-game season, which is too short for teams to fall out of contention for long and allows for wild swings from year to year based on injuries, fortune, and the impact of drafted players. To the extent NFL parity exists, it’s not due to a payroll cap, it’s just math. If MLB played a 17-game season, 24 teams would be in contention after 15 of them and we’d have even more playoff turnover. 

With that said, let me focus on the NFL system, as it is the one most believe MLB should emulate. If MLB had the NFL’s payroll band, it would have a $166 million cap and require every team’s payroll to fall between $141 million and $168 million. There were two MLB teams last year with payrolls in that range. (Even the NBA’s range of 71-131% would capture just 11 of MLB’s 30 teams.) As a practical matter, shoehorning MLB teams into a narrow payroll band, even gradually, would be an enormous lift. In the short term, you’d be asking some teams to cut their payrolls by half and others to double them. 

That’s not the largest barrier, however.

There are steep differences between how teams in the NFL and MLB make their money. The NFL gets two-thirds of its dollars (as of 2023) from national contracts -- linear television, mostly, but also streaming and other sources. MLB gets just 26% of its money that way. The NFL doesn’t have small markets and large markets, it has one market: the United States of America. Teams play in 30 TV studios scattered about the country, a couple of them shared, and they can be located anywhere because teams just don’t have to sell many tickets. The Cowboys sold 837,000 tickets in 2024, the most in the NFL...and fewer than every single MLB team. 

There’s a persistent myth that MLB doesn’t share local revenue, but it does. It shares, in fact, more local revenue than NFL teams do. In the NFL, 34% of ticket revenue gets pooled and distributed equally. Teams get a reported $25 million apiece from that program. In MLB, teams put 48% of local revenue, net of stadium expenses, into a pool, then distributes that pool back to teams equally. The MLB system explicitly acknowledges there is more potential revenue in larger cities than in small ones and is designed to address that.

If you take nothing else from today’s piece, take this: MLB shares more local revenue than the NFL does. The difference in the two systems is entirely about revenue sources.

The actual figures are guarded closely, but estimates are that at the extremes -- think the Yankees and Brewers -- teams are losing or gaining $80 million a year from this system. (Those figures are likely to rise in the new post-RSN landscape.) The net transfers, and again, we don’t have perfect information, are along the lines of $500 million a year from high-revenue to low-revenue teams. Contrary to those who believe MLB ignores the matter of local-revenue gaps, MLB teams transfer a billion dollars every two years to address it. Without a payroll band, however, those payments have simply guaranteed profits for small-market owners regardless of how well their team performs. Revenue sharing serves as a strong incentive to not even try to win.

If you forced MLB teams into an NFL-like payroll band, that would only solve part of the problem. Per Forbes, there were three MLB teams that didn’t have even $300 million in revenue in 2023 (before local revenue sharing), and nine others that were below $325 million. Revenue sharing will add to that figure for many teams, but if you ask the Marlins, who even after revenue sharing brought in maybe $325 million in 2023, to consistently meet a $141 million cash payroll, things are going to be tight in some years. A team’s player payroll over the long term should be about 50% of revenue. Teams do have fixed non-payroll expenses, even if they tend to exaggerate them and work hard to keep the details private. Teams in large markets will have down stretches without revenue sharing to fall back on, or lose lucrative TV deals. The White Sox brought in just $288 million in 2023, per Forbes, and that may be a peak until 2027 or so. 

If you loosened payroll requirements to that NBA range, it would be easier for teams to get over a ~$115 million threshold, but to what end? The most likely scenario is that teams currently below the line would cluster at it, and teams above the line might even drift down toward it. At the other end of the spectrum, teams that print money now would simply keep more of it, because they would not be allowed to compete for talent with that money.

A cap system works in the NFL because of how revenue is distributed. Most revenue is national, there just isn’t that much difference in local revenues, and even those differences are muted by light revenue sharing. The Cowboys are out on an island; the other 31 NFL teams earned amounts ranging from $495 million to just $729 million, just 1.5x. Take out the Yankees similarly, and MLB teams ranged from $241 million to $549 million -- well more than 2x from top to bottom.

