Beane leaning toward rebuilding?
by OaklandSi
on Dec 8, 2007 11:06 PM PST
As Blez and Nico pointed out in front page posts this week, Beane seemed to be leaning toward making a run at contending in 2008, which would mean keeping Haren (and perhaps Blanton), plus adding extra players for the short term ("Voldemort"). Several sportwriters also had supported this latest turn (Marty Lurie's blog today had an entry to this effect.)
Tonight, however, two SF Chron writers thought they saw a change today on Beane's part toward rebuilding instead. First, Ray Ratto claims a change from Thursday to Saturday may make the "go for it" less likely, though he doesn't think Beane has decided yet. Ratto's main point in the article is to say that unless Beane commits to going for it in 2008, all the speculation about Bonds is just that.
Well, I could say the same. I don't see much in this article that make me think anything in particular has changed. Beane likely hasn't made up his mind, and doesn't feel he has to so quickly, right? And of course, if some team wants to offer the farm for Haren (or half the farm for Blanton or someone else) of course he'll listen. Nothing new here.
However, the second article -- from Susan Slusser -- contains a tidbit that I found significant:
Oakland is bringing nearly all of its major-league players into its minor-league complex in Phoenix this week to assess various health concerns, and Beane said the gathering will help to determine the team's course, along with developments in the trade market.
Nearly ALL of the A's major league players are going to Phoenix this coming week? This is a big deal, I think. I haven't ever heard of such a gathering in early December...has anyone else?
0 recs |
55
comments
Read Related
Email
PrintComments
Neither article that conclusive
The first one...it's Ratto. He doesn't get everything wrong, and he's not Bruce Jenkins in that if you put a new idea in front of him, he may very well get it. That said, he's a writes a sports column. By definition he's lazy. He basically says "If Haren is traded, the A's are rebuilding," suggests that if Haren is traded, Blanton will be traded (logical enough) and puts these two facts together to suggest somewhat bizarrely that the fulcrum on which the rebuild/don't rebuild lever shifts is the return we could get for Blanton.
Slusser's piece is just more of the same, "Beane hasn't made up his mind". Getting everyone together like that doesn't make me think he's leaning towards rebuilding. If anything, I think it suggests he's leaning in the opposite direction. We're not trading Chavez, for example, (even if there's a desire to, his value is at an all-time low, it'll happen AFTER he's had some time to raise that value) but if he's going to get his physical, it means Beane wants an idea of what he might be able to expect from him next year.
I think he's seeing if trying to compete in 2008 is feasible.
by Nate on Dec 8, 2007 11:23 PM PST 0 recs
If Beane goes for a rebuild
he's going to try to get lots of prospects for his most attractive players. Chavez would certainly not be one of them, coming of of several years of declining offense, three recent surgeries, plus his contract.
I agree that Ratto doesn't have anything new or different, as I said. On the other hand, the Phoenix gathering of nearly the whole team seems odd. There's no objective reason for it. Beane can certainly check in with all of his injured and rehabbing players individually (as Forst has said they do weekly). The team normally doesn't start to get together until spring training...certainly you don't see this get together as a common practice two weeks before Christmas.
by OaklandSi on
Dec 8, 2007 11:37 PM PST
up
0 recs
Timing a factor
I don't know when the best time to try to trade Haren would be, but if trades for Santana, Bedard, Capuano et al go down first (or a Kuroda signing) it probably thins out the market for Haren. If Beane's going to pull the trigger, it can't wait weeks or months. But if he does pull that trigger, then the A's are out of contention for at least 2-3 years. As I said, I think he'd rather not, but he's got to justify it to himself that if he goes forward, he's done everything he can to diagnose the likelihood of another injury-plagued trainwreck of a season like last year.
by Nate on
Dec 8, 2007 11:46 PM PST
up
0 recs
OT...what about mid-season?
You're right that Chavez is at an all-time low, and it's possible Crosby and Kotsay can rebound a bit from their current low -- not that I'm holding my breath, but their value hopefully won't go even lower. So if that's the case, I wonder if it would make sense to pull the "firesale" lever in July (assuming we're significantly out of contention by then)...though he may risk getting less back for Haren/Blanton by going that route.
by oblique on
Dec 9, 2007 8:24 AM PST
up
0 recs
Mr. Toad's Wild Ride.
