Beane addresses Gio trade

Quick hits from A’s general manager Billy Beane’s conference call with reporters this evening:

On why he pulled the trigger on the Nationals’ offer:

“We were pretty clear from the start that we were going to leverage one team against the other. We were transparent about that. First of all, I think the caliber of the prospects, they’re guys we think very, very highly of, and in a couple of cases guys we think are very, very close. Milone and Peacock were in the big leagues at the end of the year and showed themselves pretty well. The other thing, we’re giving up a pitcher, and the ability to acquire three — what we think are three very good Major League prospects was what won it for us. There were a couple of teams involved, and it was a very difficult decision because there was another club that put together a deal that was different in terms of prospects, but we just slightly leaned this way.”

On not taking a more offensive-conscious approach when assessing return packages:

“I think we focused on getting the best players we could get, whether they be pitchers or position players. I think we’ve got a long way to go and we just wanted to basically take the best deals and not be overly specific with it. We thought that was the best long-term approach.”

On the effect the Angels and Rangers have had on his planning:

“I think we’ve been pretty public about the position we’re in, the expectation that we need a new venue to compete and that we expect that decision pretty soon. So this would have been the same approach we would have taken two months ago, but as it applies to their moves, it would be disingenuous to say, particularly in Anaheim’s case, that it certainly was a little bit of a nudge in this direction, that’s for sure.”

On his response to fans who are saying goodbye to some of the team’s best playerss:

“We’ve been through this cycle numerous times, and it gets shorter and shorter because the gap between us and everybody else grows. Ultimately, the fact of the matter is, and we’ve been a little more vocal about it lately, for us to compete we’re going to have to have a new stadium, and I don’t think there was a move we could have made that would put is in a posiition to compete with a club like the Angels or Texas given what they have and where they’re headed and some of those signings. You’re talking about two clubs in the division that are probably in the $150-$170 million range, and we’re not a business that can put that payroll on the field. Just for us to catch up to Seattle, we’d have to spend an extra $40 or $50 million to catch the person above us. From our standpoint, I don’t know there’s a move out there that could have put us in a position to compete with them next year.

“I’d rather run a club that has a plan, a three- or four-year plan, and see that plan implemented, and see the team get better over time, as opposed to putting together a patchwork on a year-to-year basis which has a very limited future. Whenever we’ve been successful is when we’ve had a plan and stuck to it, and when we haven’t been successful is when we try to act on a year-by-year basis.”

On teams’ remaining interest in his other players:

“Yes, as we expected. We’re still going to be very open-minded. Whether it happens or not, we’re putting together a team with the idea that we’re going to have a new stadium because I don’t think we have any other choice, to be honest.”

On the stadium decision:

“We’ve just been hearing soon. Any other information, I would probably keep to myself. We have no choice but to operate this way. The fact of the matter is, if you have a new stadium, there’s been one model, and it’s what the Cleveland Indians did. They did it first, and they did it best. Nobody’s done it the same way since. We’re going to take the same approach, and if there’s a little bit of pain inbetween, so be it. If we get the opportunity to open a new stadium, we’re going to take advantage of it. it may sound a bit Pollyanish, but I don’t think we have too many other options.

“The plan I’d like to have is like Cleveland, where the core of your team enters a stadium and they’re already productive Major League players, based on giving them the opportunity before you go in there, and that one sustains itself for a long, long time. The Indians were arguably one of the most dominant teams of the 90’s, and to me that’s the blueprint and the template of the way to do it. They went through some pain over there, but they had the guts to do it right, and they did it best.”

On potential outfield additions:

“There are certainly a couple we’re speaking to now. And we’ve had trade conversations that would involve that position, too.”

1 Comment

Billy Beane says ” for us to compete we’re going to have to have a new stadium” as if this makes perfect sense to everyone. Why? Fischer has more money than Angels owner Artie Moreno, yet who just signed Albert Pujols? The ownership is not interested in making money through baseball. They want a new stadium so that the team’s value increases and they can sell it for a massive profit. And now that Billy is an owner he’s helping them out by alienating the Oakland fan base and making the transition to San Jose much smoother.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: