End of the Line for Brent Rooker?

It just struck me that the universal DH could be a real goldmine for the Twins and their surplus of hitters with no real defensive home.

Brent Rooker is still young enough to evolve into a fine, productive MLB player. A 5-10 year MLB stint is quite an accomplishment for an athlete. He does not need to be an All Star to have an excellent career. The issue for Rooker is his skill set in relationship to the needs of his team. As mentioned, DH is his best position and the Twins have a half dozen players to man the DH spot right now. Rooker also hits right-handed pitchers well so he does not fit in a platoon role easily. He can play left field adequately but increasingly the better teams use better defenders across the outfield. I will add that the athleticism of professional athletes is often severely underrated and anyone who has played against an MLB athlete knows that how they look from the stands or couch is not what is a reality when one is actually playing on the same field; these guys are athletic to a different degree. Naturally, by comparison within MLB, some players are far less skilled. We don't want to compare Rooker to Buxton, but he isn't much different than Kirillof as an outfielder and is more or less the same as Larnach. So the crux of the problem for Rooker is playing time on a team that has so many similar type position players. Rooker may benefit from an opportunity on another team, especially if the NL adds the DH. He would be a valuable additional player in a larger trade with other significant players. Similarly, if others are cleared from the Twins roster, Rooker may fill the DH position decently for the Twins. I don't believe Brent Rooker will be left off of the 40 man roster. He has a future as an MLB player. My scenario sees him as a part of an offseason trade because another team also sees his value. That value is not in a one for one trade but as part of a multi-player transaction.

He's fine for what he is, and I would guess his MLB career will continue - it just shouldn't be in MN.  Too much young depth at the positions he plays in the field.  I'm sure his bat will land him someplace that is in rebuild mode.

It's so early to write a player off after less than 200 plate appearances and encouraging peripherals. Rooker has years of hitting well at the high minors and he has a near league average bat in his rookie season. Since being called up on 7/23, he's at a .221/.323/.428 triple slash good for a wRC+ 108 in 167 plate appearances and he's been a little better still in September with a .238/.319/.452 wRC+ 111 stat line with a 92.7mph exit velocity.

He's still getting beat up by people on this site over his first 7 games in April where he played sporadically.

On 9/25/2021 at 11:06 AM, LA VIkes Fan said:

It’s very hard to see Rooker as having any long term place on the Twins for all the reasons stated. He also won’t have any trade value until after the 40 man is announced for the Rule 5 draft.  Why would any team trade for him when there’s at least a decent chance that he would be protected? I think the smart move is to leave him on the 40 man roster and then try to trade him maybe as a sweetener in a package deal. If there isn’t a reasonable deal out there, he does have an option left so we can give it one more yearBut that’s probably just delaying the inevitable. All this assumes there’s room for him on the 40 man without having to expose a decent pitching prospect. It’s a choice between him and any kind of pitcher with any kind of upside, Rooker  should go.

Young player with insufficient reps in major leagues to know his true potential. Twins let him go. LaMonte Wade? Brent Rooker? Denard Span? Ben Revere? Akil Badoo? David Ortiz? Luis Gil? Ynoa? I think there’s at least a 50% chance that Rooker hits 30 HR in a major league season. But we have too many outfielders to give LaMonte Wade a chance. He would have been our 1st or 2nd best outfielder for the season. 

On 9/27/2021 at 10:58 AM, chpettit19 said:

I think having an option left is big for him. I'd bet he stays on the 40-man and is with the Twins org next year. I'm not a big fan, and don't think he'll have enough contact to be the Sano type player that appears to be his ceiling. But you don't just get rid of former 1st round picks with his minor league production for nothing. I'd take a Gil for Cave trade in reverse. Or have him as part of a package for someone closer to the majors than a Gil for Cave type flier deal. But I don't like the DFA idea and just lose him for nothing in order to save a prospect on the 40-man who likely doesn't have the minor league track record of Rooker, let alone the flashes at the major league level.

I don't know the option situations (too lazy to look it up right now) for Refsnyder or Garlick, but if they don't have options left (and I'd guess they don't, but not sure) I'd keep Rooker and his option over them. I'm a believer in Martin and think he'll be up next year at some point and he's a better Refsnyder type utility guy. Garlick plays better defense than Rooker (most of us on these forums probably play better defense than Rooker), but I'd take Rooker's bat and option over Garlick. Garlick is a AAAA player and without an option I'm definitely not risking a prospect to the Rule 5 for him. Offer Refsnyder and Garlick minor league deals and if Rooker falls apart next year DFA him and give one of them his 40-man spot then. 

I don't think Rooker is a long-term piece as I don't think he'll ever hit enough to be a pure DH and he has negative defensive value, but there aren't enough guys who need 40-man spots who have done what he has in the minors so DFAing him for one of them is saying you're expecting them to improve their performance at the major league level compared to what they did in the minors. Bold bet and I'd rather take 1 more year of Rooker with an option left before making that bet. 

According to Fangraphs, Garlick has an option, Refsnyder does not.  My guess is that Garlick and Rooker are on the 40 man next year.  2022 is not realistically a year in contention.  Therefore, players like Rooker / Gordon / Jax / Garza will probably get an extended look in 2022.  Jax might be in the pen or a stacked starter.

Yes absolutely.

On 9/27/2021 at 9:22 AM, Sconnie said:

I'm arguing this like I love Rooker. I don't, and if he were DFA'd or traded, life would move on... but it seems like there's a contingent forgetting that Rooker hasn't hit arbitration yet and still has 2 options. He's cheap and can go to AAA. As a comparison to how expensive he is:

	Rooker	Sano
2022 Salary	570k	9.25M
2023 Salary	Arb 1	14M
MiLB Options	2 (after 2021)	0
2021 fwar	-0.1	0.3
2021 OPS	0.691	0.773
k%	32.50%	34.40%
BB%	7.60%	11.20%
wRC+	91	109

Sano is better than Rooker, no doubt, but Rooker could be as good, or better than Sano in 2022 and 2023, for $8.5 million to 13 million less. Floating him on waivers to see if he passes to free up a 40 man spot, when there are 10 other players on the 40 man coming off already guarantees that in 2023 the team is spending $10-14m on DH rather than pitching. 

 

Excellent point. I didn't realize he had 2 options remaining. Still a tough call on the 40 man, but does increase his value both to the Twins and to other teams after they stash him for a year as a Rule 5 draftee. I still wouldn't keep him on the 40 man over a youngish pitcher but I would keep him over a 30+ year old reliever with no clear path to the 26 man roster like Kyle Barraclaugh, Nick Vincent and Luke Farrell. His lack of defensive ability really limits his utility - he's got to be a .850 plus OPS guy to really be usable on a contending team. Still, it wouldn't kill me to have him as the 39th or 40th man so we can give him one more try. 

8 hours ago, chpettit19 said:

Thanks for looking that up! I think you're probably right about things for those players. If they don't really plan to contend in 2022 I would hope they see Garlick as expendable if it comes down to him or a solid rule 5 prospect. 

Yeah like Celestino, Larnach and Rooker that will really bolster the line-up; good grief.

On 9/28/2021 at 8:29 PM, TheLeviathan said:

They're no Andrelton Simmons....

No their fielding ability like an old man with a bad knee.?