Atkins: the ultimate litmus test

[byrdz]

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.

He did, I remember AM saying something along the lines of them having their eye on Eaton for a while, even before that offseason. Coveted may be a strong word but he definitely thought Eaton was a worthwhile project.

[TiredofLosing20]

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.

Right, its another test but not necessarily the ultimate test. I suppose I am arguing semantics. Personally the only guys I would have preferred on the FA list from this year was LaRoche and a guaranteed health Nick Johnson. The rest are as bleh as Atkins. The attraction of Atkins was his perceived flexibility IMO.

[DrungoHazewood]

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.

Right, Atkins is a free agent version of an old fashioned challenge trade. Two GMs agreeing to swap similar players because each one likes the other guy better.

Everyone else seemed to think Atkins was done, the O's said, "No, no he's not. And not only that, we think he's going to be much better than the Atkins clone (Wigginton) we already have."

We'll see.

[Leitch]

I don't know, I think these are pretty good ones.... :wedge:

[Big Al]

I find it interesting how everyone seems to be avoiding the elephant in the room. I have absolutely no evidence and am not accusing Atkins of anything, but when you consider the landscape of baseball for the last 20 or so years and see a player with such a statistical drop off, certain things need to be considered. I hope the front office took this into consideration when making the Atkins deal and has had all their questions answered to their complete satisfaction. :scratchchinhmm:

[RShack]

I find it interesting how everyone seems to be avoiding the elephant in the room. I have absolutely no evidence and am not accusing Atkins of anything, but...

Sure you are.

[Mackus]

I find it interesting how everyone seems to be avoiding the elephant in the room. I have absolutely no evidence and am not accusing Atkins of anything, but when you consider the landscape of baseball for the last 20 or so years and see a player with such a statistical drop off, certain things need to be considered. I hope the front office took this into consideration when making the Atkins deal and has had all their questions answered to their complete satisfaction. :scratchchinhmm:

I have no evidence and I'm not accusing you of anything, but there is a South Park character named Big Gay Al.

Same argument you're making about Atkins there. I'm not worried about performance enhancers and Atkins. His problems are different than that, IMO. Still doesn't make me think he's going to overcome them.

[Sports Guy]

If Atkins was taking roids, then i think he should start taking them again.

[Big Al]

I'm not worried about performance enhancers and Atkins. His problems are different than that, IMO. Still doesn't make me think he's going to overcome them.

I'm not saying he did or didn't because I have no evidence one way or the other. I'm just a fan. All I'm saying is that I hope the front office considered the possibility when assessing the drop off and that if they had any concerns, they were completely answered.

[Mackus]

I'm not saying he did or didn't because I have no evidence one way or the other. I'm just a fan. All I'm saying is that I hope the front office considered the possibility when assessing the drop off and that if they had any concerns, they were completely answered.

I don't really know what they can do to investigate this. I guess they can speak to some coaches, but nobody is really going to come out and say "this guy was juicing", IMO.

I don't have any suspicions of Atkins that I wouldn't have about anybody. His decline has been steady, more indicative of slowly losing either some hand-eye coordination or bat speed or whatever. If he used to use and then stopped and that's the main reason he's struggled, then I think it would have been a steeper decline.

[TiredofLosing20]

I don't really know what they can do to investigate this. I guess they can speak to some coaches, but nobody is really going to come out and say "this guy was juicing", IMO.

Except Dave Trembley at a fan get together....:laughlol::laughlol::laughlol:

[Frobby]

I'm not saying he did or didn't because I have no evidence one way or the other. I'm just a fan. All I'm saying is that I hope the front office considered the possibility when assessing the drop off and that if they had any concerns, they were completely answered.

I agree this is a possible explanation of his drop-off, though there is no way to know one way or the other.

[DrungoHazewood]

I find it interesting how everyone seems to be avoiding the elephant in the room. I have absolutely no evidence and am not accusing Atkins of anything, but when you consider the landscape of baseball for the last 20 or so years and see a player with such a statistical drop off, certain things need to be considered. I hope the front office took this into consideration when making the Atkins deal and has had all their questions answered to their complete satisfaction. :scratchchinhmm:

So not only are you strongly suggesting that Atkins used PEDs, but also wonder aloud whether the O's front office was too stupid to even consider this. Ok.

I don't like the Atkins deal, but the simplest explanation is that they think he has a mechanical flaw in his swing that they think Crowley can fix. The end.

[Ruzious]

That reminds me of the Ibanez situation last year - in reverse. He got off to a great start, and all of idiot radio talk show hosts came out and said, "I'm not saying he's definitely roiding up, but it sure looks suspicious." The poor guy had to deny being a roider every day. So, after finishing the season not hugely better than his average season, I never heard those same idiots retracting the comments that likely deeply embarrassed him and his family. The prize for improvement was accusations that he was roiding.

[RHall31]

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.

I read through this whole thread and still don't understand what the big deal is. AM signed a guy for 1 year at $4.5 mil. So what? It's not like the O's can't

afford to swallow that contract if Snyder smokes it in AAA.

It's certainly not a litmus test to start judging the front office by.