A’s - Acquired Hairston (and why the A’s might need a new GM)
Oakland A’s - Acquired OF Scott Hairston from the San Diego Padres for P Craig Italiano and P Ryan Webb
Hairston’s been an excellent hitter for the Padres since he was picked up from the Diamondbacks for Leo Rosales a couple of years ago, hitting 270/329/522 in just under 700 plate appearances. While Hairston was a good deal economically for the Padres, the Padres have a complex ownership situation, with Moorad buying the team from Moores and His Messy Divorce over a 5-year period, so they want to cut costs drastically even before taking into account the condition of the economy.
The A’s are in dire straits offensively, partly thanks to some inconsistent leadership from Beane over the last year or so. Rebuilding made a lot of sense in 2008 but the team did a 180 and made a few win-now moves when they sensed an opportunity. That was premature, however, and the team cannot be expected to score runs if they’re not developing offensive prospects, no longer picking up Ken Phelpsers, and not signing elite offensive players. Yes, the team should be better, but where are the high-upside chances on offense? Jack Cust gave the A’s two solid seasons and hopefully a third if he finally has one of his insane 1.200 OPS hot streaks, but what other freely available talent have the A’s taken advantage of on offense? They’re not even using the talent they actually have. Eric Patterson is completely wasting his time in the minors and Aaron Cunningham of the 325/390/589 AAA line must be wondering by now what the #### he has to hit to get a shot on a team that’s allegedly trying to win now with an offense that scores less often than your average chess club president.
The Hairston pickup is good, assuming the PTBNL isn’t a real prospect (or the rumored Sean Gallagher after the DL). Webb’s the better prospect, who throws hard and sort of knows what he’s doing, while Italiano also throws hard, but is rather clue-impaired.
Still, you get the sense that the front office the last 18 months or so has been reduced to making decisions merely on the tactical level, a la Dan O’Dowd. A lot of the moves the A’s have made have been positive in a completely isolated sense, such as the Holliday trade, but don’t seem to fit into a long-term strategic framework. As I suggest in the title, maybe it’s time the A’s move another direction in regards to team management. I think Beane’s been a great GM for the team overall, but after an extremely long stint, one has to wonder if the A’s wouldn’t be better off if they had someone making personnel decisions that had a few more big ideas that they’re just itching to implement. Creative energy can become stagnant, no matter how talented the individual in question is.
2009 ZIPS Projection - Scott Hairston
——————————————————————————————————————
AB R H 2B 3B HR RBI BB SO SB BA OBP SLG
——————————————————————————————————————
Year-to-Date 197 26 59 14 1 10 29 17 45 8 .299 .358 .533
Rest-of-Year 171 22 45 11 2 9 20 15 37 3 .261 .324 .503
——————————————————————————————————————
Total 368 48 104 25 3 19 49 32 82 11 .282 .342 .519
Year-to-date totals include minor-league translations, if applicable.
Dan Szymborski
Posted: July 08, 2009 at 03:23 PM |
255 comment(s)
Login to Bookmark
Related News:
Reader Comments and Retorts
Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
Spot on. Beane had an excellent run, but it is so over.
Patterson is a hitter looking for a position that he can play effectively. Cunningham is part of the outfield in 2010 with Hairston, Sweeney, and Buck.
Why, you bastard!
Naw, It's David Forst's job when Billy wants to run a soccer team or something.
Isn't Beane part of ownership, too? Is there any sense that the A's may be looking to bump him up the food chain and bring in somebody younger/fresher to be GM? Any chance that'd be DePodesta?
The thing is, those non-Crosby guys were supposed to be on-the-cheap plug-&-play additions that were (I think) going to help the A's make a run at a seemingly wide-open AL West. (That's now I saw them, anyway.) Of course, as with seemingly almost every brand-name offensive acquisition Beane's made, the old-newbs have failed to live up to even the most modest expectations.
Nominally. I think he has a 2 or 3% stake. Maybe as much as 5%. Enough to get him to stay but nowhere near enough to make him a managing partner.
Yeah. He and Kenny W. are my favorite gms. Jack Z in Seattle has been fun early. Jim Bowden was fun to watch work, too, for all his faults.
2006: ALCS! Wooo!
2007: We'll just replace Thomas with Piazza and storm back to the postseason. What could go wrong?
2008: Man, we suck. And so does our farm. Let's blow it up before it gets too late.
2009: OK, our farm is back strong and the division is weak. Let's make a run for it with some one-year investments that won't hurt our farm much at all.
A lot of it hasn't worked out, but the grand strategery ain't rocket science.