When Hudson & Mulder were traded in 2004, it occurred on December 16th & 18th. If some activity is going to occur, the timing is now. Nobody outside of Beane & D. Forst really know what other teams have actually offered for Haren, Blanton, & our other desirables. If Santana stays put with the Twins, which looks to be 50/50, trade offers from other teams may improve or remain static. A widely reported fact is Beane has been waiting to see what happens with Santana. IMO, its a total & complete crapshoot, & nobody on this blog really has a friggin clue what Beane & Forst are going to do. IMO, the entire contend or rebuild mode rests on the A's signing Bonds. We can expect the unexpected. The suspense is killing us. I liken it to Mr. Toad's Wild Ride.
by alpine26 on Dec 8, 2007 11:42 PM PST 0 recs
Nice post
And yeah, it really depends on what happens this week, I'm assuming. If Beane decides that most of his players look like a MASH unit still, then I'm pretty sure he comes back to the office this week and trades Haren and then Blanton.
If they look fantastic, Beane will probably come back and aggressively pursue Bonds.
by Blez on
Dec 9, 2007 11:28 AM PST
up
0 recs
Well if he wants the whole team together
It could be for a couple of different reasons. Perhaps it could be foreshadowing towards rebuilding. But I have a different theory. If Beane is to sign Bonds, wouldn't he want to tell his players in person and get their approval or disapproval considering it will have great influence on the clubhouse? Wouldn't it be easy to do so if they were all in one place, say...Phoenix?
by vignette17 on Dec 9, 2007 12:38 AM PST 0 recs
Interesting theory
It doesn't sound like a typical Beane move but then again, signing Bonds isn't your typical A's move either. He doth come with special baggage.
I think the main story is legit, the A's want to see how their wounded are healing, but I'm sure the topic of Barry Bonds could come up.
Here's the thing though. If Beane is willing to discuss Bonds with the troops he'd have to be a phone call away from completing a deal. The risk of someone leaking the info would be too great and we know how Beane likes to control the information.
by grover on
Dec 9, 2007 6:19 AM PST
up
0 recs
The info's already been leaked
In this case, he may just see trying to keep it under wraps as a lost cause/not worth it. With the constant media circus around Bonds, it's got to be tough to talk to the guy in private.
by PaulThomas on
Dec 9, 2007 8:42 AM PST
up
0 recs
There are leaks, true
But Beane hasn't told the press he's actively pursuing Bonds. The assumption is, if Beane talks to the players about Bonds it is to confirm (or, I guess, deny) that the team is interested and actively pursuing him.
Beane hasn't confirmed the Bonds rumors, a leak from the players would act as confirmation.
by grover on
Dec 9, 2007 9:01 AM PST
up
0 recs
Player gathering in Dec.
From listening to the interview of David Forst on XM Radio, as well as reading an article earlier in the week from someplace I can't remember, this was planned well in advance as part of the new procedure so the front office can better gauge the health and physical condition of everyone. By seeing them in person and examining them face-to-face, it'll be easier to see how the guys are doing, as well as where they are in their individual training regiments.
All this basically came as a result of the ineffective medical treatment/team of last year. It's essentially a "checking in" of the players so the A's can be sure they aren't dead already.
Of course, if Billy IS thinking of trading anyone, he (as well as the other team) would like to see how said-player was health-wise.
by Kaiser99 on Dec 9, 2007 1:14 AM PST 0 recs
I'm guessing they are all gathering for a
photo scavenger hunt.
by salb918 on Dec 9, 2007 4:59 AM PST 0 recs
They could all get GPS units
and go out into the desert on a cache hunt!
And if somehow Crosby ends up in Mexico... hey, stuff happens.
by grover on
Dec 9, 2007 6:15 AM PST
up
0 recs
If Crosby can't read a GPS
it's his own damn fault.
by grover on
Dec 9, 2007 7:01 AM PST
up
0 recs
crosby
...if Crosby reads a GPS like he reads a slider, he'll end up in Peru...
by kitoko on
Dec 9, 2007 8:32 AM PST
up
0 recs
QOTM
by notsellingjeans on
Dec 9, 2007 2:06 PM PST
up
0 recs
if their backs are still hurting ...
... Chavez and Kotsay won't stand up in a court of law -- or anywhere else, for that matter.
by monkeyball on
Dec 9, 2007 8:19 AM PST
up
0 recs
I'd already read the Slusser article
I think you're reading the tea leaves right, OaklandSi.
Thus you get my Recommendation.
by grover on Dec 9, 2007 6:21 AM PST 0 recs
thanks
I remember Forst's interview about the health situation. I counted 6 members of the major league team who they might want to see in person for health reasons (Chavez, Crosby, Kotsay, Duke, Buck, Calero). There may of course, be others, but nowhere close to "nearly all of its major league players". This sounds pretty unusual, which is why it caught my attention.
by OaklandSi on
Dec 9, 2007 8:06 AM PST
up
0 recs
Everyone should be into their offseason program
by now, so might as well check on as many as you can.
