Free Trial Ad
Why Subscribe?
  • Player/Prospect News
  • Exclusive Insider Info
  • Members-Only Forums
  • Exclusive Videos
  • Subscribe Now!
Inbox
Reply to TopicPost New Topic
  Page of 2  Next >

Hairston signs with Cubs

Avatar

Posted: 1/23/2013 10:30 PM

Hairston signs with Cubs 


Scott Hairston has two-year deal with  # Cubs pending physical, Ken Rosenthal reports.  # mets

Reply | Quote

Posted: 1/23/2013 10:33 PM

Re: Hairston signs with Cubs 


did not see that coming.
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 1/23/2013 10:40 PM

Re: Hairston signs with Cubs 


It seems like the Mets are aiming higher than Hairston and I hope something actually comes to fruition. At this time, however, Hairston would have been our safest bet OFer.
Reply | Quote

Posted: 1/23/2013 10:48 PM

Re: Hairston signs with Cubs 



m8644 wrote: did not see that coming.
He wasn't going to wait around until the Mets make their decision.  The Mets are sure taking their time to fill out the roster.
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 1/23/2013 10:51 PM

RE: Hairston signs with Cubs 


Wonder how much he got.


Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 1/23/2013 10:52 PM

Re: Hairston signs with Cubs 



omnimetfan wrote:
m8644 wrote: did not see that coming.
He wasn't going to wait around until the Mets make their decision.  The Mets are sure taking their time to fill out the roster.

Sandy has clearly stated that the team will aggressively pursue players of interest that they feel can't be easily replaced otherwise.  He obviously didn't feel threatened by Hairston possibly signing elsewhere.  Can't say I blame him.  

I still think we will get more production out of Baxter and Brown than we would have Hairston, but that's just me.
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 1/23/2013 10:52 PM

RE: Hairston signs with Cubs 


Seems like it's not a minor league contract, so the Mets had no interest! This is the offseason of the minor league contracts.

Last edited 1/23/2013 10:53 PM by RSVandy

Reply | Quote

Posted: 1/23/2013 10:56 PM

Re: Hairston signs with Cubs 


Sandy may just have it in him to pull the trigger. Patience isn't always a virtue.

Even though the money doesn't make sense to him...you can't watch everyone else sign guys up...and be left with nothing.
You gotta join the parade at some point.

But..it is very frustrating to be picking 10... and then be bounced back to 11.....and thus lose the pick by signing Bourn.
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 1/23/2013 11:23 PM

Re: Hairston signs with Cubs 



sweeper5 wrote: Sandy may just have it in him to pull the trigger. Patience isn't always a virtue.

Even though the money doesn't make sense to him...you can't watch everyone else sign guys up...and be left with nothing.
You gotta join the parade at some point.

But..it is very frustrating to be picking 10... and then be bounced back to 11.....and thus lose the pick by signing Bourn.

He's already stated his philosophy on this.  It's not about an unwillingness to pull the trigger, it's about options.  If there are comparable options out there, Sandy invariably will wait out the market.  We may prefer one option over another, but that doesn't always mean the preferred player outproduces the other options.  Last season's reliever market is a perfect example of this.  People went on and on about relievers they felt we should've signed and it ended up the most maligned guy that we signed out-produced the vast majority of the third tier reliever market.  

Regarding Hairston, what we're talking about is one platoon player versus several others.  There's really no guarantee Hairston will repeat last season's numbers or even out-produce Brown, whom we got for next to nothing.  Fans prefer Hairston because he's a known commodity, but he's also an extremely limited player with just one redeeming quality (power) and enough negatives (most notably OBP) to negate most of the positive value he brings to the table.  I wouldn't have minded if we signed him, but I don't think he's a big loss either.  With Duda destined to return in LF, and Kirk/Cowgill manning CF, I have no problem going with Baxter/Brown over Hairston in RF.  I'd prefer someone better than Baxter, Brown, and Hairston, but Hairston vs those two is more than likely either a push or an upgrade for the Mets.
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 1/23/2013 11:43 PM

Re: Hairston signs with Cubs 



DocK16 wrote:
sweeper5 wrote: Sandy may just have it in him to pull the trigger. Patience isn't always a virtue.

Even though the money doesn't make sense to him...you can't watch everyone else sign guys up...and be left with nothing.
You gotta join the parade at some point.

But..it is very frustrating to be picking 10... and then be bounced back to 11.....and thus lose the pick by signing Bourn.

He's already stated his philosophy on this.  It's not about an unwillingness to pull the trigger, it's about options.  If there are comparable options out there, Sandy invariably will wait out the market.  We may prefer one option over another, but that doesn't always mean the preferred player outproduces the other options.  Last season's reliever market is a perfect example of this.  People went on and on about relievers they felt we should've signed and it ended up the most maligned guy that we signed out-produced the vast majority of the third tier reliever market.  