Cunningham can get in line behind Buck in terms of OFers who deserve more playing time.
And you wouldn't even have to fly to this one. Maybe, I'll see you in Atlanta. Are you even gonna be around Wednesday nite?
This season will be a good test of O'Dowd and perhaps more importantly, Rockies ownership (O'Dowd is still working in the last year of his deal). The team is hanging in there, a couple games out of the WC spot. The offense is above avg, the starting pitching is well above avg, but the bullpen aside from Street has been well below avg.
O'Dowd's usual trades for relievers are for re-tread types, and that won't cut it this time unless he thinks he's finally going to get lucky (the pen already has just 2 of its opening day members).
The owner has stated that they're reluctant to add payroll and are against trading any prospects, despite having no BA-type untouchables (I think the top prospect, AA starter Jhoulys Chacin, is a B+ guy for Sickels).
That's going to make it difficult to acquire any decent players.
What do you think, a Holliday trade is coming? Seems Buck, Hairston, Sweeney, Cunningham, Davis should be the OF for the rest of the year. I'm also of the mind they should bring Patterson up to play a utility role to see how he does and cut bait on Giambi (which I don't think they'll do out of respect).
Yes, but the two issues are the year-to-year re-casting of the grand strategery -- an indication that the strategery isn't especially grand -- and, more importantly, the failure to effectively execute against the strategery. At one time Beane displayed an exceptionally sharp eye for talent, but over the past few years he seems to be quite clueless as to who will do well and who won't.
I would DFA Nomar and Rajai to start with.
Starting Nomar at DH with Giambi at 1B and Cust in RF is just awful. They'd be better offensively and defensively with Cust at DH and Buck in RF.
They now have 2 guys who can handle CF, so Davis' usefulness is pretty much nil. Patterson can take over his pinch running duties. Cunningham's just 23--I think he can spend a full year in AAA while they see what they have in Sweeney and Buck. The outfield defense has been phenomenal, and I think Sweeney and Buck have enough offensive upside that it's worth letting them play through their struggles/injuries this year. I have a feeling Buck's gone soon, though.
I guess I wouldn't mind seeing Giambi DFA and Barton back at 1B, but I have an irrational hope that Giambi will have a decent 2nd half.
I don't like Kennedy playing everyday, but the alternative is bringing back Hannahan and losing a 2B replacement when Ellis gets hurt again.
The team would look so much better with a healthy Taylor Buchholz. And without Alan Embree.
What's going on with Franklin Morales? Is he biding his time in the bullpen until they need a starter, or converting to relief full-time?
The real rebuilding is the starting staff. Even with their best guy early this year (Outman) getting TJ they are still in awesome shape moving forward with Anderson, Cahill, Mazzaro, Gio and Braden. That is something for all A's fans to be excited about. They even have guys like Simmons and Gallagher (probably both of those being the PTBNL) in AAA.
This doesn't bother me. Injuries dictated a lot of the rethinking for 2008. I wouldn't want Beane to be rigid with a 5 year plan. Circumstances sometimes dictate. I just wish he would have looked at guys like Branyan and Willingham instead of going for the obvious play of Jason Giambi. Frank Thomas worked out perfectly, but Piazza and Mike Sweeney and Giambi seems like going to the well way too many times. I hope he's over it.
What's the word on Cardenas? Think he gets a shot at 3rd base in spring training? SS, 3b and 1b are going to be the question marks next year. I hope Billy is open to the idea of replacing Cust as the DH, too, if an opportunity arises. The pitching, as AKT mentions, is exciting.
Don't get me wrong, if he's canned in the offseason, I fervently hope the new Cubs owners would sign him immediately.
But there's an aspect of running a team that has nothing to do with scouts vs. stats, identifying market inefficiencies, or the nuts and bolts of identifying talent -- simple strategic planning... Has Beane bothered with that at all for the past 2-3 years?
That's what's kinda cool about the 19th Century Committee. I have a voice there and can make suggestions.
I figure Beane decided what he gave up for Holliday was close in value to the picks he would receive when Holliday bolted. That coupled with the order from upstairs to try to win (with accompanying cash) is what triggered the Holliday trade. As a fan, I'm glad he took the gamble. It's too bad Chavvy and Ellis and Duch lived up to their reps for being fragile and that Cabrera and Giambi fell off a cliff, but I'm glad they made the attempt. It flopped, but the future wasn't mortgaged. I feel good about the future even if I'm more wary about it than usual.