And think of the frequent flier miles the team can rack up!
by grover on
Dec 9, 2007 9:02 AM PST
up
0 recs
Team Christmas Party
It IS that time of year. Maybe they are exchanging gifts in one place. Can you imagin pulling off a white elephant party via the mail?
by Masaryk on Dec 9, 2007 8:11 AM PST 0 recs
further conspiracy mongering
Given how close Beane is to many of the players on the team, maybe he wants them all in one place to announce personally that he's stepping upstairs and handing the reins to Forst.
by monkeyball on Dec 9, 2007 8:23 AM PST 0 recs
Or maybe Billy needs to tell them,
"I have but 3 weeks to live..."
by Nico on
Dec 9, 2007 6:20 PM PST
up
0 recs
Wait, problem
"Win one for the Beaner" is gonna piss off our Latino players.
Chavvy: Nah, I'm fine with it.
by Nate on
Dec 9, 2007 8:38 PM PST
up
0 recs
"His panic button" -
"Hispanic button"...
...Coincidence? Well, obviously.
"Therapist" - "The rapist" ... Hmm...
by Nico on
Dec 9, 2007 8:41 PM PST
up
0 recs
Sounds like someone of AN
needs to make a trip to Phoenix for purposes of espionage. Disguised as a giant cactus?
by Englishmajor on Dec 9, 2007 9:35 AM PST 0 recs
How 'bout Bonds?
He's pretty prickly, I hear.
by Nico on
Dec 9, 2007 6:20 PM PST
up
0 recs
I feel better about myself now
I resisted that joke all day.
by grover on
Dec 9, 2007 6:50 PM PST
up
0 recs
Oh great - now I'm using the material
grover deems not even good enough for him.
Oh hi, "rock bottom" - what's up?
by Nico on
Dec 9, 2007 8:29 PM PST
up
0 recs
Arizona
What disturbs me about SuSlu's piece is that it mentions Arizona AGAIN. I didn't mind hearing them mentioned once or twice, as Billy used some weak offer to try to stir the pot, but they keep coming back for more! I would be dumbfounded if Haren goes for a bunch of lame spare parts like Arizona seems to be offering. Does anyone have a better view of Carlos Gonzalez, Brett Anderson, and Conor Jackson than I do? It seems like it'd be trading a new Porsche for 4 or 5 Yugos...
by BerkeleyDawg on Dec 9, 2007 9:50 AM PST 0 recs
More like Priuses
They're "nice" for what they are, but they're no Porshe.
by DMOAS on
Dec 9, 2007 9:55 AM PST
up
0 recs
Gonzales is definitely not a Yugo or a Prius
Gonzales has some of the best tools in organized baseball, and has superstar potential. This is why you see him ranked so highly in propect rankings despite his lackluster performance so far. The problem with Gonzales is not his talent, but the uncertainty that he brings and the fact that he is not a CF.
In order to trade for a guy like Gonzales, a team has to have faith/trust in their scouts who like him. If he develops anywhere near his ceiling, he will be a star. Will he reach his ceiling? That is the question Billy and his braintrust will need to decide.
If you want to compare Gonzales to a car, compare him to an older Jaguar or Lotus: sexy but far from a sure thing.
by BlameChannel53 on
Dec 9, 2007 12:24 PM PST
up
0 recs
Very interesting indeed
I think you're spot on Si.
I also believe that Beane will be as upfront as he can with the team regarding what might happen. I'm sure many of the players have been stirring at home hearing trade rumors.
I also agree with vignette, I think Beane will mention Bonds as a potential signing to the team. Not only does Bonds come to the A's with his personal baggage, but the media circus surrounding him will need to be addressed. This is something the A's players aren't used to. They might need a "scripted answers for the media regarding Bonds 101" class.
Even if none of this speculation is true, I like the idea, it should be done annually.
by pickinmachine on Dec 9, 2007 10:55 AM PST 0 recs
I hope it's "go for it."
Unless the return we're supposed to get for Haren, Blanton, and others is going to be a lot better than reputed to date. I'm just not that enthused about what I've heard we would get for those guys.
