Jacob Wilson Trade Speculation Has Begun Ahead of the GM Meetings

One question that will be interesting to keep track of is how the A's new front office, led by President of Baseball Operations Taylor Smith and GM Cam Castro, ends up viewing the players the Athletics have already signed to extensions. Are they even available to discuss in trades?

Bob Nightengale of USA Today seems to think at least one of them is, by including Jacob Wilson in his potential trade chip section of his Monday column ahead of the GM meetings. 

He says that even though there is no urgency to trade Wilson, the A's are desperate for starting pitching, and "he is a fabulous trade chip." This of course comes after he says that Wilson took a big step backward offensively, going from an .800 OPS as a rookie to a .685 OPS in 2026. 

Part of that struggle for Wilson was that he was injured most of the year. He dislocated his shoulder in May, played through the pain, and ultimately had shoulder surgery on September 9. 

For a team looking for pitching, Wilson is a tricky player to get the most bang for your buck out of. He made it into just 80 games in the previous season, is coming off surgery, and still has roughly $68.5 million and six years left on his deal, with a club option for $26 million in 2033. That's on top of the offensive struggles he had last season.

This isn't to say that Wilson isn't a good player at all. He's shown he can be tremendous, and a huge spark plug for the club. The argument is that the A's would be selling extremely low and wouldn't get a proper value in a deal.

There will be some A's fans who will argue that Wilson should be traded because they have Leo De Vries coming up through the minors, so they'll be fine at shortstop. While De Vries is a natural shortstop, the idea of having both players on the roster also has to be enticing, especially if we see Wilson return to his 2025 form. 

De Vries also had surgery late in the year and won't be ready to continue playing until around May, so there is no guarantee that he'll even be ready for the big leagues in 2027. He has yet to play in Triple-A, so there is still some work to do. 

The biggest issue at play here is the one we began with: How will the new front office view these extended players, and will they be allowed to trade them? That's a question we don't have an answer to, as Nightengale's piece is pure speculation. 

On the one hand, ownership could be willing to do whatever is best for the construction of the roster, and if that means trading a player who had previously committed to stay with the club, then so be it. 

The concern would have to be trading one of them so quickly, as in before they even make it to Las Vegas. These signings were a signal that times have changed for the A's and that ownership is ready to spend money.

If they began moving those same players, it would signal to the fans that things haven't changed that much and that fans shouldn't invest in a team jersey because they still never know.

Trading Wilson this offseason would be a head-scratching move that could also hurt the development of a fanbase they're trying to rebuild.