Jump to content

Atkins: the ultimate litmus test


Frobby

Recommended Posts

The more I think about this, the more I hate this move.

While AM said signing Atkins allowed them to add either a third or first baseman, there is no doubt in my mind that he was signed to play first...Atkins said this in his NST interview not longer after he signed here.

That is just a terrible decision by AM.

Whether they feel he has flaws they can correct or not isn't the point..The bottom line is better options existed for first base than Atkins.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 127
  • Created
  • Last Reply
I see Atkins much differently, because we paid him $4.5 mm when there were other options out there. Eaton was a spring training pick-up for the major league minimum, Hernandez also was making the minimum. If MacPhail is wrong about Atkins, he looks more foolish than in the other two situations IMO.

I see the $4.5M investment and believe this is about the cheapest possible rate for free agent who may be a respectable every day 1B/3B who wants to be in Bmore.

If Atkins fails, Bell and Snyder may get earlier chances - in which case one could ask if it was really necessary to sign Atkins at all - which IMO is a legitimate question.

IMO, once the FO decides Bell and Snyder need more time in the minors and that Scott will not be at 1B, then it's a logical solution to sign the cheapest possible potentially respectable stop-gap solution - Atkins.

In this regard, I do not see our FO having much exposure if Atkins fails.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The more I think about this, the more I hate this move.

While AM said signing Atkins allowed them to add either a third or first baseman, there is no doubt in my mind that he was signed to play first...Atkins said this in his NST interview not longer after he signed here.

That is just a terrible decision by AM.

Whether they feel he has flaws they can correct or not isn't the point..The bottom line is better options existed for first base than Atkins.

The thing that gets me is that MacPhail keeps saying that the Orioles didn't make it a secret that they wanted Atkins for 1B.

He never said that they preferred him at 1B to my knowledge. It was always up in the air where he was going to play, with the assumption that it would be at 3B by most fans and media.

It was Atkins himself on a radio show that said he was signed to play 1B and that's when we first found out.

This reminds me of the situation with Aubrey Huff who we all thought was going to play LF, but in reality was signed to play 1B/DH.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The thing that gets me is that MacPhail keeps saying that the Orioles didn't make it a secret that they wanted Atkins for 1B.

He never said that they preferred him at 1B to my knowledge. It was always up in the air where he was going to play, with the assumption that it would be at 3B by most fans and media.

It was Atkins himself on a radio show that said he was signed to play 1B and that's when we first found out.

This reminds me of the situation with Aubrey Huff who we all thought was going to play LF, but in reality was signed to play 1B/DH.

When did anyone think this?

Huff was never a thought to play LF.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree that the Atkins signing is iffy. No way to judge it until we see what happens.

One thing that Schuerholz was great at was guessing which retreads to get for a year or two. He was amazing at that. Especially for marginal BP guys who Leo could get the most out of. We don't really know if AM is any good at that or not. Getting Pie for Olson was a great move, getting Rich Hill for whatever, not so much. But Hill and Eaton cost pocket change.

We also don't know if Billy Beane is any good at knowing which FA-eligible guys to give contracts to either. He sure blew it with Kotsay. If Atkins is a big litmus test for AM, then why isn't Sheets a big litmus test for Billy Beane? Isn't that kinda like paying $10M for Rich Hill? It seems like a similar thing to me...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree that the Atkins signing is iffy. No way to judge it until we see what happens.

One thing that Schuerholz was great at was guessing which retreads to get for a year or two. He was amazing at that. Especially for marginal BP guys who Leo could get the most out of. We don't really know if AM is any good at that or not. Getting Pie for Olson was a great move, getting Rich Hill for whatever, not so much. But Hill and Eaton cost pocket change.

We also don't know if Billy Beane is any good at knowing which FA-eligible guys to give contracts to either. He sure blew it with Kotsay. If Atkins is a big litmus test for AM, then why isn't Sheets a big litmus test for Billy Beane? Isn't that kinda like paying $10M for Rich Hill? It seems like a similar thing to me...

What does Billy Beane have to do with anything? Is this just more hero worship for AM from you? This is about atkins and AM, so stop trying to change the subject to your anti-Beane sentiments that has nothing to do with this thread.

And if you think Sheets and Hill are in the same situations, then i don't know what to tell you but that is just a horrible comparison.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When did anyone think this?

Huff was never a thought to play LF.

"I don't know if we can pinpoint an exact day or time, but there was a lot of conversations with the agent and keeping an eye on the market [to] get a sense of the other teams that were interested," Duquette said of Huff, who will log most of his time in left field. "It's been an odd free-agent market. It was heavy early, and it's slowed down of late.