As has been the case for much of his career, Beane's shown a good eye for minor league and amateur talent and a poor eye for major league talent.
Over the past 1.5 years, they seem to have gotten pretty good returns for Haren, Swisher, Kotsay, Blanton, and Harden. On the other hand, nearly all of his veteran acquisitions (Cabrera, Nomar, Giambi, Springer, Holliday, Sweeney, and Thomas the second time around) have been worse than projected.
Tottenham?
Damn. And I've decided to become a Fulhamerica fan.
A second round draft pick? Though they look like they might not sign some of their high-end picks that dropped due to signability issues.
Should they have gone the Padres route and punted the whole season from the get-go? Called up all their youngsters instead? They had already decided to go with a nearly-all-rookie pitching staff. Signing Nomar and Giambi sound like moves to keep fans from wondering if this is a AAA team.
I think Beane is treating this year as a holding-pattern year, waiting for their hitting prospects to arrive and having their young pitchers get experience at the major-league level. I don't think he's as washed-up in Oakland as you think. Yes, you can argue that Patterson and Cunningham should be up, but Patterson is blocked by Ellis, while it's fairly easy to argue that Cunningham is caught in a numbers game as well.
Couple that with blowing a draft pick (I think) for Cabrera, a pretty awful showing so far this season, and the A's have had a pretty gruesome year.
You'll be doubly upset if Dempsey (as rumored) gets bought by someone else. Then again, if its Everton, they'll have more Americans than Fulham, so you can just slide right over there.
Damn, then I would have gone from Tottenham to Fulham to Everton in one off season. That's too much. Maybe I should just go with plan B and root for Ajax. This choosing of a soccer team is rough.
Tell me about it. I chose Man City the year before they became the crazy free spending lunatics that they are today. I still like them, but I'm also excited to chear for Wolves this year. Mostly because, come on, Wolverhampton. That's just a great name for a town/team.
Here's ten of the hundreds of possible choices. Either one of these should work great.
- Darlington
- NEWI Cefn Druids
- Nancy
- Zimbru Chisinau
- VVV Venlo
- Germinal Beershot
- Artmedia Bratislava
- Dingli Swallows
- KS Vllaznia Shkodër
- Young Boys
- Borussia Mönchengladbach
- Marsaxlokk FC
- Shakhtar Donetsk
- Viking Stavanger
- Hapoel Ironi Kiryat Shmona
- ?l?sk Wroc?aw
- FK Bl?zma R?zekne
- NK Zvijezda Grada?ac
- Technogroup Welshpool Town
- MTZ-RIPO
Yes. I chose Villa, because they're big enough to be on TV a lot, but not big enough to be frontrunnerish. Too, Martin O'Neill is rad, and I like the kit, and the ACORNS thing is cool. On the downside, they don't have a cool name, like Grasshopper or Dar?ca Gençlerbirli? or something.
I went with City 6-7 years ago. It's never been boring, I'll tell ya that. I'm hoping for good things for Wolves and Burnley this year too.
That said he really needs to rethink his rent-a-veteran strategy on offense.
I root for Liverpool and -- for the past year or so -- have tried to keep an eye on Leeds. I've read that they're pretty despised and I kind of like that whole 'red-headed stepchild' thing. It's just so damn tough to keep up with any non-EPL teams (or Serie A), and even then you're lucky to catch a game per month. When I read that ESPN got televising rights I was pretty thrilled... until I read that it was only for the UK. That's a shame -- why can't ESPN pick up a game per weekend? Are there 'telecasting-rights issues at play here? I can understand why ESPN wouldn't want to do Saturday games -- they'd (understandably) never kick college football off for an English football match -- but why not Sundays?
On another note I'm glad to see the U.S. taking some baby steps, first with their performance in the Confederations Cup and now with Onyewu signing on with A.C. Milan. Any chance Altidore latches on with a first-division club (I know he's currently with one, but I didn't think he was in Villarreal's plans...
Yeah, Fox and Setanta own the EPL's U.S. television rights through the end of the upcoming season. There's been a lot of speculation that ESPN would buy Setanta and even some speculation that ESPN might turn Classic into ESPN3 and use the Premiership as a centerpiece. I don't know how serious any of that speculation is, but I do know that ESPN just won partial TV rights to La Liga and ESPN Classic's ratings are awful.
Seems like the best move would be to win the current bidding for the '10-'13 Premiership rights instead of buying Setanta. In terms of mass appeal, the Premier League is the only thing of value that Setanta has. It's not like there are hundreds of thousands of Americans clamoring for more televised Gaelic Football or Aussie Rules.
