Revisiting Brent Rooker’s Twins Departure: A Tale of Opportunity and Development

[Cody Christie]

In recent seasons, Brent Rooker has been one of the AL’s most feared sluggers. Why didn’t he get a more extended look with the Twins? The answer is complicated.

Image courtesy of Stan Szeto-USA TODAY Sports

In April 2022, Opening Day for most MLB teams, the Minnesota Twins made a significant trade, sending All-Star closer Taylor Rogers and outfielder Brent Rooker to the San Diego Padres in exchange for Chris Paddack, Emilio Pagán, and a player to be named later (Brayan Medina). While the deal was primarily framed around the acquisition of Paddack’s addition to the starting rotation and Pagán’s ability to slot into the bullpen, Rooker’s inclusion in the trade barely made headlines.

Fast-forward to 2024, and Rooker just finished a season where he landed in the Top 10 of MVP voting, thanks to his breakout performance with the Oakland Athletics. For the Twins, his departure raises questions: Why did Rooker never find success in Minnesota, and what changed to allow him to flourish elsewhere?

A Limited Opportunity in Minnesota
Drafted 35th overall in 2016, Brent Rooker was always projected as a bat-first prospect with power to spare. His minor league numbers supported this profile as he slugged his way through the system. Baseball America ranked him among their top 100 prospects leading into 2018. Then in 2019, he destroyed Triple-A by hitting .281/.398/.535 (.933) with 16 doubles and 14 home runs in 65 games. However, breaking into the big-league lineup proved difficult.

The Twins’ roster construction played a significant role in this. From 2019 to 2021, Nelson Cruz dominated the DH role, leaving Rooker limited to corner outfield opportunities, where his defensive limitations were apparent. Minnesota also boasted a deep lineup during those years, featuring sluggers like Miguel Sanó, Eddie Rosario, and Max Kepler, further complicating Rooker’s path to regular playing time.

When Rooker did get chances in Minnesota, he struggled to gain traction. In 65 games across parts of two seasons, he posted a 96 OPS+ and struck out in over 32% of his plate appearances. While he showed flashes of his power potential, the strikeouts and a lack of defensive versatility likely pushed the Twins’ front office to view him as expendable. To be fair, other teams also came to view him this way.

A Journey of Change
Following the trade to San Diego, Rooker’s nomadic journey continued. The Padres sent him to Kansas City during the 2022 season, where he received minimal playing time before being designated for assignment. The Oakland Athletics selected him off waivers in November 2022, giving him a fresh start with a rebuilding club, and that’s where things began to click.

With the A’s, Rooker finally got consistent at-bats, which allowed him to refine his approach at the plate. He reduced his strikeout rate (28.8% in 2024), improved his ability to hit breaking pitches (.540 SLG in 2024), and became one of the league’s premier sluggers. His 2024 season saw him mash 39 home runs while posting a 166 OPS+, numbers that earned him MVP votes despite playing on a below .500 team. He had the AL’s eighth-highest WAR total among position players while not providing any defensive value. 

So, why did it take so long for Rooker to unlock his potential? The answer lies in a mix of opportunity, adjustments, and time.

1. Consistent Playing Time: Oakland’s lack of offensive depth gave Rooker an everyday role, something he never had in Minnesota. This consistent exposure allowed him to make adjustments and build confidence against big-league pitching. 
2. A Refined Approach: Reports from Oakland suggested that Rooker worked tirelessly to shorten his swing and focus on making contact earlier in counts. This evolution helped him reduce strikeouts while still tapping into his raw power.
3. Defensive Flexibility Irrelevant: The A’s used Rooker almost exclusively as a DH, allowing him to focus entirely on his offensive game. While Minnesota might not have had room for another bat-only player during the Cruz era, Rooker thrived in the role when given the chance.

The Twins’ Perspective
Looking back, Rooker’s inclusion in the Paddack-Rogers trade feels like a misstep, but it’s essential to consider the context. At the time, Rooker was viewed as a fringe roster piece with limited upside. The Twins had a crowded outfield, and the DH spot was locked up. Trading him allowed the team to address areas of greater need.

