Did the Twins Give Up on Brent Rooker Too Soon?

[Cody Christie]

Brent Rooker was a toss-in to the Taylor Rogers for Chris Paddack and Emilo Pagán trade. He’s off to a tremendous start in Oakland one year after being an All-Star. Did the Twins (and multiple other teams) give up on him too soon?

Image courtesy of Stan Szeto-USA TODAY Sports

Every MLB organization has players that the team gave up on too soon. Some players need a change of scenery to unlock their full potential. Other players must switch roles or be allowed longer to stick at the big-league level. After starting their careers with the Twins, the Twins saw Liam Hendriks and Ryan Pressly become two of the most dominant relievers of the last decade. David Ortiz is the most famous example of a former Twin who went on to have success in another uniform, but there are plenty of others who followed his path. Brent Rooker is the latest player who has reached his full potential after the Twins moved on from him. 

The Minnesota Twins drafted Rooker in the 35th overall pick of the 2017 MLB Draft from Mississippi State University. After signing, Rooker, known for his power-hitting, destroyed the lower minors with a .930 OPS and 29 extra-base hits in 62 games. Minnesota sent him to Double-A for his second season, and his offensive production resembled a bell curve with low OPS totals early/late in the year and two months in the middle, averaging over a 1.000 OPS. Injuries limited him to 65 games in 2019 at Triple-A, but he was nearly three years younger than the average age of the competition and posted a .933 OPS. He was firmly established as one of the organization’s top prospects and on the cusp of the big-league level. 

Rooker made his big-league debut in 2020, during the pandemic-shortened season. In his first seven games, he went 6-for-19 (.316 BA) with two doubles and a home run. Unfortunately, he broke his wrist on a hit by pitch, causing him to miss the remainder of the season. Rooker's performance in 2021 was a mixed bag. He showed flashes of brilliance, especially with a .931 OPS at Triple-A. However, his big-league numbers dipped, and he struggled defensively in left field. In a competitive division, the Twins needed consistent production from their outfielders, and Rooker's ups and downs didn't fit the team’s long-term plans.

Entering the 2022 season, Rooker had an opportunity to earn a roster spot during spring training, but there were multiple players ahead of him on the team’s depth chart. Instead of sending him back to Triple-A, the club included him in a questionable trade on the eve of Opening Day. Minnesota sent Rooker and Taylor Rogers to the San Diego Padres from Chris Paddack, Emilio Pagán, and Brayan Medina. Rogers struggled with the Padres and was dealt to the Brewers at the trade deadline. Paddack was quickly injured, and Pagán struggled in high-leverage situations with the Twins. The Twins released Medina in March after he failed to make it out of the rookie leagues.  

Rooker spent most of the 2022 season hitting well for the Padres’ Triple-A affiliate, but he was limited to two big-league games in San Diego. By August, they traded him to the Royals for Cam Gallagher. He played 14 games for Kansas City but struggled offensively, with a 38 OPS+ and a 7-to-3 strikeout-to-walk ratio. The Royals were rebuilding, and they didn’t have room for him on their roster for 2023. Rooker was selected off waivers by the Oakland Athletics, who gave him his first long-term look at the big-league level. 

Oakland has been near the bottom of the AL for multiple seasons, so they have room to add a player like Rooker and give him an extended opportunity. He became a first-time All-Star last year while setting career highs in multiple offensive categories. In 137 games, he hit .246/.329/.488 (.817) with 20 doubles, 30 home runs, and a 126 OPS+. His 2024 campaign is off to an even better start with a 166 OPS+, seven doubles, and ten home runs in 35 games. Rooker is well on his way to being an All-Star for the second consecutive season. 

Ultimately, the Twins decided to trade Rooker because of the organization’s other outfield and DH options. Some argue that this move was premature. After all, Rooker was just 27 years old, and many players take time to adjust to the big leagues. His power potential alone makes him an intriguing asset for any team willing to take a chance. Fans can't help but wonder what could have been if Rooker had stayed healthy and received more consistent playing time. Perhaps a full season would have allowed him to find his groove and contribute significantly. However, multiple teams besides the Twins gave up on Rooker before giving him a chance. 

