A Q&A with Jim Beattie

Birds in the Belfry...Feb 5 ,2004

 With Dr. K attending Fantasy Camp this week, we've been afforded a rare opportunity. Jim Beattie, one of the two heads of the Orioles organization, took time out to fly down to Florida to have a Q&A session with the campers. I was on the phone with Kerry and Meg for a couple of hours the other night getting a rehash, as well as discussing our own viewpoints concerning some of the issues. It was a fascinating experience, and the responsibility for recapping it for you here has fallen to me. I am humbled to have the opportunity to share Beattie's thoughts with you, our readers, and we're so fortunate to have Kerry generously share his time with us to give all of us this insight.

Kerry's impression of Beattie were quite positive. Not only did he come down to do this, but he stayed considerably over the time allotted. In addition, Kerry felt that his answers were very frank and candid. He also revealed himself to be a very bright guy, not that this was any sort of surprise.

We will note Beattie's comments in the order that Kerry shared the information with us, not necessarily in the order the questions were asked, or comments made.

Jim Palmer and Scott McGregor were also participants in the session. The first question was about Pete Rose. Beattie said he was not allowed to comment on the situation, as MLB had instructed all front-office personnel to remain silent on the issue. Palmer had a great deal to say, however, stating that he thought Rose had blown any chance he had for reinstatement by obviously not making any effort to deal with his situation in any fashion, and by his continued lying, casino visits, etc. He said he felt that even if Rose were put to a vote by the current HOF members, he would stand no chance of being elected. He also said that it was his understanding that Rose had been talked to by MLB several times before the Dodd investigation, and the baseball was eager to keep Rose in the fold, but that Rose was always totally uncooperative and in full denial.

Pudge and Lopez...what was the story there? What went on? Did the Orioles really prefer Lopez in the first place as was stated after the signings?

Beattie said that they actually got the man they preferred. When asking around baseball concerning the two players, one of their main conduits of info about I-Rod was none other than Jeff Conine. Niner told Beattie that he should not focus on Rodriguez. According to Beattie, others in the game agreed with Conine's position (reasons not given.)

As for Lopez, Beattie acknowledges the risks, the age, and the career season. Sam Perlazzo is good friends, however, with Leo Mazzone, and Mazzone gave Lopez high marks. He said that Lopez' career year was partially due to a change in hitting philosophy, and could well continue, though probably not at quite his 2003 level. The big thing is his handling of pitchers, and the running game. Mazzone again said Lopez is just fine. He didn't catch Maddux not because Maddux had a problem with him, but because Maddux insisted on having the same catcher all the time. Since they wanted to give Lopez time off, the easiest way to grant Maddux' request and not screw up the lineup was to just give the backup all of Maddux' starts until the playoffs, which is what the Braves did.

Smoke? Damage control? Sure, anything's possible. Also possible is the scenarios outlined above.

What's the Jack Cust story?

Actually, Beattie brought up Jack Cust without being asked, when asked a question about possible 'surprises" in 2004. The Orioles are not expecting any contribution from either Cordova or Segui in 2004. Understanding that Cust is out of options, so he must travel north with the big club, or be exposed to irrevocable waivers, it appears that the club is going to give him every chance to make the team as either a bat off the bench, or the everyday DH. They feel that although he has shown an improved defensive acumen, he would best serve the team only at the plate. It appears that the slot is his to lose.

What happened with Vlad?

Beattie said that most of the media speculation was way off during this negotiation. He knew Vlad quite well from his days in Montreal, and he was not aware of any feelings that Vlad had concerning a Dominican neighborhood, or staying in the National League. Beattie says all of that came from whole cloth, not reality. (He said Vlad lived simply with his mother in an apartment, and his mother would cook for all the Dominican players when the team was at home, but that Vlad didn't insist or even mention this as a sticking point with the Orioles.) Negotiations were difficult because of all the agents involved, and things did not go swimmingly with the two with whom the Orioles spent the most time, as the negotiations didn't go as smoothly as they has with their other clients. Draw your own conclusions. (It sounds like he really didn't want to come to Baltimore, for whatever reason, albeit not the ones most often speculated in the press.)

What happened with Grover?

Beattie said that they wanted to go in a different direction. This was difficult because both Mike and Jim had a lot of respect for both Mike and Sharon Hargrove, and Jim's wife counts Sharon among her best friends. That being said, Beattie said they wanted someone to light a little bit of fire under the club...not Larry Bowa style, but more hands-on. They both felt that Mazzilli was very prepared, saw personnel issues in a similar fashion to Flanagan and Beattie, and that he would be a teacher as well as disciplinarian. Beattie did comment that a couple of the interviewees were woefully unprepared, but he didn't mention any names.

Why did Melvin Mora get a contract? Does this mean that the club is convinced that he is the answer at third base?