Still, his late-career breakout highlights the importance of opportunity and fit. The Twins’ inability to unlock Rooker’s potential is reminiscent of other cases, with David Ortiz’s departure to Boston being the most infamous example. For Minnesota, it’s a reminder that development isn’t always linear and that patience can sometimes pay off in unexpected ways.

Rooker’s journey from trade throw-in to down-ballot MVP candidate is a testament to perseverance and finding the right situation. While the Twins likely regret letting him go for so little, his success also serves as a fascinating “what if” scenario. What could he have accomplished in Minnesota with the right opportunity? Ultimately, it’s a lesson for all teams: Sometimes, all a player needs is a chance.

Should the Twins have hung on to Rooker? Leave a COMMENT and start the discussion. 

View full article

[DJL44]

Where is the article about how the Twins messed up when they let Adolis Garcia pass through waivers? I'm expecting 5000 words.

[Doctor Gast]

I wasn't in favor of the trade but it wasn't because of Rooker, It was because the organization was full of big bats, and poor gloves. & the BP desperately needed Rogers. Rooker left the Twins' approach to a more favorable one. Sano didn't adjust, fortunately, Rooker did.

Also a lot should be said of having patience & opportunity. A lesson any team should learn.

[tony&rodney]

Satchel Paige, "Don't look back ...."

There are people who may need this article to explain the story because they are unfamiliar with Brent Rooker and his time as a Twin. So good post for that reason alone.

For those who are familiar with this tale, let bygones be bygones.

[RpR]

10 minutes ago, Doctor Gast said:

I wasn't in favor of the trade but it wasn't because of Rooker, It was because the organization was full of big bats, and poor gloves. & the BP desperately needed Rogers. Rooker left the Twins' approach to a more favorable one. Sano didn't adjust, fortunately, Rooker did.

Also a lot should be said of having patience & opportunity. A lesson any team should learn.

Rooker had a hole in his glove.

He was sent off to find his spot and he did, not a loss on either side.

[bean5302]

Rooker's first 10 games with the Athletics = .333/.395/.727 OPS 1.122 wRC+ 201. He wasn't making adjustments to his swing while in Oakland that let him become good. He was just getting the luck to swing the opposite way from unlucky to overlucky, if you will. He's never talked about changing his swing. He's talked about getting his timing right and the confidence to lay off bad pitches.

Rooker didn't turn into a different hitter, the Twins failed to recognize him as an MLB-worthy player or give him the opportunity. Once labeled as a MiLB depth guy (like Larnach was before this year started), the chances for Rooker to get playing time or move up the depth chart was limited. He'd been written off.

Simply put, the Twins thought Larnach and Kirilloff were substantially better than Rooker so Rooker was expendible.

[dxpavelka]

1 hour ago, bean5302 said:

Simply put, the Twins thought Larnach and Kirilloff were substantially better than Rooker so Rooker was expendible.

Same reason they parted with Eddie Rosario.  They gambled and lost.  It happens. 

[dxpavelka]

These types of articles are much better if one can pull up the article where anyone took a stance that the team made a poor decision at the time of the trade.  Nobody did.

 

[Rod Carews Birthday]

6 minutes ago, dxpavelka said:

These types of articles are much better if one can pull up the article where anyone took a stance that the team made a poor decision at the time of the trade.  Nobody did.

 

Agreed.  The reality is that nobody out there really saw this as a possibility until it happened - probably not even his Mom.  I think he was really a guy without a home that was only going to get a chance on a really terrible team.  Other teams passed on him after the Twins put him in as a throw in on the trade. 

Good for Rooker!  He really showed everybody (and I mean pretty much everybody!).  I hope he has a great career and I don't really feel that bad about the situation. 

[Rod Carews Birthday]

2 hours ago, bean5302 said:

Simply put, the Twins thought Larnach and Kirilloff were substantially better than Rooker so Rooker was expendible.

This is quite true, and I think you would be hard-pressed to find anyone that disagreed with that assessment.  Sometimes crazy things happen, and this is a great example of it. 

[Major League Ready]

15 minutes ago, dxpavelka said:

Same reason they parted with Eddie Rosario.  They gambled and lost.  It happens. 

Rosario's produced a cumulative fWAR of -1 in 4 seasons.  How is that a loss?  