...

Left field was a true sinkhole for the Orioles last year -- especially after they traded veteran Jeff Conine in August. Baltimore sent utility man Brandon Fahey out for regular duty in the outfield, and he clearly was overmatched. The O's also tried Fernando Tatis out there briefly. Huff's presence, in theory, should prevent those experiments.

http://baltimore.orioles.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20070103&content_id=1772379&vkey=news_bal&fext=.jsp&c_id=bal

From the moment the offseason started, the Orioles had a clear goal. Baltimore was charged with evening out its outfield, which meant finding a full-time left fielder and a right-handed bat to mesh with the on-hand talent. The O's succeeded on both counts by signing Aubrey Huff and Jay Payton to multiyear deals.

http://baltimore.orioles.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20070123&content_id=1784840&vkey=news_bal&fext=.jsp&c_id=bal

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Atkins should probably be judged against the other realistic options at 1B that were available to MacPhail. It's possible that quite a few of those won't reach .845, either.
there were only two with a good shot to be .830 OPS or better, IMO, Johnson or LaRoche. Delgado and Thome are DH's, Branyon is a big question mark, as are Garko, Glaus, Huff, etc.? Oh yeah I forgot AGonz. There's the big mistake.We shoulda traded the farm for him.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

there were only two with a good shot to be .830 OPS or better, IMO, Johnson or LaRoche. Delgado and Thome are DH's, Branyon is a big question mark, as are Garko, Glaus, Huff, etc.? Oh yeah I forgot AGonz. There's the big mistake.We shoulda traded the farm for him.

Don't forget about Miguel Cabrera who we might have been able to obtain before the Granderson and Jackson trade.

Most teams didn't want to take a risk due to the salary, but had they, seeing as he went through rehab, somebody was likely to get a superstar player that might not have been available under other circumstances.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The thing that gets me is that MacPhail keeps saying that the Orioles didn't make it a secret that they wanted Atkins for 1B.

He never said that they preferred him at 1B to my knowledge. It was always up in the air where he was going to play, with the assumption that it would be at 3B by most fans and media.

It was Atkins himself on a radio show that said he was signed to play 1B and that's when we first found out.

This reminds me of the situation with Aubrey Huff who we all thought was going to play LF, but in reality was signed to play 1B/DH.

He means that he didn't make it a secret with ATKINS, which is really all he needs to do.

He has no responsibility to let the fan base know his intentions with someone he signs, especially when that could directly affect his negotiations with other players going forward.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He means that he didn't make it a secret with ATKINS, which is really all he needs to do.

He has no responsibility to let the fan base know his intentions with someone he signs, especially when that could directly affect his negotiations with other players going forward.

Well that's fine but he should stop saying it was obvious that the Orioles preferred for Atkins to play 1B, because it clearly wasn't.

Had he said that they had signed Atkins to play 1B with LaRoche, Johnson, Glaus and others still on the board, a lot of people that supported the move wouldn't have been as supportive IMO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The more I think about this, the more I hate this move.

While AM said signing Atkins allowed them to add either a third or first baseman, there is no doubt in my mind that he was signed to play first...Atkins said this in his NST interview not longer after he signed here.

That is just a terrible decision by AM.

Whether they feel he has flaws they can correct or not isn't the point..The bottom line is better options existed for first base than Atkins.

So AM has failed already even though Atkins hasn't played a single game for the O's?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's a puzzlingly bad move that became more puzzling and worse when it was announced he'd be playing 1B. But it's not a particlularly significant move in the grand scheme of things, because the smart thing about it is - It's a 1 year deal - giving the team all kinds of flexibility next year. It's puzzling and bothersome, but it doesn't hurt the future of the organization.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