People like Rubenstein and Greenberg keep asking for a limit on payroll, but they avoid any discussion about mechanics. To make even the wide-version payroll band in MLB work, you’d have to have the Yankees, Dodgers, Mets and their brethren give even more of their money to the Pirates, Brewers, and A’s than they are now. To make a narrow band work, it would take an increase in revenue sharing that, I believe, would break the game. As I wrote in December, I think we’re getting close to that point even without a payroll band system. The Yankees need somebody to play against, but they don’t necessarily need 29 somebodies, not at a cost of $100 million a year. 

An MLB payroll cap would likely come with positive changes for some players. The minimum salary would rise to pay young players more like how they’re paid in capped leagues. We could see shorter times to free agency, as the owners would be less concerned about restricting the market for talent. The players are, depending on how you calculate this, probably taking home a smaller percentage of revenue than their NBA and NFL peers right now, and that would likely change. (I don’t think that should be the sole measure of a labor system’s fairness, but many do.) You can craft an argument that a capped system has benefits for some MLB players, especially given that the current, outdated rule set has been exploited by teams over the last two decades.

The thing is, you can make those positive changes, such as raising the minimum salary or shortening the time to free agency, independent of a payroll cap. Those are long overdue adjustments to a rule set that is based on the arc of baseball players’ careers in the 1970s. 

The barrier to implementation of a cap system, though, isn’t sweetening the deal for the players. It’s the owners whose teams are already carrying the league. The fight over their money is the one that has to be resolved before MLB can even consider a payroll band.


Monday, July 28, 2025

Newsletter Excerpt, July 28, 2025 -- "Seeing Reds"

 

This is a preview of the Joe Sheehan Baseball Newsletter, an e-mail newsletter about all things baseball, featuring analysis and opinion about the game on and off the field from the perspective of the informed outsider.

You can subscribe to the newsletter for one year for $79.95 using your PayPal account or major credit card.

--
 
The sweep of the Rays defined the Reds’ deadline. They have to buy. They’ll get Greene back soon, making the rotation even better, and a Greene/Abbott/Lodolo/Singer playoff rotation can win multiple series. What they need -- corner bats and relievers -- are generally the easier things to find at the trade deadline. They have the org depth to make second-tier deals, and if the right players are available, to make bigger ones. Adding payroll shouldn’t be a problem because the Reds have the opportunity to make back their investments at the gate. They averaged 30,000 tickets sold their last two home weekends, and they have weekend series coming up in August with the Brewers and Cardinals -- part of a difficult August slate.

The catch is that the Reds are probably playing for one playoff spot. They’re 6 1/2 behind the Cubs and Brewers, and 4 1/2 behind the Phillies for the second wild-card slot. While it isn’t out of the question for them to chase down any or all of those teams, they’re most likely playing for the #6 seed and only the #6 seed -- which right now gets them a best-of-three at Dodger Stadium. Tough row to hoe.

That’s not enough reason to keep your powder dry, not for a team a dozen years removed from its last playoff run. The starters did their job over the weekend. The front office has to do its job now. 
 
 

Newsletter Excerpt, July 26, 2025 -- "Thinking Inside the Box"

This is a preview of the Joe Sheehan Baseball Newsletter, an e-mail newsletter about all things baseball, featuring analysis and opinion about the game on and off the field from the perspective of the informed outsider.

You can subscribe to the newsletter for one year for $59.95 using your PayPal account or major credit card.

--
 
It’s hard to keep the focus solely on the A’s as a baseball team. Their off-field nonsense has made the franchise itself a joke, and unfortunately that storyline is going to continue. When you narrow things, though, you see a team whose last two first-round picks, Kurtz and Jacob Wilson are going to combine for eight WAR this year. Their 2020 first-rounder is headed for a three-win season. Recent picks Denzel Clarke, Lawrence Butler, and Max Schuemann have played very well. The pitching is just bad, but there’s a core of controllable position players here who, in any other circumstance, would make the A’s an “it” team heading into 2026. This is not the last time I’ll be writing about Nick Kurtz.