It takes two to tango, so further contract extensions won’t take place unless there is desire amongst the remaining players the A’s might wish to extend. And unless there is further willingness on the part
of A’s ownership to commit ‘real money’ beyond what is already committed.
This dance is an intricate one: searching for a sweet spot between an insurance policy and potential earnings, current budget and future budget, upside and risk.
Conversations are ongoing with ‘players’, most likely those players being Nick Kurtz and Jacob Wilson. Shea Langeliers, who will be 31 when he begins his next contract, is unlikely to agree to anything beyond ‘buying out his arbitration years,’ as the Scott Boras client will almost certainly want to test the free agent market before he ages any further. More remote possibilities would be to bet on unproven talent such as Luis Morales or Leo De Vries, but there isn’t really any compelling reason to hash a deal out now.
No one knows what extensions might look like for various players, how many years or how many dollars, but in terms of finding a possible ‘sweet spot’ that appears to be a win-win here are some possible figures that could be getting sent back or forth from one side or the other.
Disclaimer: I know next to nothing about contracts and should probably be banned from the internet.
Nick Kurtz
8 years, $150M? An 8 year, $150M guarantee would give Kurtz a deal slightly better than the one Roman Anthony inked last year: 8 years, $140M. Anthony is one year younger, has one more year of service time remaining (thanks to Kurtz being awarded a full season when he won Rookie of the Year), plays a more premium defensive position with so far better ratings, but lacks the incredible offensive upside Kurtz has established (171 wRC+ his rookie season, .619 slugging percentage).
An 8 year deal would extend Kurtz 3 seasons beyond his current contract, which is great for the A’s and would allow Kurtz to enter free agency still only 30, which is great for him.
$150M is a healthy insurance policy for Kurtz against injuries that could derail his career before he earns top dollar, but it’s also a bargain for the A’s if Kurtz stays healthy and productive over those 8 years.
What the $150M really becomes, in a straight-forward scenario where Kurtz stays basically healthy and becomes the star he is poised to be, is a front-loaded $18.75 AAV contract for a player who, without a deal, would be earning less than $1M the next 2 seasons, but then far more than $18.75M for 3 seasons — and then would leave.
It’s also worth noting that an extension doesn’t have to be for the same salary each season. It could be, or it could be back loaded a bit to reflect the earnings curve most young players have, e.g., $5M in the early seasons of the contract, $25M in the later ones. This would allow the A’s to pay more of it when they are, presumably, out of Sacramento and in a higher revenue stage of the game.
I don’t know if these numbers are anywhere near where the two sides are — if they are anywhere. But using it as a starting point, here are some questions to discuss:
1. Do you think Kurtz would/should accept this?
2. Do you think the A’s would/should offer this?
3. What years/$ amount do you see being the likeliest ‘sweet spot’ for the two sides?
Jacob Wilson
I love Jacob Wilson but he also comes with a bevy of red flags that would make me hesitant to tie up too much guaranteed money. They include:
1. Injury issues with not one, but both, hamstrings have already surfaced.
2. Metrics view him as a poor defensive SS.
3. Due to his own performance, the need to mitigate against hamstring injury, and the arrival of Leo De Vries, he may need to move off SS to a ‘less valuable’ position on the diamond.
4. His value is strongly tied into his ability to maintain a very high batting average/BABIP.
5. Any extension for Wilson commits dollars not committed to Kurtz.
I think there is much wisdom in taking it year to year with Wilson. He will be league minimum for 2 more seasons, then eligible for arbitration amounts that may be high but still well within the A’s ability to budget (especially since his arbitration years begin in 2028).
With his existing contract, you have the opportunity to ride it out and then let him walk after 2030 when he will be 28. Or you have a very tradeable contract, and presumably valuable asset, if you want to deal him in 2029 or 2030.
Where there could be a ‘sweet spot’ is if Wilson recognizes all the risks and is motivated to accept a lesser money deal than those of Brent Rooker, Lawrence Butler, and Tyler Soderstrom before him. Perhaps the lure of guaranteed money is greater for a player whose skill set and injury history create more risk of a flame out.
If I’m the A’s I probably don’t offer more than something like 7 years, $63M. If that seems low, Whit Merrifield signed a 4/$16.25M extension with the Royals following a very similar season statistically to Wilson’s 2025. In 2019 Merrifield batted .302/.348/.463 and accrued 3.3 fWAR. (Wilson batted .311/.355/.444, 3.5 fWAR).
There are some differences, of course, between Merrifield and Wilson. Merrifield was a 2Bman and not a SS, he had 4 seasons until free agency and not 5, and he signed a deal only through his arbitration years, not beyond. So it’s only a vague barometer, but it’s something.
The questions to discuss around Wilson, then, might be:
1. Is 7/$63M even in the ballpark of what might be discussed between the two sides?
2. If not, where would a ‘sweet spot’ number of years and dollars be?
3. Should the A’s extend Wilson at all, or should they pour all resources into Kurtz or elsewhere?
OK, your turn…