The club is not convinced that Mora is the answer at third, but they felt that he was a very valuable player, and should be locked up rather than be worrying about both playing third and his future contract. They feel that last season was not entirely a fluke, and that his numbers in the future will be between last year's and his pervious seasons, rather than being all the way back to those previous numbers. Beattie stressed his versatility, mentioning that very few players could do what Mora could do, and with the embryonic state of the offensive ball club, that flexibility was valuable. Besides, the number they signed him to for this coming year was probably close to his arbitration number, anyway, so basically the club is looking at it as a two-year deal. He went on to say that they also did this because Mora was the kind of player that they were trying to sign as Baltimore Orioles, and that there was not only a reward to Mora involved, but a statement to other players, both vets and youngsters.

What about the rotation?

Basically, they know they are vulnerable for 2004 in this area, but it's somewhat by design. They feel that too many of the pitchers are close to being ready to gum things up with veteran innings-eater types. The starting rotation going in is Ponson, DuBose, and Ainsworth. They expect fine seasons from all three. Lopez is in the rotation for now, but they expect other guys to be ready if he falters through a dozen or so starts. Daal is probably not going to be counted on, which means, in our interpretation, he's a candidate for release. They do not expect the fifth starter to be Riley or Bedard. Since both of then have options remaining, it's likely they will both start at AAA and be in reserve. The fifth starter will probably come from elsewhere, though not from Rick Bauer, either.

The two pitchers they are most high on are John Maine and Danny Bautista. Beattie said he would be more surprised if Maine were not in the rotation by September than he would be if he were. They are sky-high on his capabilities, and think he's close to being ready. Bautista, they feel, is right behind him, and needs only a little more seasoning than Maine. Between Riley and those two, they feel that all the openings will be covered by mid-season, if needed. They are optimistic about Bedard's recovery, but don't expect to see him with the big club until perhaps September call-ups, if then.

What happened with Hentgen?

Actually, the club did want to resign Hentgen, and offered him more money than did the Jays for 2004. But Hentgen wanted to be a lot closer to Detroit, his home, and, of course, Toronto is his first ML club, for which he still has a soft spot. The Orioles were sorry to see him go.

What's the status of the farm?

They seem to understand that there is a lot more work to do here. They are very high on the pitching, especially the lefties, feeling that they have the finest group of left-handed prospects in baseball. They are very enthused about Doc Rogers, and the ongoing improvement of the system. They are aware, however, that position player-wise, the organization is still in dire straits.

How are things going with the two-headed monster?

Beattie and Flanagan continue to work well together. They have a plan, a vision, and are trying to stick to it as best they can. They know every move and every signing will not work out; that's the nature of the beast. But they feel that with the resources, the fan base, and the organization in place, that they are heading in the right direction on a day in-day out basis. The Syd Thrift regime was described as "a disaster", with a web of intrigue surrounding the club, and no real plan for the future. Beattie said he and Flanagan are running an open house, with everyone free to exchange ideas, and input is considered as valuable as output. But people are held responsible for what they do, and don't do.

What are your expectations for 2004?

Basically, it went like this: We want to win as many games as possible within the framework of developing the club for the future. We don't put a label on an 'expected number of wins.' We look for improvement every day, and a team of which our fans, and the organization, can be proud.

Thanks for taking time to read the summary of Beattie's remarks!

For the folks at Orioles Hangout reading the article and also the comments ON the Hangout ABOUT the article:

I have been made aware that folks from the Hangout, among other sites, were reading our summary of Jim Beattie's remarks to campers Monday, and that was, of course, fine. Orioles fans are always welcome here.

What was not welcome was a discussion of the accuracy and integrity of the folks that put this together on the Hangout message board, especially when it got into past issues between the websites.

We made it clear how this information was discussed, and how it was transferred. We didn't ask anyone to take it as pure gospel. We made it clear that at times Jim might have been saying something we wanted to hear, rather than the unvarnished truth. We made certain that the comments were on the record.

I tried to be as accurate as possible in recounting the remarks. I have even now reworked one or two to make them less colorful. I am certain that the gist of EVERY remark was accurate. Some of the things he said were as surprising to me as to any of you.

I do not appreciate that sort of discussion going on in a forum at which I do not participate. It would be much more appropriate if comments about the article's accuracy would have been directed to our message board, where I could have addressed them.

As for the poster who asked about the "bad blood" between the Hangout and the Belfry, that opens a three-year-old can of worms that no one needs reopened. Let's just say that we were writers (actually, for most of the Hangout's first years, THE writers) who just had some differences in opinion and moved on to do our own sort of page. That's supposed to be a GOOD THING for Orioles fans. :)

The pages are entirely different, and have different goals. Some fans read only one or the other, some both. It was nice to see a link pasted onto the Hangout for a couple of our articles for the first time in ages. It's a pity that all the other stuff started up about how we made it up, or were careless, etc, started up.

Thanks for your understanding.

Back to the Belfry