Beane says "there's no middle ground" for a team like the A's--why not? We have a pretty good young core of guys, a lot of whom I'd like to see around when the new ballpark opens (especially Haren). I don't mind being an 85-win team for a while. I'd rather either win now or truly rebuild, but truly rebuild means getting some monster talent in return, not a collection of guys whose ceilings are much like Nick Swisher or Joe Blanton. Nothing wrong with the middle ground if that kind of return simply isn't possible.
by jeepers on Dec 9, 2007 1:07 PM PST 0 recs
Rebuilding vs. Contention
Teams that come knocking looking to trade for Haren would really have to impress the hell out of me, if I'm Beane, and even Blanton to a certain extent. If, and it is a big if, the team checks in as reasonably healthy, then I would have to "go for it!". Bonds or no Bonds, the team still has a good nucleus and who knows what could happen with a healthy roster. The Angels still don't scare me and if you have a shot at the division, you go for it, plain and simple.
So now the question becomes "Is the team healthy?" If not, then I think you listen to offers for your top 2 SP's but you still need to acquire as much legit talent in return. The last thing the A's need is another Charles "Bust A Move" Thomas, Juan "The Scarecrow" Cruz, and Dan "The Flameout" Meyer trade, especially for a Dan Haren. This is gonna be a make or break week for the A's, me thinks.........what a fun post this is today!
by mrod on
Dec 9, 2007 1:26 PM PST
up
0 recs
Exactly.
I just don't see it as two stark choices. The same path that's been successful in the past should be applied here--exploiting inefficiencies. If the market won't bear a great return for guys like Haren and Blanton, it isn't a good idea to blow up the team for the sake of blowing up the team.
by jeepers on
Dec 9, 2007 1:32 PM PST
up
0 recs
in the 2004-05 offseason
Beane referred to his trading of 2/3 of the Big 3 as reloading the team for the next few years while continuing to contend in the coming season. The Mulder trade accomplished that, while the Hudson trade did not.
It's also worth noting that Hudson was going into his walk year; while Mulder still had two seasons left on his contract, both cost more than Haren and Blanton do right now.
So it does appear that he saw a middle ground for the A's at that time -- why not now?
by OaklandSi on
Dec 9, 2007 1:54 PM PST
up
0 recs
something weird just happened
I did not put any link or label or anything else on this post. I don't know why the word "reload" shows up as a link. Please ignore it.
by OaklandSi on
Dec 9, 2007 1:56 PM PST
up
0 recs
"Pay no attention........
to the little man behind the green curtain......"
by mrod on
Dec 9, 2007 2:04 PM PST
up
0 recs
Well, the new Metallica cd is coming out soon...
by Scottbass on
Dec 9, 2007 6:03 PM PST
up
0 recs
Granted, the Hudson trade did not...
by UncleLeo on
Dec 9, 2007 2:32 PM PST
up
0 recs
right, the intent was the same
as I stated in the first sentence.
by OaklandSi on
Dec 9, 2007 2:35 PM PST
up
0 recs
Excellent post.
The way you aptly put it, it's obvious there's middle ground.
by jeepers on
Dec 9, 2007 2:41 PM PST
up
0 recs
Bonds and Haren/Blanton
I don't think the two situations are mutually inclusive, if that makes sense.
By that I mean, they could sign Bonds for a year and still trade Haren and Blanton.
Bonds would help make a "rebuilding" team relevant and interesting to watch and worth coming to the stadium for the casual fan (which, remember, none of us are. We are the minority).
For the average guy, who won't recognize the names we'd get in return for Blanton and Haren, Bonds represents a face that they do recognize (and perhaps hate, but that's besides my point).
I think most of our discussion has revolved around, "If the A's sign Bonds, it's a signal that Haren and Blanton are staying." But I don't think that's guaranteed to be true, because this two-part scenario could certainly play out:
*The A's are Bonds' only suitor, and he's at a bargain price, and he helps the team's bottom line because he puts people in the seats. AND...
*Beane is absolutely bowled over by a deal for Haren and/or Blanton, and sees an opportunity to sell high on the two of them and add some terrific high-ceiling guys that ensure the team is still a playoff contender when Cisco Field opens.
Why couldn't that happen? Why are we all assuming that couldn't happen?
Sure, a Bonds acquisition makes sense with Haren/Blanton in the fold. I think he still makes sense without them in the fold. He makes the team better, puts people in the seats, and on a one-year deal he wouldn't block anyone or stunt anyone's development.
*I'm certain Bonds comes up at this Arizona pow-wow. Maybe not in front of Blevins and Donnie Murphy, but certainly at a private Council of Elders with Chavvy, Kotsay and Friends.