  • Posts

    • I am not worried.  It just doesn’t remotely meet the eye test.  He has been great in the field . I can think of at least 3 outstanding plays he has made and not any that I thought he should have gotten but didn’t. Meanwhile Holliday is 3 OAA and I can’t think of an outstanding play and can think of a number I thought he should have made. 
    • Nicely stated Roy. Every since I was 9 years old and saw the O's vs. the Tokyo Giants in Tokyo in 1971, I've been infected with the Orange/Black virus. There is no cure and I don't want one. You and I sat at the lunch table with Jim Palmer at the 1970 World Series Champs reunion, and its still one of my enduring baseball memories. You said I looked like Carlton Fisk! I was at all 3 games in this Angels series, right behind the O's dugout. I got to see all our boys, and just simply love to watch this team play. And in true baseball fashion, the one game on paper we should have dominated (GRod vs. 8+ ERA Channing), we end up down 7-0 and lose. But watching Gunnar's homers, his electric triple, and he made a fantastic play today on a ball that went under Westburg's glove, Adley do Adley things, Cowser, holy crap. Kimbrel v. Trout with bases loaded, bottom of 9th, 2 outs, down by 2? That was fun. Next game Trout bats leadoff and torches a GRod fastball for a homer to the opposite field.  An observation.... If you didn't know anything about the team, and you only watched game 1 batting practice, you'd think Cowser and O'Hearn were the studs of the team. Mountcastle was taking BP with the reserves and he put on a show as well.  Home after 3 straight days watching this O's team, so jealous of the Balt fans in Balt that get to see the team with regularity. It's a special bunch.
    • emmett16 is right. Uppercut swings produce a lot of groundouts because the bat is not on the same plane as the ball for very long. The best swing stays on the same plane as the ball for a longer time. This will produce contact that creates backspin on the ball which makes it carry. That Ted Williams book is one of the best hitting books ever written.
    • I have to admit. I'm an addict. I'm an addict not of booze or drugs. I'm an addict for baseball .... It's still THE game for me and I love almost any team sport. But for me, when it's great, it's still the greatest game of them all. I hate to say it, but when my team wins ...it's like a hit of crack or coke and I have never and will never try those drugs. This one is a better high anyway. It's an adrenaline rush for me. It comes from my heart and soul. Like the other night in Anaheim I sat transfixed on the game. I dont need to look at the silly shell games on a scoreboard, nor hear what the players favorite singer is.. or eat a lot of junk, but I DO have to have my bag of peanuts. The Orioles were clinging to a one run lead, when, with the bases loaded, Mike Trout stepped up to the plate...a single and the game is tied...an extra base hit and the Orioles lose. Our pitcher Craig Kimbrel had to throw a strike to one of the all time greats, and somehow, someway, Trout looked at a third strike and the Orioles won. I lept into the air as if I had a million dollars on the game. I never bet on sports, but this was a better high than winning any bet anyway. Because it is pure and it comes from my deep place of caring when the 'Birds' win. Today in Anaheim, another nail biter, the game was in the ninth with two out and a runner on first. Suddenly the runner broke for second and catcher James McCann threw a strike to second base. Gunnar Henderson covering, made the tag and the ump called the runner out. And the game ended that way. Bang Bang. Personally I thought it was a blown call, but after review the call was upheld and the Orioles won another nail biter. I dont watch many other games, but every night I hit the crack pipe" of baseball. It's my addiction. I also love watching fantastic performers. Mookie Betts is an electric ballplayer . can do anything at the plate and in the field. The Orioles' Henderson is a must see ballplayer like Betts is. On Wednesday he hit a home run, a double, a single, drove in 3 runs got hit by a pitch , stole a base and made two game saving plays in the field. Baseball is a team sport but it's also watching the brilliant, mesmerizing individual performances. It's watching the best players in the world do what I think is the most difficult thing in sports , hit a baseball, throw a baseball, and field a baseball. It's hard to do. Anyway,it's still just April and it's a long, long season. Bryant Gumble once had a great line about the difference between football and baseball. He said "Baseball, is a never ending romance, but football is a one night stand." Yep, I'm an addict, a baseball junkie, and I make no apologies for it. I'll never go to rehab for my baseball addiction. I don't NEED to be cured. And I never will be. Jim Bouton said it best in "Ball Four" his great book. "In all the years you grip a baseball...you suddenly remember, it's really the other way around" Exactly.
    • Especially when you factor in the DL Hall trade too.  Suarez and Wells get bumped to the pen only if Bradish and Means are effective starters a decent part of the season.  Would the O's promote Povich or McDermott to pitch relief?  My guess is not anytime soon, but I dunno. A trade would for one or two arms would be best, but trading for good relief pitching is only harder now because so many teams can make the playoffs.  
    • But O'Hearn's numbers are inflated because he never bats against lefties, plus he's trash in the outfield.  If Santander's hitting does not improve this season of course you don't give him a QO, but that's unlikely.  He'll probably pick it up as the weather heats up.  Plus Tony plays at least a decent RF and can play first base too.   Like others have said, should the O's offer Santander a QO?  Maybe -- it depends on how he performs and how Kjerstad and Stowers perform.  
    • Wait, since when is money no object? It remains to be seen what the budget constraints are going to be with the new ownership, but if Santander is projected to put up 3.0 WAR for $20 million and his replacement (Kjerstad/Cowser/Stowers...) can put up 2.5 WAR for less than a million then that will be factored in.  The goal will never be about being better than the other 29 teams in a payroll vacuum.
  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...