Should the Twins have tried to keep Rooker in the organization? What is your evaluation of the trade that sent him to the Padres? Leave a COMMENT and start the discussion. 

 

View full article

[bean5302]

Yes. Choosing to keep Larnach over Rooker was an obvious mistake as far as I'm concerned. I've expected Rooker to be a very good valuable hitter for a long time now, but he needed an opportunity. The Twins' treatment of Rooker ruined his reputation as a prospect and it took landing with the Oakland A's for Rooker to finally get a lengthy look in the lineup. I don't think he'll keep hitting quite as well as he has this year, but I bet the Padres and Royals are wishing they gave Rooker more plate appearances and ignored Minnesota's evaluations.

I don't think it's probable Rooker will continue to improve at this point, but he could settle in at a 3.0 WAR DH or if somebody puts him back into the field, a 4.0 WAR corner outfielder with rough defense.

[Patzky]

I'm happy he's having some success in Oakland! The Twins weren't the only one to "give up" (and Pagan and Paddack have given them some value in return) but keeping that fear (glad you mentioned Little Papi) can prevent us from cutting ties when the time is finally right.. see Gallo, Joey or maybe even Larnach, Trevor.

 

Just called his name.. now I bet Gallo hits a grand slam against us at some point this series.. apologies in advance.

[DJL44]

He returned Pagan and Paddack in trade, that's not "giving up on him". There are only 40 roster spots, they can't hang onto everyone forever. I suppose they could have traded for him when Oakland got him on waivers for nothing but there are dozens of other players who went through waivers unclaimed and then improved enough to help their team win. Adolis Garcia was let go by two different teams on waivers. Is "Did the Twins make a mistake by passing up Adolis Garcia on waivers?" the article tomorrow?

[Linus]

There are plenty of mistakes made by the front office but this isn’t one of them. Due to options roster spots etc you sometimes have to decide on guys before you would like to. Combine that with the fact that some guys just don’t become effective players until they are older and this situation will come up. We may well be in the same boat with Larnach and Kiriloff soon. My biggest criticism of this situation is the drafting philosophy behind selecting Rooker. He like Wallner Sabato etc are one trick ponies that offer no defensive value or speed and athleticism. It shows in the big club today: below average defense and no speed or ability to create runs other than the long ball. 

[2wins87]

30 minutes ago, bean5302 said:

Yes. Choosing to keep Larnach over Rooker was an obvious mistake as far as I'm concerned. I've expected Rooker to be a very good valuable hitter for a long time now, but he needed an opportunity. The Twins' treatment of Rooker ruined his reputation as a prospect and it took landing with the Oakland A's for Rooker to finally get a lengthy look in the lineup. I don't think he'll keep hitting quite as well as he has this year, but I bet the Padres and Royals are wishing they gave Rooker more plate appearances and ignored Minnesota's evaluations.

I don't think it's probable Rooker will continue to improve at this point, but he could settle in at a 3.0 WAR DH or if somebody puts him back into the field, a 4.0 WAR corner outfielder with rough defense.

In general, giving up on a 24-year-old high-K slugger in favor of keeping your 27-year-old struggling, defensively challenged, high-K slugger with dwindling options would be terrible process.

Of course the Twins knew Rooker still had potential.  The Padres and Royals did too.  Give Oakland credit, I'm sure there was some good coaching and adjustments that contributed to his success, but this is not some sort of egregious evaluation mistake.  This is a player finally putting it together a few years after their prospect status faded, after working with who knows how many coaches over that time. Happens quite a lot in baseball, for some guys, but not for everyone.  Happened in a good way for the Twins with Castro.  There is no team that knows how to figure out when it will happen a year or two down the line or when it won't happen at all.

Also, I can believe Rooker could be a 3 WAR DH but cannot believe he would be more than a 2 WAR outfielder with the same batting line.  He was not just a rough outfielder but legitimately among the worst outfielders I've watched on a regular basis in the majors.

[nicksaviking]

I liked Brent Rooker and his pre-draft articles and scouting reports suggested that he had the make-up to adjust his game to fix his shortcomings.

