I don't even know what that title means. It's an attempt to go for Hicks=hitch, but I'm not buying it and I wrote the damn thing, so I don't know why I'd expect you to get on board. The Hicks train. Toot toot.

OK, look, Brandon Hicks, who was traded to the Mets for TK dollars,¹ got 70 plate appearances with the A's last year as a 26-year-old shortstop. He has some tantalizing skills, including power built from legit size (who knows how tall he actually is and what he actually weighs, but Baseball Prospectus has him at 6'2" and 200 pounds, so that's close enough) and the ability to play defense at shortstop. Unfortunately, he also has serious contact issues and the power (consequently?) doesn't show up in games consistently. He slugged over .500 in Sacramento in 2012, which is nice from the middle infield even considering the Pacific Coast League's massively hitter-friendly environment, but, again, he's 26 and you can run into enough fastballs in Triple-A to show that type of pop without convincing anyone, scouts or fans or random turtles meandering by, that you're a big-time player.

Was it weird that the A's designated a shortstop for assignment when they don't have a truly viable contender-level shortstop on the roster? (Don't Andy Parrino me.) Not really. As David Wishinsky said,

This move doesn't dramatically change the projections for 2013 one iota for either Oakland or the fans in Flushing.

The A's needed a starting shortstop before they DFA'd Hicks. They needed one after they DFA'd Hicks. And they still need one now that they've traded Hicks. Hicks being on the roster would not stop the A's from signing Stephen Drew or Ronny Cedeno or trading for Asdrubal Cabrera or J.J. Hardy. Hicks not being on the roster does not make it more urgent that the A's sign Stephen Drew or Ronny Cedeno or trade for Asdrubal Cabrera or J.J. Hardy.

I don't like to say this about transactions because nothing doesn't matter and because saying that something doesn't matter implies some things about the players involved that aren't very nice, but: This doesn't matter.

It is pretty cool that Billy Beane got some cash for Hicks, though.

LINKS NOW.

The video at the top of this Jane Lee story has Billy Beane in the middle of a forest. It's not clear why he's there, but I can only assume it's because he's been showing David Forst where the bodies are buried just in case something should happen to Beane.

Oh, you don't really have to read the story. If you read this blog, it means you follow the A's closely enough that there's nothing new there.

Alex Hall launches from a mailbag question is a lengthy examination of the A's 2013 schedule compared to their 2012 itinerary, with the focus being on how the Astros joining the A.L. West affects things.

Sean Davis wildly, wildly underestimates what it would take to get Giancarlo Stanton. Josh Reddick + Tommy Milone/A.J. Griffin/Dan Straily + a C+/B- prospect simply doesn't get it done, not when the talk is four or five major-league-ready players. Nobody's going to give that up for Stanton either, but the equilibrium where the Marlins' demands meet the high bid coming in from basically every team in the league isn't a guy with a .305 OBP, a mid-rotation starter without number-one upside, and a decent prospect.