[Riverbrian]

2 hours ago, DJL44 said:

Where is the article about how the Twins messed up when they let Adolis Garcia pass through waivers? I'm expecting 5000 words.

I wouldn't read that article. 

I would read the one about Adolis and the Cardinals. 

5000 words is a lot though.  

[Riverbrian]

16 minutes ago, Rod Carews Birthday said:

This is quite true, and I think you would be hard-pressed to find anyone that disagreed with that assessment.  Sometimes crazy things happen, and this is a great example of it. 

Twinsdaily posters can agree, complain, be excited or be apathetic all we want. If none of us saw this coming... it's easily explainable because it's not our eyeballs attached to the authority to make things happen. 

I just don't see how there is any argument here. The Twins let Rooker go and they kept Garlick, they kept Celestino. That's a Canyon. 

Twinsdaily not seeing it isn't an issue. Those who are paid to watch and decide not seeing it... is kind of an issue. 😉

 

 

[Rod Carews Birthday]

9 minutes ago, Riverbrian said:

 

Twinsdaily not seeing it isn't an issue. Those who are paid to watch and decide not seeing it... is kind of an issue. 😉

 

 

Maybe, but they have plenty of company among other teams on this one.  In fact,  I'm not sure even Rooker's Mom saw this coming so I think I'm not willing to get my dander up about it. 

[mikelink45]

I appreciate the article.  I was one who thought we never gave him enough opportunity.  I always love it when a former prospect makes it big with another team, another opportunity.  But it also points out that our minor league development might not be the best.

Now I am rooting for Steer and Encarnacion-strand to blossom like Rooker and Gil  

[Riverbrian]

1 minute ago, Rod Carews Birthday said:

Maybe, but they have plenty of company among other teams on this one.  In fact,  I'm not sure even Rooker's Mom saw this coming so I think I'm not willing to get my dander up about it. 

Agreed. All teams miss. 

My dander isn't up about them missing. I actually don't know what dander is but I know that all teams miss. 

They missed... it's clear... it can't be argued.

They chose a couple of players who are out of baseball this year over a player who was one of the best hitters in baseball last year. 

My war against specialists clogging up rosters continues on. 

 

 

 

[bean5302]

1 hour ago, Rod Carews Birthday said:

Agreed.  The reality is that nobody out there really saw this as a possibility until it happened - probably not even his Mom.  I think he was really a guy without a home that was only going to get a chance on a really terrible team.  Other teams passed on him after the Twins put him in as a throw in on the trade. 

Good for Rooker!  He really showed everybody (and I mean pretty much everybody!).  I hope he has a great career and I don't really feel that bad about the situation. 

I did. At least on the order of a wRC+ 120-130 hitter. Not a wRC+ 165 hitter. I doubt MLB franchises turn to TD for player scouting.
 

 

[bean5302]

2 hours ago, Rod Carews Birthday said:

This is quite true, and I think you would be hard-pressed to find anyone that disagreed with that assessment.  Sometimes crazy things happen, and this is a great example of it. 

I never thought much of Larnach or Kirilloff.

[old nurse]

2 hours ago, dxpavelka said:

Same reason they parted with Eddie Rosario.  They gambled and lost.  It happens. 

A player in the regular season that has not had an OPS+ over 90 since he left the Twins is a loss? He did have a great 6 game stretch against the Dodger 

[Fire Dan Gladden]

Sometimes when I comment here, I feel like a broken record...

MLB is littered with players that had to bounce around before they saw success.  Some need a new environment, some need the right advice at the right time, some need to be moved to a terrible team where your liabilities are not an issue to allow you to work on your game at the MLB level.

Now I want to see woulda/shoulda/coulda articles about:
Lamont Wade
Liam Hendricks
Ian Hamilton


 

[DocBauer]

Three things always frustrated me about Rooker, and I was higher on him than some.

1] He looked good in his SSS debut and then got hurt, which might have helped spoil his prospect momentum.

2] He was always referred to as a good overall athlete with a good arm that could develop in to at least a decent OF. There was also the "fallback" of becoming an adequate 1B. But for whatever reason, the defense never got good anywhere. 

3] It did feel like he never got a lot of opportunity past his debut in 2020. But he didn't exactly set the league on fire in 2021 either, when given his next shot, and the Twins did have DH and the corner OF spots pretty much set at the time. He really needed to show improvement that he simply didn't. 