*Another reason for the face-to-face is actually SEEING how in-shape people are. It's easy to say over the phone, "Yeah Billy, I've been working REALLY hard on my conditioning," while you're sipping 40s and gaining 15 pounds in the offseason. Harder to pull that off in a face-to-face.
by notsellingjeans on Dec 9, 2007 2:26 PM PST 0 recs
That should be the case.
Either move should be about its inherent value, which is improving the team. There are four moves in that equation that could represent such improvement--signing/not signing Bonds, and trading/not trading Blanton and Haren--and they should all exist independently of each other.
by jeepers on
Dec 9, 2007 2:44 PM PST
up
0 recs
More than four, actually.
Since trading Haren and Blanton shouldn't have anything to do with each other, either.
by jeepers on
Dec 9, 2007 2:45 PM PST
up
0 recs
See, I think that's a bit too simplistic
Your point is that a Bonds signing isn't necessarily dependent on the status of Haren and/or Blanton, and I can sort of get that, but to say that all these moves exist independently of each other is kind of missing the point.
EVERYTHING the A's do is about trying to make the team better, whether that's in 2008 or 2012. Because of this, everything is dependent on everything else.
This is what Ray Ratto didn't get when he praised the Mulder trade while bashing the Hudson trade. Yes, the guys we got from one deal turned out better than the guys we got from the other, but the Mulder trade doesn't happen without Hudson being shopped around, Atlanta getting the eventual deal done, and Billy Beane calling up Walt Jocketty and saying, "Sorry you didn't get Hudson, but y'know, I like the guys we were talking about. What if I offered you two years of Mark Mulder instead?"
For an example of one that didn't work out so well: Crosby was ready to go to the bigs when Tejada's contract was up, Teahen wasn't. Chavez was younger than Tejada, he got a big contract, Tejada left, Crosby stayed, and Teahen got traded.
It's all one big machine we're trying to put together, and parts are not interchangeable. Bonds can be expected to bring in an unknown amount of increased revenue, but that increase can probably be assumed to be larger if the A's contend. If the A's aren't likely to contend, the increase in revenue might not pay his salary.
Which isn't to say your basic point is entirely wrong. There can be a strategy that involves trading Haren and signing Bonds, (though I'm not sure I see what that strategy would be,) but to say that every move exists outside of the other moves isn't really true either.
by Nate on
Dec 9, 2007 4:41 PM PST
up
0 recs
Bingo!
*Another reason for the face-to-face is actually SEEING how in-shape people are. It's easy to say over the phone, "Yeah Billy, I've been working REALLY hard on my conditioning," while you're sipping 40s and gaining 15 pounds in the offseason. Harder to pull that off in a face-to-face.
Gut feeling, but this is exactly the idea behind it, IMHO. Talking to a guy on the phone every week doesn't really show anything. There is alot of common sense behind this, and I wouldn't be surprised if it becomes SOP for many teams every off-season.
by UncleLeo on
Dec 9, 2007 3:16 PM PST
up
0 recs
about that last point
Uh ... doesn't Rich Harden look absolutely ripped in every picture ever taken of him (especially with his shirt off)? And that's contributed to his being healthy ... how, exactly?
If I'm Beane, I'd rather see spare tires and tricep wattle over the offseason. After all, we're < AHEM > not selling jeans here.
Anything he can see with his own eyes in a room full of 25 guys isn't going to tell him anything about the players' health -- especially not about the backs and joints that have been giving people trouble.
Sure, if Kotsay, Chavez, and Duke show up needing walkers to get around, that would be an indication. But Beane wouldn't need an all-hands meeting for that sort of rudimentary assessment.
This meeting is all about communication of info from Beane to the players, not vice versa. If you want to disseminate a message to a small group of colleagues, you do it in a meeting like this. If you want to gather sensitive personal information from a small group of colleagues, you canvas them individually.
Unless, of course, Beane is calling them to Arizona so that he can watch them do jumping jacks ...
by monkeyball on
Dec 9, 2007 3:46 PM PST
up
0 recs
probably
because harden is a presumed user...but that's just a rumor from a teammate of a teammate of his
by flipgatey3 on
Dec 10, 2007 12:14 AM PST
up
0 recs
edit
teammate of a teammate of mine*
by flipgatey3 on
Dec 10, 2007 10:36 AM PST
up
0 recs
I see three purposes to this meeting:
- To gauge whether the injured are recovering on-schedule enough that it makes sense to try to compete in 2008.
- To continue sending the message that past medical/training/conditioning practices were not successful and that this is the dawn of a new era.
- To weigh Joe Blanton.
by Nico on Dec 9, 2007 6:18 PM PST 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
New FanPost