Still, the Twins had and still have too many high strikeout guys in the system. There would have been no room for Julien, Wallner, Buxton and Rooker in the same lineup to open the season. Those 30%+ K rates would have devastated the lineup, even if they all put up .800+ OPS's. As much as we complained about Santana and Margot, those low K% acquisitions clearly showed the team did realize this was an issue. Obviously Wallner and Buxton to a degree have taken themselves out of the equation, but had the Twins not traded Rooker three years ago, they almost certainly would have traded him no later than this past off season.

Now they may have gotten a better return for him had they held on to him longer, but the only way I could see him still on the roster is if they for some reason decided to keep him over the younger and cheaper Matt Wallner, who was better than Rooker last year. And that's not even taking into consideration the other internal corner bat options. I just don't see a reasonable scenario where he'd still be on the team now.

[DJL44]

19 minutes ago, Linus said:

My biggest criticism of this situation is the drafting philosophy behind selecting Rooker. 

Are you saying Brent Rooker wasn't worth drafting? That's a hot take considering his success the past two seasons.

[gunnarthor]

There was some mistakes and some bad luck.

First, Rooker was old when we drafted him and I think we should have pushed him faster through the system. He didn't exactly light up AA as a 23 year old but he wasn't horrible either (.798 OPS against league avg .700 OPS) and he seemed to turn the corner in June. I think they should have pushed him to AAA that year.

But, the pandemic really screwed him. He put up good numbers at AAA as a 24 year old in 2019 but only got those few games in 2020 and then got hurt. By 2022, he was a 27 year old who the team still didn't know what they had and was in a position with other (not super young) prospects behind him. And the 2021 Twins sucked so there was a sense of moving on and Larnich and Wallner were coming. So it made sense to trade him to make some room. But it ended up not working out. It happens. Good luck to Rooker from here on out. 

[GeorgiaBaller]

He had a good runway to prove himself.  Maybe he wasn’t mentally tough enough until he was traded and saw things slipping away.  
I would be glad to get the same return for Kirriloff, Larnach, Austin Martin, (fill in several other failed to stick prospects) right now.  Very sad this team cannot deliver support from their own farm system to even fill corner outfield spots with significant contributors other than Castro.

[DJL44]

6 minutes ago, gunnarthor said:

But it ended up not working out. It happens. Good luck to Rooker from here on out. 

Would you trade Paddack for Rooker right now? I'm not sure I would.

[Patzky]

34 minutes ago, DJL44 said:

Are you saying Brent Rooker wasn't worth drafting? That's a hot take considering his success the past two seasons.

I don't think that's what the OP is saying. Someone can be worth drafting but not a good fit with your existing philosophy or roster. The guy has some talent. Rooker would be another bat like the ones we have plenty of already, along with defensive liability. 

[roger]

20-20 hindsight is always pretty darn good.

Liked Rooker when he was here, including all the warts.  Seems the Twins have needed a big right handed bat forever.  Now I don't know how he hits lefties, assuming he does he would fit nicely in their current lineup.  

But at the time, I didn't dislike the trade.  Have always felt that Paddack could be a very good starting pitcher and we are now seeing that to be true.  As far as guys traded away who are doing very well, there are lots of them.  Check the box scores every morning and see that Rortvedt has been playing about half the games for Tampa and was hitting over .300 until a couple days ago.  I recall his D was very good, so that's one I was very sad to see go.  After a much injured season in New York, Ben has become the player many of us thought he would be.

As this is an article that really is about judging the Front Office's trading acumen, my concerns are more related to their inability to understand the risk related to bringing in injured pitchers.  Seems it began with that reliever from the Giants at the trade deadline a few years ago and continued with Mahle, Maeda, Paddack and the recent Polanco trade.  Their inability to stay away from damaged goods seems to me to be an organizational problem that needs fixing.  Am of the opinion that they would have been better off holding out for a good prospect starting pitcher who was close in the Polo trade rather than four guys who may never play an inning for the Twins.

[jjswol]

There are players all over MLB that failed with their first team and succeeded with a second, third or fourth team. That is baseball, there is just not enough spots to keep everyone. Plus, this helps keeps teams competitive and gives playes big league jobs.

[Linus]

1 hour ago, DJL44 said:

Are you saying Brent Rooker wasn't worth drafting? That's a hot take considering his success the past two seasons.