Regarding Hairston, what we're talking about is one platoon player versus several others.  There's really no guarantee Hairston will repeat last season's numbers or even out-produce Brown, whom we got for next to nothing.  Fans prefer Hairston because he's a known commodity, but he's also an extremely limited player with just one redeeming quality (power) and enough negatives (most notably OBP) to negate most of the positive value he brings to the table.  I wouldn't have minded if we signed him, but I don't think he's a big loss either.  With Duda destined to return in LF, and Kirk/Cowgill manning CF, I have no problem going with Baxter/Brown over Hairston in RF.  I'd prefer someone better than Baxter, Brown, and Hairston, but Hairston vs those two is more than likely either a push or an upgrade for the Mets.
there's very little to go on that would support the notion of Brown or even Baxter outproducing Hairston but the cost it would have taken to sign Hairston may not have justified the difference in production and it isn't like it's going to push the Mets over the top.

Now it does seem like the Cubs have a different take on this since they're more or less in a similar spot to the Mets... they may feel like Hairston could be a marketable commodity during the season where it seemed that Alderson didn't feel as if Hairston would have yielded anything of significance.

and wrt guarantees, they're never part of the analysis... just what is likely and what is not likely given all available information.  Regarding Hairston, he could produce close to what he did in 2012 if used correctly... but it's prob not fair to expect him to outperform that.
"Maybe it's time to make some moves."  - Sandy Alderson

Last edited 1/23/2013 11:46 PM by DuffyDyer

Reply | Quote

Posted: 1/24/2013 12:10 AM

Re: Hairston signs with Cubs 


This was a switch. They beamed Scotty up.

Later
"You spend a good part of your life gripping the baseball, and in the end it turns out it was the other way around all the time." Jim Bouton
Reply | Quote

Posted: 1/24/2013 12:43 AM

RE: Hairston signs with Cubs 


Guys 3 year split ('10-'12) was a .239 avg. and .298 OBP. .218 vs Righties in that time.

He has legit thunder in his bat and as a fourth OF is more than passable but the risk was high with him in my opinion. Factor that in with a negative defensive WAR and I understand letting him walk.

Even if we stick with one of the young guys I would guess that this next season his "replacement" will have about the similar to higher avg, higher OBP, better D, with less power. I'll take that to save a few million per.
Reply | Quote

Posted: 1/24/2013 1:49 AM

Re: Hairston signs with Cubs 


Saw the deal was 2 years, around 6 mil.

Decent trade option down the line as well.

Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 1/24/2013 7:29 AM

Re: Hairston signs with Cubs 


Good for you, Scott.  You'll do well in a place like Wrigley.




****************************************************************************************************

The best pitch is one that looks like a strike....................but it isn't.           Warren Spahn
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 1/24/2013 7:40 AM

Re: Hairston signs with Cubs 



MookieLJL wrote: It seems like the Mets are aiming higher than Hairston and I hope something actually comes to fruition.
I'm with ya.  Hairston's stickball swing will be alright, considering he'll be playing at Wrigley.....swing for enough homers, and sometimes the ball flies out of the yard.

"Use your head.....that's that lump 3 feet above your arse." - Jimmy Dugan

Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 1/24/2013 7:41 AM

Re: Hairston signs with Cubs 


The Mets FO are bottom feeders and whoever is left unsigned when all players have reported to ST is where the Mets dumpster diving begins in the search for additional OFs, SPs, and RPs.

Patience has it’s rewards and the rewards are leftovers and they’re not quite free but they are cheap.  Sizemore, Pavano and Rauch are closer by the minute.




****************************************************************************************************

The best pitch is one that looks like a strike....................but it isn't.           Warren Spahn
Reply | Quote

Posted: 1/24/2013 9:06 AM

Re: Hairston signs with Cubs 



nickel7168 wrote: The Mets FO are bottom feeders and whoever is left unsigned when all players have reported to ST is where the Mets dumpster diving begins in the search for additional OFs, SPs, and RPs.

Patience has it’s rewards and the rewards are leftovers and they’re not quite free but they are cheap.  Sizemore, Pavano and Rauch are closer by the minute.
First, the signing of Marcum takes the Mets off the bottom feeders list, I suppose. biggrin

I would like to see Rauch re-signed at this point.  He was fantastic in the 2nd half of 2012 after he got some relief from his injuries.
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 1/24/2013 9:26 AM

Re: Hairston signs with Cubs 



DuffyDyer wrote:
DocK16 wrote:
sweeper5 wrote: Sandy may just have it in him to pull the trigger. Patience isn't always a virtue.

Even though the money doesn't make sense to him...you can't watch everyone else sign guys up...and be left with nothing.
You gotta join the parade at some point.

But..it is very frustrating to be picking 10... and then be bounced back to 11.....and thus lose the pick by signing Bourn.

He's already stated his philosophy on this.  It's not about an unwillingness to pull the trigger, it's about options.  If there are comparable options out there, Sandy invariably will wait out the market.  We may prefer one option over another, but that doesn't always mean the preferred player outproduces the other options.  Last season's reliever market is a perfect example of this.  People went on and on about relievers they felt we should've signed and it ended up the most maligned guy that we signed out-produced the vast majority of the third tier reliever market.  