A couple decades earlier, the Twins got Shane Mack as a rule 5 player who had never lived up to his ability and he had a wonderful stretch as a Twin. Just recently the Twins grabbed Castro as an underperformer who turned his career around. Two different teams...and the league in general...dismissed Rooker until he got a shot with the A's. Sometimes guys just figure it out late, need a wakeup call, or just require a change of scenery to blossom as players. 

IIRC, Rooker had a great start with Oakland, then tapered off dramatically that first season. I think he rebounded later in the year? No question he had a tremendous 2024. For his sake, I hope he does it again.

I just can't fault the Twins for not looking down the road 2 or 3 years to speculate him turning in to a good ballplayer/bat. They made a move at the time that included keeping others instead of him. Sometimes you guess wrong a few years later.

BUT, I do think Rooker's blossoming...and Castro for that matter...could/should be a reminder to our FO to look a little more closely at home once in a while at what's on hand. When you do have a someone, or a couple someones, who are blossoming late, don't be too quick to dismiss them as possible helpful additions to your team. 

But no ill will towards Rooker, and no blasting the FO for not guessing Rooker might turn in to something good 2 or 3 years down the road and missing out. Nobody else saw it happening either.

Good for Rooker!

[RpR]

4 hours ago, Riverbrian said:

I just don't see how there is any argument here. The Twins let Rooker go and they kept Garlick, they kept Celestino.

In 2021 when Rooker and Garlick were both on the team and played; Garlick had an OPS of .745, Rooker had an OPS of .688.

In Left field; Rooker had massive hole in his glove, Garlick had no hole at all.

So, bye, bye Rooker.

[frightwig]

4 hours ago, Rod Carews Birthday said:

Maybe, but they have plenty of company among other teams on this one.  In fact,  I'm not sure even Rooker's Mom saw this coming so I think I'm not willing to get my dander up about it. 

Rooker had a .931 OPS with St. Paul in 2021, Nelson Cruz's last season with the Twins, after posting a .933 OPS at AAA in 2019 (of course 2020 was basically a lost season). They could've given him a shot at DH/OF/1B in 2022, when Sano flopped, and they cycled through a group of fringe players and kids who weren't ready that included Nick Gordon, Jose Miranda, Alex Kirilloff, Trevor Larnach, Jake Cave, Matt Wallner, and Kyle Garlick. Meanwhile, Rooker didn't get much of a chance in SD or KC, either, but he did post a 1.044 OPS at AAA that season.

The guys in charge of operations should have recognized that Rooker could hit, and they might have given him time to develop at OF/1B, or just plugged him in at DH and kept Arraez in the field. Instead, they gave up on him just because they thought he could be replaced by younger prospects or stopgaps like Cave and Garlick. JAKE CAVE AND KYLE GARLICK! And they deserve to get raked for such terrible judgment.

If people who cover or follow the team are going to just shrug and excuse such poor judgment, where are our standards? Where is the line?

[dxpavelka]

5 hours ago, Major League Ready said:

Rosario's produced a cumulative fWAR of -1 in 4 seasons.  How is that a loss?  

And in what way have Kiriloff and Larnach proven worthy of getting rid of him?  At the end of the day they moved on from him to save $8 million.  I'm old enough to remember when such a move would have met with universal derision from the fan base.  A much wiser course of action would have been to keep him as one of four OF that first season, along with Buxton, Larnach & Kiriloff.  Don't even bother bringing up your advanced metric of choice where Rosario is concerned.  Some things can't be measured by them.  Rosario's ability to give the Twins something they needed when they needed it most is one of them.  You want to use stats, fine.  Since leaving Minnesota he has 24 post-season hits, 11 runs scored and 11 RBI.  Kiriloff and Larnach combined post-season hits, runs and RBI since they were kept over Rosario:  ZERO

 

[dxpavelka]

3 hours ago, old nurse said:

A player in the regular season that has not had an OPS+ over 90 since he left the Twins is a loss? He did have a great 6 game stretch against the Dodger 

Rosario post season since he left:  24 hits, 11 runs scored, 11 RBI, a ring and an NCLS MVP.  Kiriloff and Larnach combined on all of those things:  ZERO. 

