Athletics Weigh Adding a General Manager Under Taylor Smith

The Athletics may add a general manager beneath new baseball operations president Taylor Smith, giving the club a two-tier front office. Owner John Fisher raised the possibility at Smith’s introductory press conference on Monday, after the team finalized his hiring, according to Martín Gallegos of MLB.com. Fisher didn’t describe a settled plan, so the GM role remains a possibility rather than a confirmed appointment. That distinction matters: adding a title can clarify who handles daily baseball decisions, but only if the responsibilities and authority attached to it are clear.

A familiar structure, with an open question

The structure would echo the arrangement once led by Billy Beane and David Forst. Beane moved into an advisory role after the 2022 season, leaving baseball operations to longtime deputy Forst. He led the front office for three and a half seasons before Fisher made a change in early August, with the A’s headed toward a fifth consecutive losing season. The earlier setup gives the club a precedent to point to, but it doesn’t tell us how Smith would divide the work with a new GM.

A president and general manager can split broad organizational direction from the steady work of assembling and managing a roster. The practical value depends on the people involved: a second executive can add expertise and capacity, or create uncertainty if decision rights overlap. The Athletics haven’t said which version they’re considering. That leaves the central issue less about the org chart than about who’ll make which calls, and who’ll be accountable for the results.

Why the reporting lines matter

Front offices make decisions across a long chain of baseball work, including evaluating players, planning the roster, and coordinating with the coaching staff. A club may assign those responsibilities across several executives, but the public title alone doesn’t reveal where the authority sits. If Smith is expected to set the broader direction while a GM handles day-to-day operations, the arrangement could give each job a distinct focus. If the roles aren’t defined, it could instead make it harder for employees and players to know whose priorities guide the operation.

That’s especially relevant for a team coming off a stretch of losing seasons. A new president can signal a change in leadership, but the hire won’t by itself answer questions about how the club intends to build a more competitive roster. A GM appointment, if it happens, would give the Athletics another chance to spell out that approach. The details will matter more than the title.

Kotsay is set to stay

A change at the top of baseball operations won’t bring a manager change with it. Mark Kotsay signed an extension in February 2025 that runs through the 2028 season and includes a club option for 2029. That contract provides continuity in the dugout while the front office changes around him. It also means Smith’s early working relationship with Kotsay will be an immediate test of how the new leadership intends to operate.

Smith said he’s eager to work with the sixth-year manager, describing Kotsay as “someone who is hungry for all the information (the front office) can get him.” Smith added, “I think it’ll be a great partnership.” Those comments suggest an emphasis on communication between the dugout and the front office, though they don’t yet explain how information will turn into decisions. A manager can make use of clear, timely support; the front office still has to decide what resources and roster choices it can provide.

The next decision will define the change

The next question is whether the A’s fill the GM role and how that executive’s responsibilities will fit beneath Smith. If you're working in this space, the useful signals to watch are simple: whether the club hires someone, what remit it gives that person, and how Smith describes the division of authority. Those answers would show whether the proposed structure is meant to add a layer of expertise, redistribute existing work, or mark a broader change in how baseball decisions get made.

This is more significant than it looks. A leadership change is easy to announce; a working arrangement has to hold up when executives weigh competing roster priorities and communicate with the manager. (And this is the part most people overlook.) A two-tier structure can only help if the people in it agree on who owns each decision. For now, the Athletics have offered a possibility and a positive statement about Kotsay, but not enough detail to judge how the new setup will function.

There’s also a straightforward test for the club: can it make the reporting lines legible to the people expected to carry them out? A defined GM role could give Smith a partner with a clear remit, while leaving Kotsay with a consistent point of contact. Or the organization could choose a different arrangement; Fisher hasn’t said the position is certain. Until the Athletics explain the job and its authority, the proposed second tier remains an outline. The structure on paper. The consequences will depend on the decisions behind it.