For a team not known for miserly ways, the Brent Rooker extension ($60M guaranteed over the next 5 years) would be an easy call. $12M/year is not going to prevent most teams from spending the way they want or need, and it’s a bargain for a hitter of Rooker’s 2023-24 acumen.
And perhaps the A’s are becoming one of those teams, a club that will spend over $100M even if only by force. But they are still a long ways away from being able to spend with reckless abandon — that is they are still a team for which $12M matters.
So was this the best use of a $12M/year commitment through 2029? While the answer is most probably yes, let’s start with the reasons it’s not a surefire bonanza of a decision. And then we’ll go on to celebrate all the reasons it could be a wise and welcome move.
Either/Or
The reality of payroll is that every dollar given to one player is a dollar not available to give to another. Payroll is finite, especially for teams like the A’s. Nowhere was this slammed in front of A’s fans’ eyes as with the refusal even to offer Marcus Semien a qualifying offer — of an amount almost identical to what the A’s were paying a severely diminished Khris Davis on a contract extension that felt so good at the time.
So there is always the possibility that if the Rooker deal goes south for any reason, it will impact the A’s ability to land, keep, or secure another player of import.
The Khris Davis Risk
Speaking of the man we called “Khrush,” whether it’s the yips or an actual injury (and with Khris Davis it seemed like it might be both), circumstances can turn a good-looking extension into a disaster in the blink of an eye.
Khrush took his nickname too seriously one day in Pittsburgh, crushing his body against the LF retaining wall. He was never the same after, though he still was a shell of his former self even after his body should have fully recovered. Whether the issue was physical, mental, or both the reality is that the extension that felt so good at the time wound up being a liability.
Rooker already battled an injury in 2024, though it did not affect his hitting. However reports are that a right shoulder issue prevented him from playing LF. Had it been the left shoulder it would have affected his hitting — and who knows what future injuries are in store for a player who has entered his 30s.
The Chris Davis Risk
Maybe it’s the name. Chris Davis is one of many examples of how quickly a player can simply “fall off a cliff” as a hitter. The hitters most prone seem to be power hitters with high K rates who suddenly see their HRs morph into whiffs.
Davis was an extreme example. A 7 WAR player in 2013 with a .286/.370/.634 slash line and 53 HRs, great again in 2015 (.262/.361/.562, 5.4 WAR), the Orioles were only too happy to lock in his greatness with a 7 year/$161M extension in January, 2016.
Oops. His WAR each of the following seasons? 1.6, -0.4, -2.5, -1.2, -0.8. And then he retired, having batted under .200 the past 3 seasons with OBPs of .276 or lower.
Rooker is unlikely to experience that kind of dramatic plunge, but he is the type of hitter who cannot afford to mash a little less and whiff a little more — he has already K’d 30% of the time over his excellent last 2 seasons and doesn’t have much margin for error on that front.
Limited Skill Set
The skill Rooker has — hitting — is elite and is why the contract most likely will turn out to be a bargain. But it’s worth noting that there are not other skills to lean on if Rooker’s ability to mash should decline.
Zack Gelof is a good counter-example, as even while struggling mightily at the plate and whiffing 34.4% of the time, because of his speed (25 SB in 28 attempts) and defense Gelof was still able to provide some value (1.4 WAR).
Rooker is not a good defensive player, has no speed, does not offer “bunt/hit-and-run” contact skills — he is a great “masher” and “RBI guy” (kudos to him for adding the skill of poking hits through the right side hole to his profile). If that declines, most of his value goes with it.
So for all those reasons, even a modest extension of a $12M, 5 year commitment has potential to backfire. Luckily, odds are in the A’s favor that it will be a steal.
It’s Still A Good Risk
Rooker only just turned 30 on 11/1/24 and will not turn 35 until after this contract expires. He does not have the profile of an eccentric head case (Khris) or an “always just swing for the fences” approach (Chris). He is in good physical shape overall.
Additionally, the extension comes at a time when $12M constitutes only 11.4% of projected payroll and when payroll might be continuing to climb, rather than fall — not only are the A’s under pressure from MLBPA right now but historically they have always spent more during competitive windows than during rebuilding years and all indications are that they intend to compete in their initial Sacramento seasons.
So it’s not that high risk an extension and it locks in a player who has, at least for the past 2 seasons, been one of the league’s best hitters. Keep him away from Pennsylvania walls and we might be lauding this extension for years to come. Your thoughts?
