Atkins: the ultimate litmus test

[Frobby]

The more I think about it, we kind of know what to expect from Tejada, Millwood and Gonzalez. If any of them stray significantly from expectations, I don't think anyone will blame the front office.

Atkins is a whole different story. The guy's numbers have dropped significantly three years in a row, he hasn't been a good hitter away from Coors Field, and he was just downright awful last year. Yet, the O's office thinks it sees something there.

To me, this is a real litmus test of our organization. It's not like we paid him chump change, $4.5 mm guaranteed is real money. Just for example, it's $1.5 mm more than we'll be paying Wigginton, who also is right-handed and can play either corner IF spot, and who was much better in 2008 when we signed him than Atkins was in 2009. So, this is a move on which to judge the acumen of our front office. To me, even a .750-ish OPS wouldn't justify this move. The O's could get that from Wigginton without spending a dime on Atkins. This move only becomes worthwhile if Atkins puts up an .800-ish OPS and knocks in 90+ runs. If that happens, I'll be the first to congratulate the front office for seeing a guy who just needed some corrections. If he fails miserably, the front office will look stupid, and if he is just so-so, I still say the move made no sense.

[BillySmith]

I think part of AM's thinking in signing Atkins was that he could be the third baseman if nothing better worked out. It gave him so flexibility and a little bit of negotiating leverage maybe.

That said, I think he's our weakest link. At least with Izturis, you know you're getting a smoking glove. With Atkins, we could have one of the worst first baseman in the league.

[Moose Milligan]

Agreed on all points.

I think this will be a misrable failure.

Don't get me wrong, I like Crow and what he's done for some of our guys. Our guys, by all accounts like him and like working with him and he did some great work with Pie last year.

As good as Crowley is (no comments from the peanut gallery...if you want to debate him, start another thread), I can't imagine what he's seen to make him think that he can fix Atkins that others aren't seeing.

Though I guess thats why he has the job he has

[backwardsk]

Agreed on all points.

I think this will be a misrable failure.

Don't get me wrong, I like Crow and what he's done for some of our guys. Our guys, by all accounts like him and like working with him and he did some great work with Pie last year.

As good as Crowley is (no comments from the peanut gallery...if you want to debate him, start another thread), I can't imagine what he's seen to make him think that he can fix Atkins that others aren't seeing.

Though I guess thats why he has the job he has

It may be a failure and I'm not a big fan of the signing, but at least it won't be a multi-year failure ala Cordova, Segui, Ponson, Payton, etc.

Yes $4.5 is more than Wigginton, but with a one year deal, it does nothing to the plans beyond 2010. In other words, even if his deal was $6mm for 2010, it's a better deal than $3mm per year on Wigginton's two year deal, imo.

[Remember The Alomar]

It very may well be that I'm just in denial, but there has to be something we don't know about Atkins. We all know MacPhail isn't the type of guy to jump the gun, yet he signed Atkins so quickly. I'm extremely curious as to why.

[Diehard_O's_Fan]

Add me to the small list of people that think Garrett Atkins will have a good year. I think the guy will hit at least 285 or better and will drive in at least 85-100 runs.

The best part about the Tejada and Atkins deals is that both players are only signed for one year and are going to give 110% rather than sulking on a multi year deal. Both of these players also know that they have to have a good year with the Orioles if they want to play in 2011. I love to have players like these guys who are going to be hungry and are trying to revitalize their careers. It is the high reward low risk type moves we Oriole fans had been hoping for. AM gave us what we had hoped for.

Andrew,

[Arthur_Bryant]

To me, even a .750-ish OPS wouldn't justify this move. The O's could get that from Wigginton without spending a dime on Atkins. This move only becomes worthwhile if Atkins puts up an .800-ish OPS and knocks in 90+ runs. If that happens, I'll be the first to congratulate the front office for seeing a guy who just needed some corrections. If he fails miserably, the front office will look stupid, and if he is just so-so, I still say the move made no sense.

I agree with all of your post (even the part not quoted). And I have to say that I am wary of teams who convince themselves that they've seen something in a player that most other teams don't see. That's especially when they're also going against the evidence of the numbers.

AM made clear in his radio interview on Friday that Atkins was a priority, that they wanted to go hard after him as soon as they could. I understand that it's just one season, and $4.5MM won't break them; but other options were available, particularly since they were looking at him as a 1Bman all along. If Atkins doesn't produce, it'll be a mark against the professional judgments of those who chose to ignore some pretty obvious red flags.

