How much leeway will we give Atkins?

[Frobby]

I actually won't mind that much if he's just "below average". I'm very worried that he'll be equally as bad as Huff ended up being last year, which obviously goes way past "below average" and into the "worst 1B in the sport" territory.

It depends how you look at it. Huff actually was pretty decent in the first half -- he had an .805 OPS as late as June 28 -- and he was on pace for 100 RBI when he was traded. His lousy overall numbers were compensated somewhat by the fact that he hit .324/.411/.514 in RISP situations for the Orioles last year. If Atkins had a .725 OPS but hit as well in the clutch as Huff did for us last year, that would not be an unmitigated disaster. Frankly, I will be surprised if Atkins is as productive for us in 2010 as Huff was for us in 2009.

[Sports Guy]

Will you be willing to eat these words if he posts an .800 OPS with power?

It still wouldn't be a good move...We could have gotten better than that from Scott and been able to give Pie 500 at bats.

[stef]

It still wouldn't be a good move...We could have gotten better than that from Scott and been able to give Pie 500 at bats.

Yes. Atkins would have to perform extremely well for this to qualify as a good move or Wigginton and/or Scott need to be moved for something of value—and that is going to be tough.

[berto]

I wouldn't compare the Atkins to an Adam Eaton signing. I believe even if he is having as poor of a season as everyone believes he will, the O's will keep him there until Snyder or someone else pushes the issue.

[El Gordo]

It depends how you look at it. Huff actually was pretty decent in the first half -- he had an .805 OPS as late as June 28 -- and he was on pace for 100 RBI when he was traded. His lousy overall numbers were compensated somewhat by the fact that he hit .324/.411/.514 in RISP situations for the Orioles last year. If Atkins had a .725 OPS but hit as well in the clutch as Huff did for us last year, that would not be an unmitigated disaster. Frankly, I will be surprised if Atkins is as productive for us in 2010 as Huff was for us in 2009.

On the one hand we have Atkins track record which would seem to bear up your hapless predictions for him. On the other we have AM's track record as a fairly shrewd judge of talent and not one given to impetious high risk, costly expenditures. To assume Atkins will be a bust out of the gate is to regard AM as someone who doesn't know what he is doing IMO. I wouldn't go that far. While I can't see the upside to Atkins over Scott at 1B, I have to give them the benifit of the doubt. I expect Atkins will be a modestly pleasent surprise, say a .780+OPS with 20 HR and 80 RBI's.

[Frobby]

On the one hand we have Atkins track record which would seem to bear up your hapless predictions for him. On the other we have AM's track record as a fairly shrewd judge of talent and not one given to impetious high risk, costly expenditures. To assume Atkins will be a bust out of the gate is to regard AM as someone who doesn't know what he is doing IMO. I wouldn't go that far. While I can't see the upside to Atkins over Scott at 1B, I have to give them the benifit of the doubt. I expect Atkins will be a modestly pleasent surprise, say a .780+OPS with 20 HR and 80 RBI's.

I agree we can't assume AM didn't know what he was doing. Hence, the purpose of the thread is to explore how long we wait before beginning to draw conclusions. I'd much rather that AM be right than wrong on this one (and everything else for that matter).

[NewMarketSean]

Did AM know what he was doing with Adam Eaton? Luis Hernandez? Steve Trachsel?

I think AM is a smart GM but that doesn't mean he scores 100% on every move he makes.

[byrdz]

I agree we can't assume AM didn't know what he was doing. Hence, the purpose of the thread is to explore how long we wait before beginning to draw conclusions. I'd much rather that AM be right than wrong on this one (and everything else for that matter).

It seems like most people have written him off already, and the move hailed a universal failure, right out of the gate.

[Owen21]

The day Garrett Atkins was signed, I compared his siging to last year's signing of Adam Eaton, just a warm body to hold a spot until Snyder or Bell was ready. Since then, it has become clear to me that the O's think he can be considerably more than that. Despite his three-year decline and his lousy numbers outside of Coors, I'm willing to give the guy the benefit of the doubt for a period of time and see what he can do. But for exactly how long?

