Originally Posted by jd1020
Not sure of your point.
Tulo matched Lowrie's production at the plate in 150 less ABs and is much much better defensively.
Lowrie just finished his very first season of over 100 games.
Nevermind that the A's probably don't even want to discuss trading him right now since Russell is still at least a year away.
His point's pretty obvious.
Nobody's arguing that Lowrie is an equal to Tulo - but we're also not talking a straight across trade. The presumption is that Lowrie would cost substantially less than Tulo would and that the difference in both $$ and prospects surrendered would more than offset the value lost between Lowrie and Tulo.
But Lowrie's range seems to be diminishing quite a bit and as has been noted, he's not terribly healthy.
That said, if we could have him for Seigrist and a B arm, I'd probably take them up on it. Lots of lefties in the system.