Virtually no English fans are ambivilent/neutral about Leeds. You either support them or dislike them. The only thing the other teams in Yorkshire can agree on is their dislike of Leeds.
When I read that ESPN got televising rights I was pretty thrilled... until I read that it was only for the UK.
EPL games were broadcast in the UK by Sky (who had about 80%) and Setanta (who had the rest). ESPN bought Setanta's UK rights as Setanta's UK arm is in the English equivalent of a Chapter 11 procedure, and I read today they've also bought the rights to show games in Ireland.
Setanta still owns the US rights? If so, I can't think that'll be the case for much longer because they've pretty much gone tits up. Due to Setanta's inability to pay its bills on time, the Prem stripped Setanta of its UK broadcast rights and sold that package to ESPN. Sky-ESPN have also taken over Setanta's former SPL package (for about 40% of what Setanta had paid for it). From what I've read, it's not clear to me whether that's a joint venture or whether the two are splitting the SPL games somehow.
ESPN might turn Classic into ESPN3 and use the Premiership as a centerpiece.
My gut feeling is that ESPN is up to something very much like this. There have been rumblings about them getting into the footie broadcasting game for a while now, and the strong performance of the US in the Confed Cup may have spurred them into thinking about it more seriously if they think that public interest in soccer was somewhat galvanized as a result. Notably, the Soccer tab on the ESPN.com homepage was given a more prominant location a few months back, and I feel like their online coverage of Europe has stepped up a bit this year. Could be a sign of things to come, or could be ESPN is just throwing US soccer enthusiasts a small bone to see what the reaction is like. I don't really know, but like I said, my gut says the former.
I chose Villa for many of the same reasons. That, and Norwich City got relegated twice in 4 years, which made following them near-impossible on this side of the pond.
From what I've read (I think on bigsoccer.com), Setanta US and Setanta Australia are separate entities from Setanta UK, and are currently profitable.
It's entirely possible that the Prem won't take kindly to the Setanta UK debacle and as a result not even consider the Setanta US offer in this round of negotiations, but for at least one more year they still have US rights.
My gut feeling is that ESPN is up to something very much like this. There have been rumblings about them getting into the footie broadcasting game for a while now
They've got the Dutch Eredivisie and Serie A on ESPN360, they've got MLS, they just got a deal done with GolTV to split La Liga rights. If they get the Premiership, that's probably more than enough to start a 24/7 network. And if they somehow managed to get their hands on the SPL, Bundesliga, Mexican League, or French League, with ESPN Classic's current distribution they'd be a juggernaut. (As soccer networks go, I mean. Which is admittedly sort of like being the tallest midget.)
Admittedly they seem to show EPL games, the occasional one from Serie A and then huge numbers of badly, badly played American soccer. I don't mind MLS, but all these development leagues, good lord. Is it really necessary to show us Charleston vs. Rochester 6 nights a week?
There are two. Fox Soccer Channel and GolTV. Two and a half, I guess...Setanta kind of counts, though they show stuff like rugby, aussie rules, and gaelic football.
ESPN also picked up a chunk of GolTV's La Liga package for the upcoming season. Apparently there will be a bunch of live games on ESPN Deportes (which I sure as heck don't get) as well as some tape delayed games on the deuce. So that's exciting. I'm hoping it's not just GolTV's feed, because that's, uh, not a high quality broadcast.
And FSC is pretty solid, hard to argue with their coverge. I wish there were more games, of course, but Setanta snapped up much of the good ones.
Last year West Ham's sponsor went out of business so they had ugly boxes on the front of their shirts with their numbers in the middle. Their replica shirts might not have the sponsor on the front.
I think West Bromwich Albion spent most of last year negotiating over a sponsor, but ended up with one.
Traditionally before the sponsor era, the shirts were almost blank on front, with the small badge at the top. It's not like there was ever an era when Liverpool had "Liverpool" written on the front of their shirts like US teams have.
Some teams have sort of tasteful designs. I like Wolfsburg, Barcelona, Aston Villa and Motherwell.
It could be worse. Some teams have more than one sponsor, making them look almost like race car drivers with patches here and there. The only teams like that I've seen are in Mexico and France. I mean, look at this nonsense. Most other pro teams like volleyball and ice hockey teams in Europe look like that too.
I just root for the US national team. It's really all I have time for.
That blows. And what's more frightening is that you know Bud Selig is chomping at the bit to put Delta log on a Braves jersey, etc. We must prefer to fight the fight on this, my brethren.