No I’m saying I don’t agree with drafting one dimensional players as often as the Twins do. 

[Jocko87]

Quote

Every MLB fan base keeps a list of players on whom the team gave up too soon.

But here's the thing, they don't.  It's always bad framing to assume others feel the same way you do.

This crazy obsession with the one that got away is unique to only a few teams, mostly teams that had a long stretch of a front office that felt the only way to operate was a cradle to grave prospect system.  It's not necessarily Twins fans fault, but we are 8 years into a completely different way to operate. 

Go to the roster resource on Fangraphs and count the holdovers vs. the dearly departed.  All I'm saying, is stay ready to keep writing these articles.  There will be a lot of them available in the coming years.

As for Rooker, he would have been a great fit as a RH outfield option and maybe that's where I could see wanting him back but I don't think we would have gotten here in time.  He didn't really get it until he was 28 and its hard to wait that long.  I would like the front office to balance the LH/RH outfield bat ratio a bit, Gabi Gonzalez is a nice step in that direction. 

[Jocko87]

13 minutes ago, Bigfork Twins Guy said:

For those of you who say Paddock and Pagan were great acquisitions for Rooker, please recall that Taylor Rogers was the key to that trade and Rooker was kind of the throw in.

It does seem that the Twins mostly draft college hitters like Rooker who then are 27 by the time they make it to the majors and seem to be on the doorstep of not having options left and being past prospect status.  I wonder if they should take more HS players who they could nurture into MLB players at an earlier age.  Not sure if that has an impact on what age they mature but I'm curious if it has an effect.

I think part of their attraction to college players, pitchers especially, is that they hopefully hit their peaks during arbitration years and its not as big a loss if they lose them to free agency at 31-32.  Best years cheapest.

If a high schooler gets to the league fairly quickly, they also get really expensive quickly.  There will be exceptions they will pay for, hopefully a Jenkins, but in general its pretty good practice for keeping a payroll manageable.

[4twinsJA]

Trade Paddack/Pagan for Rooker/Rogers looking good for Twins at this time. Decision was also based on roster management, only so many spots on 40 man roster. Rooker's wrist fx seemed to really set him back, took 2-3 years to get back to pre-injury level, Twins could not hold roster spot that long.

[bean5302]

2 hours ago, 2wins87 said:

In general, giving up on a 24-year-old high-K slugger in favor of keeping your 27-year-old struggling, defensively challenged, high-K slugger with dwindling options would be terrible process.

Of course the Twins knew Rooker still had potential.  The Padres and Royals did too.  Give Oakland credit, I'm sure there was some good coaching and adjustments that contributed to his success, but this is not some sort of egregious evaluation mistake.  This is a player finally putting it together a few years after their prospect status faded, after working with who knows how many coaches over that time. Happens quite a lot in baseball, for some guys, but not for everyone.  Happened in a good way for the Twins with Castro.  There is no team that knows how to figure out when it will happen a year or two down the line or when it won't happen at all.

Also, I can believe Rooker could be a 3 WAR DH but cannot believe he would be more than a 2 WAR outfielder with the same batting line.  He was not just a rough outfielder but legitimately among the worst outfielders I've watched on a regular basis in the majors.

You seem to be stretching your arguments.
First, Larnach's K rate was very similar to Rooker, but Larnach does not have a lot of game power.
Second, Larnach and Rooker are pretty similar in the field in terms of results.
Third, there's a 2 year age gap (1 year draft) difference between the two, it's not 3 years.
Finally, Rooker's ability to punish both breaking balls and fastballs and hit for power made him significantly less risky than Larnach.

The Twins tossed in Rooker to complete the Padres trade... and the Padres cut bait on Rooker after 7 plate appearances (and his AAA .990 OPS) to acquire a 29 year old emergency depth backup catcher on release waivers from the Royals in Cam Gallagher. The Padres then DFA'd Gallagher, who didn't play a single game for the Padres, a month later. Yeah... that's a lot of "potential" recognition what with the DFAs. Rooker's reputation was stained by the Twins who poorly evaluated him.