My rough guess, based just on stats and trends: he has maybe a 1-in-3 or 1in-4 chance of reaching a .750 OPS.

[Arthur_Bryant]

It very may well be that I'm just in denial, but there has to be something we don't know about Atkins. We all know MacPhail isn't the type of guy to jump the gun, yet he signed Atkins so quickly. I'm extremely curious as to why.

Not necessarily. Teams sometimes get seduced into ignoring obvious faults, while convincing themselves that they're smarter than everybody else. Bad teams do it often.

"He just needs a little correction, and we have the coach to do it."

[Arthur_Bryant]

Add me to the small list of people that think Garrett Atkins will have a good year. I think the guy will hit at least 285 or better and will drive in at least 85-100 runs.

Just out of curiosity, what makes you believe this?

Not that it isn't possible.

[RShack]

I get the point Frobby is making, and it's a good point. But "ultimate litmus test"? I think that's a bit much.

The guy's not cheap, but it's not a long term deal either. If he doesn't work out, they have other ways of coping with 1B.

So, I don't get the "ultimate litmus test" part. What about Beane and Sheets, is that an "ultimate litmus test" too?

[Frobby]

As good as Crowley is (no comments from the peanut gallery...if you want to debate him, start another thread), I can't imagine what he's seen to make him think that he can fix Atkins that others aren't seeing.

Though I guess thats why he has the job he has

I don't believe Crowley had seen anything at all before Atkins was signed:

"This actually is one of my favorite-type situations," Crowley said yesterday. "So much of this business, the end of the business that I'm in, deals with disappointment. Seven out of 10 at-bats are outs and you have a great hitter, so there's a negative side to hitting. And the fact that he had success in the past really makes me feel good."

Atkins batted .329 with 29 homers and 120 RBIs in 2006. His numbers declined in each of the next three seasons, though he still topped 20 home runs and 98 RBIs until 2009.

"I'll watch films and see how far he's come away from what he was doing," said Crowley, who's already arranged for the club's video coordinator, Michael Silverman, to create a package of tapes for him to view at the ballpark after Christmas.

"It's a challenge and something I look forward to. I've done it in the past."

http://masnsports.com/2009/12/crowing-about-the-next-challen.html

So, the Orioles were betting that Crowley could fix him before Crowley had done any significant review of Atkins' approach at the plate.

[EutawStreet]

I might just be saying what I hope happens, but I actually liked the move by Macphail. The way I see it, this guy was dangerous a couple years ago. It's not like hes declining because of age, he just lost it for a while. He went into a slump, was benched, and never got the playing time to find his stroke again. Obviously, because of the numbers he HAS put up, he has got the tools to be a good player. Although it was risky to make this move, the possibility of the upside for this guy was worth putting some money towards him. (plus, its a one year deal with an option;)i like those:D)

[BillySmith]

I don't believe Crowley had seen anything at all before Atkins was signed:

http://masnsports.com/2009/12/crowing-about-the-next-challen.html

So, the Orioles were betting that Crowley could fix him before Crowley had done any significant review of Atkins' approach at the plate.

I noticed this, too. And I am 100% sure that MacPhail was quoted after the signing that they had seen some things in his swing that could be corrected. Then I read where our own hitting coach has not reviewed any tapes, and for the first time in MacPhail's history here, I'm wondering if he fibbed a little. Maybe someone else saw something about Atkins' swing, but you would assume Crowley would be the guy.

The only other thing I question MacPhail about is his claim that he knew about Patton's injury. He was the centerpiece of the Tejada trade, and he has a serious labrum injury?

Anyway, I digress.

[Moose Milligan]

I don't believe Crowley had seen anything at all before Atkins was signed:

http://masnsports.com/2009/12/crowing-about-the-next-challen.html

So, the Orioles were betting that Crowley could fix him before Crowley had done any significant review of Atkins' approach at the plate.

Honestly, this is worse. For some reason I was under the impression that the O's got together with Crow and had watched tape before signing him.

But they signed him without really talking to Crow first and seeing what his thoughts were?

[clapdiddy]

Honestly, this is worse. For some reason I was under the impression that the O's got together with Crow and had watched tape before signing him.

But they signed him without really talking to Crow first and seeing what his thoughts were?

I'm not sure that it's that big of a deal. Maybe AM and Trembley were watching films and found a flaw. They've both been around baseball enough to know what to look for. I would certainly have felt better if Crowley had seen some film, but I don't think it's the end of the world.