[Danchat]

4 hours ago, Fire Dan Gladden said:

Now I want to see woulda/shoulda/coulda articles about:
Lamont Wade
Liam Hendricks
Ian Hamilton

Lamont Wade is actually worth of an article because he did instantly become a useful player for the Giants while the Twins got a AAAA reliever for him. That was a legitimate blunder.

Hendricks and Rooker less so are far enough removed from being a Twin that I find it less of a problem. The Padres and Royals are just as culpable for not cracking the case to fixing Rooker like the A's did.

Ian Hamilton was a case where some, including me, were advocating for his usage but despite the team badly needing MLB-level relievers, they only ever saw him as an expendable arm not worth an extended look in the majors. Never understood the thought process on that one.

[Richie the Rally Goat]

16 hours ago, Doctor Gast said:

I wasn't in favor of the trade but it wasn't because of Rooker, It was because the organization was full of big bats, and poor gloves. & the BP desperately needed Rogers. Rooker left the Twins' approach to a more favorable one. Sano didn't adjust, fortunately, Rooker did.

Also a lot should be said of having patience & opportunity. A lesson any team should learn.

Too much patience becomes apathy, all those Terry Ryan years, just siting on those prospects waiting for another development that never came.

Rooker was waived by KC. The Twins got value for Rooker knowing they didn’t have room to develop him on the big league roster. Far more self aware than trading for a guy and giving up on him for nothing and then he develops into a good player.

[LambchoP]

This is what makes me a bit hesitant to give up on Larnach just yet. Sure, we have two lefties in the OF. Three of Keirsey is Buxton's backup, but he proved he can hit this year, even while not fully healthy.

[Otaknam]

Rooker won the SE Conference triple crown in 2017, the first to do so since Raphael Palmiero in 1984. He was also named the College AND SEC Player of the Year, so there was a lot to like in selecting him. But with Nelson Cruz as primary DH, Sano still thought to be trending up, and Rooker with no defensive position, he didn’t get enough at bats. So it’s hard to fault the team for dealing him. Happy for Rooker that he made the best of his chance with Oakland, including an all star appearance. 

He was also named the Collegiate Baseball national Player of the Year and SEC Player of Brent Rooker won the Southeastern Conference (SEC) triple crown in 2017 while playing college baseball for Mississippi State University:

• Batting average: Led the conference with a .387 batting average
• Home runs: Led the conference with 23 home runs
• RBIs: Led the conference with 82 RBIs

[Rod Carews Birthday]

8 hours ago, frightwig said:

Rooker had a .931 OPS with St. Paul in 2021, Nelson Cruz's last season with the Twins, after posting a .933 OPS at AAA in 2019 (of course 2020 was basically a lost season). They could've given him a shot at DH/OF/1B in 2022, when Sano flopped, and they cycled through a group of fringe players and kids who weren't ready that included Nick Gordon, Jose Miranda, Alex Kirilloff, Trevor Larnach, Jake Cave, Matt Wallner, and Kyle Garlick. Meanwhile, Rooker didn't get much of a chance in SD or KC, either, but he did post a 1.044 OPS at AAA that season.

The guys in charge of operations should have recognized that Rooker could hit, and they might have given him time to develop at OF/1B, or just plugged him in at DH and kept Arraez in the field. Instead, they gave up on him just because they thought he could be replaced by younger prospects or stopgaps like Cave and Garlick. JAKE CAVE AND KYLE GARLICK! And they deserve to get raked for such terrible judgment.

If people who cover or follow the team are going to just shrug and excuse such poor judgment, where are our standards? Where is the line?

Not every player will develop in a straight line path. A few do, and that’s easy, but projecting a young player is a difficult thing.  In retrospect, we can all look and say how much Rooker’s WAR would’ve looked good on the team, but at the time Kirilloff and Larnach looked like a quite reasonable take. One has had career ending injuries while the other still hasn’t quite figured it out. They both looked like they were better bets at the time. Rooker got the right chance in the right situation and was very successful. 
Yes, they missed on this, as did other teams, but it’s not quite that simple. I don’t choose to rage over a decision that many (I would say most, but others may not) teams would have made. Things like this happen.