Rooker's defense is not -30 UZR/150 in the field so I'm thinking you just don't understand positional value adjustment. Also, I suspect you never watched Rooker on a regular basis in the outfield because he never played on a regular basis for the Twins. Rooker had the equivalent of 2 months of consistent outfield play for Minnesota in his career. He did look a lot like Wallner out there in terms of instincts, though. I'd expect Rooker to settle in at -10 runs-ish per full season in the corners. Positional adjustment to corner outfield is +20 runs. 

[DocBauer]

No.

I liked Rooker as a draft choice. Big and strong and HR power and a solid arm, he was listed as a pretty good athlete when drafted who wasn't close to being polished defensively at OF or 1B at the time. You hoped some hard work would smooth out the defense, and keep the bat as average without losing the power. He flashed a little bit but couldn't sustain. At some point, you have to make decisions on the 40 man. At some point, you end up making a trade or two here and there and move someone in yours system.

I'm happy for Rooker. You got an opportunity and he took it. The fact he didn't work out for the Twins and a couple other franchises tells me he wasn't ready to become a consistent, productive ML producer until 2023. So, I guess, based on the question posed, 3 teams should have hung on to him longer, yes?  I just don't know how you look in to a crystal ball and always get these decisions right.

Remember when uber closer Liam Hendricks was a Twin starting pitcher who washed out? Should they have given him a shot in the pen first before letting him go? Absolutely. But he virtually disappeared for 2 years, then had a quartet of solid middle reliever seasons before suddenly becoming an elite closer for his 4th ML team 6 years after leaving the Twins. 

There will always be some losses you regret, and there will be some guys you acquire/pick up that turn out really nice for you. What you try to do is have more wins than loses at the end of the day. I wish we had Rooker at this time. But I'd rather have Paddack over him at the moment, and they were each part of a trade package made at the time. So I just have a hard time saying the Twins gave up too soon on Rooker.

[Doctor Gast]

1 hour ago, roger said:

20-20 hindsight is always pretty darn good.

Liked Rooker when he was here, including all the warts.  Seems the Twins have needed a big right handed bat forever.  Now I don't know how he hits lefties, assuming he does he would fit nicely in their current lineup.  

But at the time, I didn't dislike the trade.  Have always felt that Paddack could be a very good starting pitcher and we are now seeing that to be true.  As far as guys traded away who are doing very well, there are lots of them.  Check the box scores every morning and see that Rortvedt has been playing about half the games for Tampa and was hitting over .300 until a couple days ago.  I recall his D was very good, so that's one I was very sad to see go.  After a much injured season in New York, Ben has become the player many of us thought he would be.

As this is an article that really is about judging the Front Office's trading acumen, my concerns are more related to their inability to understand the risk related to bringing in injured pitchers.  Seems it began with that reliever from the Giants at the trade deadline a few years ago and continued with Mahle, Maeda, Paddack and the recent Polanco trade.  Their inability to stay away from damaged goods seems to me to be an organizational problem that needs fixing.  Am of the opinion that they would have been better off holding out for a good prospect starting pitcher who was close in the Polo trade rather than four guys who may never play an inning for the Twins.

I disliked the trade not because of Rooker, I actually liked that aspect of the trade because there was a huge glut of big bat/no-glove types that this FO targeted. But it was because of letting Rogers go (I'd prefer signing Rogers to an extension). We had a shaky BP even with Rogers & w/o him having Pagan & Duffy as designated closers would be disastrous. Paddack was damaged goods (if they had their hearts on Paddack all they needed was to wait a short time when he'd blow out his arm & have SD pay us for taking him) but because they didn't wait we got almost 2 wasted years from Paddack & a nightmare year from Pagan. I also question this FO quirk of signing damaged goods.

Trading Rooker made total sense for both the team & Rooker. He wouldn't have gotten the time needed to prove himself if he stayed here. OAK had the luxury of being more patient with him & I'm glad they did.

[Linus]

1 hour ago, Jocko87 said:

I think part of their attraction to college players, pitchers especially, is that they hopefully hit their peaks during arbitration years and its not as big a loss if they lose them to free agency at 31-32.  Best years cheapest.