I don't think so, but you might be able to find a team in the Estonian league that tarps over their stadium. I think there is Latvian team that plays 11 Scott Hattebergs.
I think when Beane really does write a book down the road, it will be revealed that pressure from ownership was behind the acquisitions of Holliday, Giambi, O-Cab, and Nomah.
I agree. If there is inconsistent strategy its ownerships fault. In fact, his 5th Order Beane Count puts him in first place in the AL West, its only bad luck that keeps him down.
I don't know what these countries are! Are they tropical? I like beaches and ice cold beer. I could get behind that.
I'll never understand peerage. Should I bow to one of these guys, or have him fetch me some hors d' ouevres?
Manchester United, they have AIG, which is a subsidiary of the US Treasury.
Internationally, there'sBarcelona
Double the fun for that Werder Bremen one: not only do you get Citibank on the front, but Diego just left them for Juventus as well!
Tottenham Hotspur. I'm telling you.
Pretty good American connection there, too. Spurs' current manager, Harry Redknapp, kicked off his managerial career as an assistant at Seattle Sounders back in the late 70s.
That's my girlfriends's team and I was initially leaning to them, but they seem destined for perpetual floundering and I don't know if I want to marry myself to that kind of frustration. They're still in the picture, though.
I always liked that match he had with LaParka.
At least most of the teams' sponsors are companies that aren't recognizable to Americans. For years Bolton's sponsor was Reebok (also the name of their stadium). Wearing a shirt that just says "REEBOK" on the front is something I can achieve with quite a lot of shirts that aren't authentic soccer replicas.
Right now it seems like half the teams in Britain are sponsored by gambling websites.
I hate them. Anytime you guys mention them, I think you are talking about San Antonio.
Barca probably comes closest. They lost their sponsor on shirt "virginity" to UNICEF. Barca actually are paying UNICEF. They have always taken pride in their squeaky clean image as the peoples' club, so it is probably unlikely they will have logo of a corporate sponsor on the front of their shirt.
You'll know things are out of control when Jeff Francoeur changes his last name to Delta Airlines.
FWIW, several MLS teams don't have shirt sponsors: Colorado, Kansas City, New England, and Dallas. So those are also options for anti-sponsor folks. I guess Philadelphia, Portland, and Vancouver don't have shirt sponsors yet, but they also don't have uniforms yet.
Yeah, I suppose, though it's tough for me to wrap my brain around the European (and de facto world) champions being underdogs to anyone.
I always liked Rayo Vallecano when Kasey Keller was there, but that ended badly and they're back in the second division these days. I don't really have a team in La Liga - these things happen organically for me, and nobody in Spain has ever done anything to win me over. Barca's the most fun to watch though.
Did you hear about the La Parka Jr murder, BL?
Other folks would likely have more knowledge than me here but I'm not sure this is correct (depending upon what exactly you mean by "perpetual floundering"). Tottenham likely would've finished in the top six last year had they not gotten off to an absolutely miserable start. They're based in London so they have a pretty decent-sized following and I'm fairly sure the team is planning a stadium expansion (just speaking to their long-term prospects). Plus you'd get to root for Luka Modric who is easily one of the most enjoyable midfielders in the EPL.
Thanks for those links, Dan. I did not know ESPN is going to get some La Liga games this year. Kudos to ESPN -- I don't watch them much anymore (outside of their live sports broadcasts) but grabbing games from any European leagues would catch my attention.
Was the culprit "The Other Woman"? Or am I thinking about that football player?
No, when did that happen.
It was a bit more than an awful start, wasn't it? IIRC, they were still in the relegation places at Christmas. They did finish strong after Ramos was turfed, but there's still turmoil there. I think City will pass them as top-4 contenders this season or next.
Firing Jol was appalling.
They're pretty much always underdogs, relative to Real. Granted, this was much much more the case during the Francisco Franco days.
Their style of play is something else they take a lot of pride, at least since the days of Johan Cruyff. Their fans put a lot of pressure on them to live up to the Cruyff ideal, the identity that Cruyff gave them: touch, technique, movement; receive, pass, offer, receive, pass, offer; rooted in the Ajax / Dutch school of Total Football. You can see that ideal in current players like Iniesta, and Xavi.
It is pretty damn unlikely, at least in the short term, at least as long as Pep Guardiola as manager, given that Guardiola is a Cruyff disciple, that they will resort to a bomb the ball 50 yards to the big strong striker, and hope he wins the wrestling match / jump ball approach.
Jeez. That's a Cohen Bros. movie come to life.
Would you want a hooker from The Drops?
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main