Atkins: the ultimate litmus test

[Mackus]

The decision was poor.

Even if he goes out this year and has an 800 OPS, he will still likely end up a below average first baseman and an 800 OPS would be great for him.

I agree.

However, if he has an .800 OPS, that would make it a decision that paid off. $4.5M isn't too much for an .800 OPS 1B, its not a bargain, but its not a bad deal.

Someone made a good point in another thread or maybe even this one. Its not exactly fair to compare Atkins 2010 numbers to an "average 1B". He should be compared to anyone else who could have been had as a FA or cheap trade for a small (single digit millions) commitment.

It Atkins goes out and has an .800 OPS, it wouldn't really be fair to say that it was still a bad move in the end by MacPhail because an average 1B has an .850 OPS if most the other guys he could have signed are no better than Atkins.

[TiredofLosing20]

It's not a test of whether AM can make a smart deal. We already know that he's a canny GM. It's a test of the team's ability to judge who can play the game and project their future production. (AM has the final word, but he listens to others, including the scouting department).

So it's not really about the deal. AM has already said that they committed to Atkins because they thought they saw a correctable flaw in his swing. If Atkins hits as poorly in 2010 as he did last season, it'll mean that they saw wrong, and it'll call into question the most fundamental part of running an MLB team, which is being able to look at a player and know how good he is.

Yeah but in that vain isn't every move he makes a litmus test? Eaton, Pie, Jones, Wiggington, Gonzalez, etc etc etc... Every organization is going to be right and wrong on players. You just hope not to commit too much of your resources to the wrong and maximize your resources on the right. To me there is only upside (with the exception of potentially (key word) limiting ML ABs for Snyder).

The point is that if he had made a much more significant committment to Atkins (years and dollars) then maybe we could look at this signing as some sorta litmus test of AM's talent evaluation (or at least his advisors' skills) but to me a 1 yr (is it $4MM?) deal is simply a flyer on a guy that has had success in the past.

[Mackus]

Yeah but in that vain isn't every move he makes a litmus test? Eaton, Pie, Jones, Wiggington, Gonzalez, etc etc etc... Every organization is going to be right and wrong on players. You just hope not to commit too much of your resources to the wrong and maximize your resources on the right. To me there is only upside (with the exception of potentially (key word) limiting ML ABs for Snyder).

The point is that if he had made a much more significant committment to Atkins (years and dollars) then maybe we could look at this signing as some sorta litmus test of AM's talent evaluation (or at least his advisors' skills) but to me a 1 yr (is it $4MM?) deal is simply a flyer on a guy that has had success in the past.

I don't think Frobby means that the Atkins signing is a litmus test of whether or not MacPhail is a good GM or if he's the guy to lead us forward or not.

I think what he means is that it will be very easy to figure out whether this ended up as a smart move, ok move, or dumb move by the end of the year. We know who else we could have had for similar money, and we'll just compare what they did to what Atkins did.

[El Gordo]

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.

Yeah I forgot to add him right after AGonz.:rolleyestf:

[TiredofLosing20]

I don't think Frobby means that the Atkins signing is a litmus test of whether or not MacPhail is a good GM or if he's the guy to lead us forward or not.

I think what he means is that it will be very easy to figure out whether this ended up as a smart move, ok move, or dumb move by the end of the year. We know who else we could have had for similar money, and we'll just compare what they did to what Atkins did.

Maybe you are right. I guess this statement from the OP So, this is a move on which to judge the acumen of our front office coupled with the title "Ultimate Litmus Test" is what has me scratching my head on this one.

I just think that is way too much weight on this one transaction. Maybe I am not reading this in context. I think every move should be used to judge the acumen of our front office. I assume that Frobby does too but I am not sure why this particular deal gives some sorta noteworthy insight into the competency of the FO beyond say the Eaton deal or the Pie deal. To me, a 1 yr $4.5MM deal is not something to get riled up about. If AM would have given him a three year deal then this deal could be weighed more heavily in our examination of the FO's acumen. I think I get what Frobby is saying I just disagree.

[TiredofLosing20]

Yeah I forgot to add him right after AGonz.:rolleyestf:

Funny..

Cartas

[Arthur_Bryant]

Yeah but in that vain isn't every move he makes a litmus test? Eaton, Pie, Jones, Wiggington, Gonzalez, etc etc etc... Every organization is going to be right and wrong on players. You just hope not to commit too much of your resources to the wrong and maximize your resources on the right. To me there is only upside (with the exception of potentially (key word) limiting ML ABs for Snyder).

The point is that if he had made a much more significant committment to Atkins (years and dollars) then maybe we could look at this signing as some sorta litmus test of AM's talent evaluation (or at least his advisors' skills) but to me a 1 yr (is it $4MM?) deal is simply a flyer on a guy that has had success in the past.

You're correct that every personnel decision is a test of baseball smarts. But of all of AM's moves to date, the Atkins acquisition stands out for me, because it's the first time I have seen him leap so enthusiastically into a player who has the serious potential of being a pitfall.

Hernandez and Eaton and Trachsel all had red flags, but I never had the sense that MacPhail really expected much of them. They were all ugly necessities. With Eaton and Trachsel, MacPhail had holes in the rotation, no real internal options, and not a lot of choices on the market. I don't remember when Trachsel signed, but Eaton was a very late pickup. Hernandez became the default SS when other options failed to materialize, and it was pretty clear that the O's were headed for a dismal season regardless.

Pie and Hill had spotty records, but there were no expectations; they were roll-the-dice experiments. Wigginton had posted several solid seasons before MacPhail signed him. Gonzales has done the same. Jones came with a sterling resume in ever respect.