If a high schooler gets to the league fairly quickly, they also get really expensive quickly.  There will be exceptions they will pay for, hopefully a Jenkins, but in general its pretty good practice for keeping a payroll manageable.

I think this is true and also there is much less uncertainty scouting college players. They are older and playing against better players. They also have analytics available for college players while high schoolers are going to have to be scouted the old fashioned way. 

[DJL44]

2 minutes ago, DocBauer said:

So, I guess, based on the question posed, 3 teams should have hung on to him longer, yes?  I just don't know how you look in to a crystal ball and always get these decisions right.

Especially when hanging onto these players for multiple years means losing baseball games waiting for them to figure it out (if they ever do). There is only so much room on the roster for players who might be good in the future. At some point (and age 27 is usually a pretty good indicator) you have to go with the players who are performing right now.

[2wins87]

18 minutes ago, bean5302 said:

Rooker's defense is not -30 UZR/150 in the field so I'm thinking you just don't understand positional value adjustment. Also, I suspect you never watched Rooker on a regular basis in the outfield because he never played on a regular basis for the Twins. Rooker had the equivalent of 2 months of consistent outfield play for Minnesota in his career. He did look a lot like Wallner out there in terms of instincts, though. I'd expect Rooker to settle in at -10 runs-ish per full season in the corners. Positional adjustment to corner outfield is +20 runs. 

Fangraph's positional adjustments for DH vs COF are -17.5 vs -7.5 runs per 1450 innings.  Baseball reference uses -15 vs -7 per 1350 innings.  So for a full season the difference in positional adjustments between DH and COF is only 8-10 runs, not 20.

Rooker has played 904 innings in LF/RF in his career.  He has put up -16 DRS, -7.4 UZR, and -14 OAA.  Let's call it -12 defensive runs.  That's around -18 runs prorated to 1350 innings and about -19 prorated to 1450 innings. 

So add 8-10 for the difference in positional value between DH and COF and he's still been around 10 runs worse playing the outfield vs DHing.  That's about -1 win.

[chpettit19]

53 minutes ago, bean5302 said:

Rooker's reputation was stained by the Twins who poorly evaluated him.

 

This is a stretch of an argument. The Padres and Royals cut Rooker because the Twins were willing to trade him? They don't have their own coaches and scouts that can say "the Twins were wrong on this guy?" 

[bean5302]

22 minutes ago, chpettit19 said:

This is a stretch of an argument. The Padres and Royals cut Rooker because the Twins were willing to trade him? They don't have their own coaches and scouts that can say "the Twins were wrong on this guy?" 

It had to do with how the Twins handled Rooker. Not the fact the Twins were willing to toss him in with a free bucket of baseballs to clear a spot on the 40 man for Pagan.

[wabene]

The part that made it hard for me at the time was just because he was right handed and the organization had and continues to have a dearth of righty bats. Plus he did look real good until he broke the wrist. I'm guessing it took time to get that right. 

Right handers hit same sided pitchers better than left handers do. So now we have many mediocre short siders to cover for all our lefty bats that the org doesn't trust against left handers.

[Mike Sixel]

I thought this had to be an Onion article, but nope, somehow it's real. Wow. 

[chpettit19]

15 minutes ago, bean5302 said:

It had to do with how the Twins handled Rooker. Not the fact the Twins were willing to toss him in with a free bucket of baseballs to clear a spot on the 40 man for Pagan.

Yeah, the Padres, and Royals, had scouts that watched him in AAA and in the majors and in college and everywhere in between. Him being cut loose by other teams has nothing to do with how the Twins handled him. Their coaches and FO didn't think he was good enough.

[Danchat]

I have a hard time blaming the Twins for giving up on Rooker, he was already 27 and proved them right by spending most of that year in AAA and doing nothing for the Royals. It's better to save those roster spots and plate appearances for younger hitters, and you can't count on these guys being late bloomers. Kudos to Rooker and the A's, but I put none of this on the Twins. It's a less ridiculous version of blaming the Twins for not unlocking Liam Hendriks.

It is unfortunate the the Twins strategy of spending 1st rounders on sluggers and didn't get the main return on Rooker, Larnach has been all over the place, Wallner is back into limbo after a great 2023, and Sabato is unlikely to be a major league player.