A's GM David Forst says Athletics are not planning to sell at the trade deadline

What happened

Athletics general manager David Forst pushed back against the assumption that a last-place club is obligated to become a parts supplier at the trade deadline, per a post from Athletics beat reporter Martín Gallegos on X. Forst reportedly said the organization has constructed its roster with a longer horizon in mind and does not feel pressure to deal simply because Monday's deadline is approaching.

Gallegos quoted Forst directly, with the GM saying the team was assembled for the long haul, that he has no interest in breaking it apart, and that sitting outside the playoff picture does not automatically translate into selling off pieces. Forst added that he does not feel compelled to make a trade simply because the deadline falls on Monday.

The remarks amount to a public posture, not a binding commitment. Roster decisions between now and Monday remain unresolved, and Gallegos's report carries the inherent uncertainty of pre-deadline positioning. Front offices have been known to say one thing on Wednesday and do another by Sunday night.

Why it matters

The trade deadline is the moment when the baseball calendar sorts clubs into two neat columns: buyers chasing October, sellers converting present talent into future assets. Forst's comments, as reported by Gallegos, suggest the Athletics are declining to sit in either column — or at least declining to announce which one they occupy.

That framing matters operationally. A club that signals it is not selling removes leverage from potential buyers who might have expected a motivated counterpart. It also tells the players on the roster something: that the organization, at least publicly, views them as part of whatever comes next rather than as inventory to be liquidated before the fiscal year closes.

The Athletics are 64-98 and eliminated from both the AL West division race and the Wild Card race. The conventional logic of deadline economics would suggest a club in that position has little to gain from holding veterans who might command meaningful prospect returns. Forst, per Gallegos, is apparently unconvinced by that logic — or at least unwilling to act on it under deadline pressure.

Whether that posture reflects a genuine long-term plan, a negotiating stance designed to keep asking prices elevated, or simply a preference for inaction is not something Gallegos's report resolves. What it does establish is that Forst, as of this week, is not describing his club as a seller.

The numbers

The Athletics enter the deadline weekend at 64-98 (.395), sitting fourth in the AL West, 17 games back of the division leader. In the Wild Card picture, they rank 11th, 20.0 games relative to the cut line. The club has dropped its last two.

Those are the numbers that typically generate deadline urgency — on the other side of the ledger. For a contender, a 17-game deficit is a closed door. For a rebuilding club, it is simply the current address, and Forst's comments suggest the Athletics are treating it as such rather than as a fire alarm.

Where the club stands

The schedule does not ease up as the deadline arrives. On Thursday, July 30, the Athletics host the Boston Red Sox at Sutter Health Park, with Mason Barnett lined up opposite Sonny Gray. Friday brings the Detroit Tigers to town, with Jeffrey Springs going against Tyler Holton. Saturday's rematch features Jack Perkins against Framber Valdez.

That is a stretch of games against clubs with their own deadline agendas — Boston and Detroit are not arriving to play exhibition baseball. How the Athletics perform across those three games will not change Forst's calculus in any formal sense, but it will provide the backdrop against which whatever deadline decisions do or do not get made will be evaluated.

The club is eliminated from both the division and Wild Card races, which means these games carry no postseason arithmetic. They do, however, carry the kind of evaluative weight that front offices quietly assign to late-season looks at younger players — the sort of information that informs exactly the kind of long-haul planning Forst described to Gallegos.

What we don't know yet

Forst's comments, as reported by Gallegos, describe an intention, not a completed transaction. The deadline is Monday, and the gap between "I don't feel compelled to make a trade" and "we did not make a trade" is where most of the interesting deadline journalism lives.

It is not known whether the Athletics have received specific offers for any players, whether any players have requested trades, or whether Forst's posture would shift if a contender presented an offer the organization found genuinely difficult to decline. Gallegos's report does not address any of those questions, and the desk is not in the business of answering questions the material does not raise.

What is also unresolved is what building the roster for the long haul means in concrete terms — which players Forst views as central to that construction, and which might be considered movable without contradicting the stated philosophy. That distinction, if it exists, was not part of what Gallegos reported.

What to watch

The deadline is Monday. Between now and then, any transaction involving an Athletics player would either confirm or complicate the posture Forst described to Gallegos. The absence of a transaction would be consistent with his remarks but would not, on its own, tell us much about what offers were considered and declined.

The three-game series against Boston and Detroit at Sutter Health Park also bears watching in the context Forst established. If the Athletics are indeed building for the long haul, the performances of younger players in this stretch — against legitimate competition, under deadline-week scrutiny — are the kind of data points that shape the offseason decisions that follow whatever happens Monday.

Forst's public comments have a way of setting the terms of the conversation even when they do not settle it. He has reportedly told the market that this roster is not a clearance rack. Whether the market believes him, and whether he believes himself when a compelling offer arrives, is the question the deadline will eventually answer.