Regarding Hairston, what we're talking about is one platoon player versus several others.  There's really no guarantee Hairston will repeat last season's numbers or even out-produce Brown, whom we got for next to nothing.  Fans prefer Hairston because he's a known commodity, but he's also an extremely limited player with just one redeeming quality (power) and enough negatives (most notably OBP) to negate most of the positive value he brings to the table.  I wouldn't have minded if we signed him, but I don't think he's a big loss either.  With Duda destined to return in LF, and Kirk/Cowgill manning CF, I have no problem going with Baxter/Brown over Hairston in RF.  I'd prefer someone better than Baxter, Brown, and Hairston, but Hairston vs those two is more than likely either a push or an upgrade for the Mets.
there's very little to go on that would support the notion of Brown or even Baxter outproducing Hairston but the cost it would have taken to sign Hairston may not have justified the difference in production and it isn't like it's going to push the Mets over the top.

Now it does seem like the Cubs have a different take on this since they're more or less in a similar spot to the Mets... they may feel like Hairston could be a marketable commodity during the season where it seemed that Alderson didn't feel as if Hairston would have yielded anything of significance.

and wrt guarantees, they're never part of the analysis... just what is likely and what is not likely given all available information.  Regarding Hairston, he could produce close to what he did in 2012 if used correctly... but it's prob not fair to expect him to outperform that.

 



In fairness....Sandy has more hands-on experience with Hairston's trade value than Theo (or anyone else). For all we know, Sandy shopped SH last July and found his value to be almost nothing? noidea


__________________________________



"We've got 5 guys better than this?"
.....Jason Bay watching Matt Harvey throw in March 2012.
Reply | Quote

Posted: 1/24/2013 9:33 AM

Re: Hairston signs with Cubs 



Kooos wrote:
DuffyDyer wrote:
DocK16 wrote:
sweeper5 wrote: Sandy may just have it in him to pull the trigger. Patience isn't always a virtue.

Even though the money doesn't make sense to him...you can't watch everyone else sign guys up...and be left with nothing.
You gotta join the parade at some point.

But..it is very frustrating to be picking 10... and then be bounced back to 11.....and thus lose the pick by signing Bourn.

He's already stated his philosophy on this.  It's not about an unwillingness to pull the trigger, it's about options.  If there are comparable options out there, Sandy invariably will wait out the market.  We may prefer one option over another, but that doesn't always mean the preferred player outproduces the other options.  Last season's reliever market is a perfect example of this.  People went on and on about relievers they felt we should've signed and it ended up the most maligned guy that we signed out-produced the vast majority of the third tier reliever market.  

Regarding Hairston, what we're talking about is one platoon player versus several others.  There's really no guarantee Hairston will repeat last season's numbers or even out-produce Brown, whom we got for next to nothing.  Fans prefer Hairston because he's a known commodity, but he's also an extremely limited player with just one redeeming quality (power) and enough negatives (most notably OBP) to negate most of the positive value he brings to the table.  I wouldn't have minded if we signed him, but I don't think he's a big loss either.  With Duda destined to return in LF, and Kirk/Cowgill manning CF, I have no problem going with Baxter/Brown over Hairston in RF.  I'd prefer someone better than Baxter, Brown, and Hairston, but Hairston vs those two is more than likely either a push or an upgrade for the Mets.
there's very little to go on that would support the notion of Brown or even Baxter outproducing Hairston but the cost it would have taken to sign Hairston may not have justified the difference in production and it isn't like it's going to push the Mets over the top.

Now it does seem like the Cubs have a different take on this since they're more or less in a similar spot to the Mets... they may feel like Hairston could be a marketable commodity during the season where it seemed that Alderson didn't feel as if Hairston would have yielded anything of significance.

and wrt guarantees, they're never part of the analysis... just what is likely and what is not likely given all available information.  Regarding Hairston, he could produce close to what he did in 2012 if used correctly... but it's prob not fair to expect him to outperform that.

 



In fairness....Sandy has more hands-on experience with Hairston's trade value than Theo (or anyone else). For all we know, Sandy shopped SH last July and found his value to be almost nothing? noidea




You are correct.  There was an article which mentioned the Mets shopped Hairston and just found no one worthwhile trading him for.  

He may have more value this year if he has another season like 2012 this year, however.
Reply | Quote

Posted: 1/24/2013 9:34 AM

Re: Hairston signs with Cubs 



omnimetfan wrote:
nickel7168 wrote: The Mets FO are bottom feeders and whoever is left unsigned when all players have reported to ST is where the Mets dumpster diving begins in the search for additional OFs, SPs, and RPs.

Patience has it’s rewards and the rewards are leftovers and they’re not quite free but they are cheap.  Sizemore, Pavano and Rauch are closer by the minute.
First, the signing of Marcum takes the Mets off the bottom feeders list, I suppose. biggrin

I would like to see Rauch re-signed at this point.  He was fantastic in the 2nd half of 2012 after he got some relief from his injuries.

The chances Rauch approaches the success he had in the second half last year are slim IMO.  His periperals were ugly, and relievers are very fickle to begin with.
Reply | Quote
Reply to TopicPost New Topic
  Page of 2  Next >