My basic feeling is, he gets two months of the regular season. I'm not going to freak out if he's playing almost every day and hitting lousy in April, or into mid-May. But if May 31 rolls around and he's not producing, it's time to conclude that this gamble did not pay off, and either bench him or cut him.

Too long? Too short? What do you think?

I hope we can get him going by May to attract enough interest to swap him for another piece of the puzzle...like a SS. I really can't envision him being an intregal part of the future. I would have no objection to moving a "blistering" Atkins. .320-12-35 on May 20th....Trade 'em

[El Gordo]

I agree we can't assume AM didn't know what he was doing. Hence, the purpose of the thread is to explore how long we wait before beginning to draw conclusions. I'd much rather that AM be right than wrong on this one (and everything else for that matter).

So if IYO Atkins will be a .725 OPS guy, how long will you give him? For me Scott is the wild card here. If they have absolutely no intention of playing him there, then I think Atkins' leash is as long as Snyder's success in Norfolk. If they intend to give Scott some time at 1B, then I would say late May. My guess is they do see Scott as an alternate plan at 1B but are playing that down as long as Atkins hits. I am looking to see if Scott gets some time at 1B this spring.

[DrungoHazewood]

It seems like most people have written him off already, and the move hailed a universal failure, right out of the gate.

I think that's to be expected when we're talking about a below-average defender whose OPS+ has gone from 136 to 113 to 96 to 66 over the last four years, and is being expected to hold down the best-hitting position on the diamond. An average first baseman has an OPS in the .830 range. He basically has to be a strong comeback player of the year candidate for this to not be a failure.

I'm not writing him off yet, but if you're not skeptical of his chances I'd like to know why. For me it's PECOTA and McPhail on one side, and all of the other evidence I can find on the other.

[larrytt]

How much leeway will we give Atkins?

If his Lee way is the Lee May of 1971, good. If his Lee way is the Lee May as he played during most of his years with the O's, then there's little leeway for that Lee way of Lee May.

-Larrytt

[murrayfan420]

I think that's to be expected when we're talking about a below-average defender whose OPS+ has gone from 136 to 113 to 96 to 66 over the last four years, and is being expected to hold down the best-hitting position on the diamond. An average first baseman has an OPS in the .830 range. He basically has to be a strong comeback player of the year candidate for this to not be a failure.

I'm not writing him off yet, but if you're not skeptical of his chances I'd like to know why. For me it's PECOTA and McPhail on one side, and all of the other evidence I can find on the other.

Totally agree. I would feel A LOT better if he were playing 3rd base so his bat wouldn't have to make such a comeback. Another thing to note is people's skepticism of his home/road splits with Colorado.

[NCRaven]

Did AM know what he was doing with Adam Eaton? Luis Hernandez? Steve Trachsel?

I think AM is a smart GM but that doesn't mean he scores 100% on every move he makes.

Different situation. These guys were filler on a team that AM new couldn't and wouldn't win. Somebody has to pitch every fifth day and stand in that space between second and third base. It didn't really matter who. In this case, AM has made it pretty clear that he believes this team should start to win and the players he brought in - Millwood vs. Eaton or Trachsel, Tejada vs. Hernandez - are clear better than past filler. I would think that Atkins fits into that category, at least in AM's mind. I don't think anyone would argue that AM believed that Eaton, Trachsel or Hernandez were any more than warm bodies.

Having said that, certainly AM can and will make mistakes. I just haven't seen enough to know that Atkins is one of them, yet.

[byrdz]

I think that's to be expected when we're talking about a below-average defender whose OPS+ has gone from 136 to 113 to 96 to 66 over the last four years, and is being expected to hold down the best-hitting position on the diamond. An average first baseman has an OPS in the .830 range. He basically has to be a strong comeback player of the year candidate for this to not be a failure.

I'm not writing him off yet, but if you're not skeptical of his chances I'd like to know why. For me it's PECOTA and McPhail on one side, and all of the other evidence I can find on the other.

Well then you're in the minority along with myself. I'm skeptical for sure, but I'm also giving AM a chance to prove why this was a smart move, before I declare it "poor". He's explained his motive for acquiring Atkins and some of what he says sounds good. Is he right? I don't know. But I'm at least curious, if not half way excited, to see if he's on to something.