Atkins stands alone: a player with dramatic statistical caveats, yet apparently coveted by MacPhail, signed at a time when less-risky options were available. MacPhail is out on a limb with this one, really for the first time in his tenure with the O's.

[Mackus]

Maybe you are right. I guess this statement from the OP So, this is a move on which to judge the acumen of our front office coupled with the title "Ultimate Litmus Test" is what has me scratching my head on this one.

I just think that is way too much weight on this one transaction. Maybe I am not reading this in context. I think every move should be used to judge the acumen of our front office. I assume that Frobby does too but I am not sure why this particular deal gives some sorta noteworthy insight into the competency of the FO beyond say the Eaton deal or the Pie deal. To me, a 1 yr $4.5MM deal is not something to get riled up about. If AM would have given him a three year deal then this deal could be weighed more heavily in our examination of the FO's acumen. I think I get what Frobby is saying I just disagree.

I think its another test to see if "they know more than we do". Almost everyone here hates the Atkins move. Or at least, doesn't like it. I imagine the few that do like it, would have been happy with just about any move for 1B, I can't imagine anybody actually preferring Atkins to any of the other options that were available at 1B.

This is one of those moves, like Eaton, where we all think its a bad move, and if it works out, it'll be a clear sign of Andy seeing something that most didn't, and trusting himself enough to make an otherwise unpopular move. That'd be a big win for him. If it doesn't work out, which I think is the case, then it looks more like him just completely botching a move from the get-go.

There are moves like the Wigginton signing that looked good at the time and just didn't (or haven't) work out. But there are other moves that look like real head-scratchers from the minute they are made, and the Atkins one definitely fits into that category, especially if MacPhail felt all along that he would be our 1B.

[Hank Scorpio]

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.

The point is maybe he was inferring that it was made clear to Atkins that he was brought here to play 1st base. That they made no secret to Atkins about their intentions.

You seem to have this sense of entitlement as to be privy to what MacPhail is doing, and I'm curious as to where it comes from. You sometimes kind of sound like a whiny blog owner who doesn't have any juicy rumors to dwell on.

[Arthur_Bryant]

This is one of those moves, like Eaton, where we all think its a bad move, and if it works out, it'll be a clear sign of Andy seeing something that most didn't, and trusting himself enough to make an otherwise unpopular move. That'd be a big win for him. If it doesn't work out, which I think is the case, then it looks more like him just completely botching a move from the get-go.

Eaton was duct tape for a broken rotation.

Everyone here hated the signing, but I'm not sure that MacPhail liked it much more. It just had to be done: he needed someone to plug into the rotation, he didn't want to throw one of the young arms to the wolves, and the outside choices were all unappealing (Looper and Redding I think were the main candidates).

AM may not have expected Eaton to be as bad as he was, but I don't believe that he expected him to be very good, either.

Atkins is different. He wasn't a move by necessity. There were internal options, and there were plenty of other choices at the time, especially at 1B.

[byrdz]

I agree.

However, if he has an .800 OPS, that would make it a decision that paid off. $4.5M isn't too much for an .800 OPS 1B, its not a bargain, but its not a bad deal.

Someone made a good point in another thread or maybe even this one. Its not exactly fair to compare Atkins 2010 numbers to an "average 1B". He should be compared to anyone else who could have been had as a FA or cheap trade for a small (single digit millions) commitment.

It Atkins goes out and has an .800 OPS, it wouldn't really be fair to say that it was still a bad move in the end by MacPhail because an average 1B has an .850 OPS if most the other guys he could have signed are no better than Atkins.

Yeah that was a good point brought up by Arthur_Bryant in this thread.

[Mackus]

Yeah that was a good point brought up by Arthur_Bryant in this thread.

Thanks for giving credit where it was due. I forgot who had posted it. Its a very apt point.

[Sports Guy]

Eaton was duct tape for a broken rotation.

Everyone here hated the signing, but I'm not sure that MacPhail liked it much more. It just had to be done: he needed someone to plug into the rotation, he didn't want to throw one of the young arms to the wolves, and the outside choices were all unappealing (Looper and Redding I think were the main candidates).

AM may not have expected Eaton to be as bad as he was, but I don't believe that he expected him to be very good, either.

Atkins is different. He wasn't a move by necessity. There were internal options, and there were plenty of other choices at the time, especially at 1B.

AM targeted Eaton from the beginning of the offseason...I definitely think he felt he was going to get more out of him than he did.

We didn't need Adam Eaton at all.

[byrdz]

I don't think Frobby means that the Atkins signing is a litmus test of whether or not MacPhail is a good GM or if he's the guy to lead us forward or not.

I think what he means is that it will be very easy to figure out whether this ended up as a smart move, ok move, or dumb move by the end of the year. We know who else we could have had for similar money, and we'll just compare what they did to what Atkins did.

I don't think we do simply because the Orioles aren't an attractive team to come to and they have to make more of a commitment to get players to come here. If the Orioles hadn't signed Atkins he'd probably going to the Red Sox as a ST invite.

[TiredofLosing20]

because it's the first time I have seen him leap so enthusiastically into a player who has the serious potential of being a pitfall.

Here is the heart of the disagreement. To me a 1 yr deal isn't an enthusiastical (is that a word?) leap and at that length and dollar amount, I am not sure how serious a pitfall it really is. Years and $$ have to be considered when you start discussing pitfalls.

I am assuming you are judging the enthusiam by the timing of the signing. I get that but I believe he signed him early as he saw value in the flexibility to then go get either a 1st or 3rd basemen. Its not like he said "Atkins is my 1B of choice, remember AM apparently looked at other options at 1st base. When they didn't materialize for whatever reasons he shifted to Tejada.

Not denying that AM clearly liked him and Atkins success or failure will give you an insight to his talent evaluation, I am just saying I am not sure this is something to overweigh.