Eaton and Atkins

[NewMarketSean]

Are looking like the two big blunders of the MacPhail era.

I think you can chalk up Luis Hernandez as SS in 2008 too, but at least he didn't sign LH. He was an internal option that was expected to at least give you defense.

I wonder, though. We say MacPhail is a conservative GM, who makes smart moves. These two moves were not smart -- at all.

Eaton was at least signed for the minimum and had a shelf life of 2 months but Atkins -- I still don't understand what MacPhail saw in this guy to warrant $4.5 million and a 1B gig.

Say what you will about AM, but these 2 moves are indefensible, IMO.

[AgentOrange]

Who cares? No GM is perfect.

[Hank Scorpio]

Eaton was an emergency placeholder on a minor league deal and Atkins is a one year deal. He's also basically a placeholder. If you think those are "big" blunders, then more power to ya.

How'd you like Alfonso Soriano with 5 years, $90 million remaining on his albatross?

[Sports Guy]

Who cares? No GM is perfect.

True..But the idea that he thought these moves would work out and that he jumped on them when the time came, is pretty bad.

[Mackus]

Completely different signings.

We stuck with Eaton too long for sure, but he was brought in to try and buy us 5-8 starts and hopefully put up something in the 5.00-6.00 ERA range during that time. There really weren't many other options you could go with that you'd be that much more confident in, as there aren't many guys who you can sign for the league minimum and expect to get anything substantial out of. You can make a case for going with some random replacement type player, but I don't think the odds of that type of guy being halfway decent were any better than the odds of Eaton being halfway decent (which he wasn't).

Sticking with him for 8 starts rather than 4-5 was the bigger mistake than bringing him in at all.

Atkins, on the other hand, started as a poor move at best and overpaid, changed to a no-doubt about it bad move risk-wise once we signed Tejada and confirmed Atkins would be our 1B, and his start to the season has done nothing to give us any newfound hope of him bouncing back to a respectable level.

I think the Atkins signing will go down as easily MacPhail's worst move. There aren't even really any reasonable arguments to be made in favor of the move at the time. If you're gonna take such a big gamble on a guy with so little upside even if it pays off, you can't pay $4.5M to do it.

Atkins was a clear mistake by MacPhail both at the time of the signing and in present perspective, and in all likelihood will continue to look as terrible until we cut bait, which I'm 99% sure will be far later in the year than all of us would prefer to see.

[Dr. FLK]

Eaton was an emergency placeholder on a minor league deal and Atkins is a one year deal. He's also basically a placeholder. If you think those are "big" blunders, then more power to ya.

How'd you like Alfonso Soriano with 5 years, $90 million remaining on his albatross?

This. :agree:

Neither was long term. Neither was seen as anything more than a place holder. Neither impacted the long term financial flexibility of the franchise. They didn't work out, bur they aren't a big deal.

[NewMarketSean]

Who cares? No GM is perfect.

Would Friedman make these kinds of signings? Bill Smith? Billy Beane?

These were moves that were destined to fail. I don't see other GM's of teams similar to the Orioles in payroll/market size, etc... making these kind of no-reward signings.

[Mackus]

This. :agree:

Neither was long term. Neither was seen as anything more than a place holder. Neither impacted the long term financial flexibility of the franchise. They didn't work out, bur they aren't a big deal.

Eaton isn't a big deal, as there weren't really any better and cheaper options at the time.

Atkins was at least a substantial mistake. He's not a long-term deal that flopped, for sure, but he also doesn't have the potential upside of the guy who is signed to a long-term deal. There were plenty of guys that were as good as Atkins who were available at the same time that were much cheaper. Also, there were guys far better and with more upside than Atkins that were available for the same or similar money. Hell, there were probably guys better than Atkins available for cheaper.

There is still some sound logic that can be used to defend the Eaton signing, considering what he was brought in to do and how he was a guy they expected to cut before June. Atkins, on the other hand, is completely and utterly indefensible, IMO. There is no rational argument that can be made that isn't based on Terry Crowley's magic ability to turn him back into a reliable hitter, a basis that is pretty damn weak, IMO.

[Sports Guy]

This. :agree:

Neither was long term. Neither was seen as anything more than a place holder. Neither impacted the long term financial flexibility of the franchise. They didn't work out, bur they aren't a big deal.

But what about the decision making behind the signing?

I agree that neither is a big deal in the scheme of things...But the thought process of thinking it was a good idea is the problem I have.

I also have a problem with how quickly AM pounced on them and how much he was seemingly targeting them.

[sakata_catching]

Blunders? Yes. Big? Not really.

[SammyBirdland]

Would Friedman make these kinds of signings? Bill Smith? Billy Beane?

Five guys Billy Beane got wrong

[statman]

Eaton was an emergency placeholder on a minor league deal and Atkins is a one year deal. He's also basically a placeholder. If you think those are "big" blunders, then more power to ya.

How'd you like Alfonso Soriano with 5 years, $90 million remaining on his albatross?

Exactly...neither of these moves was meant to be groundbreaking. AM brought Eaton in so he had an excuse not to put any of the cavalry in the starting rotation to start the 2009 season. He was never meant to be good.

Atkins, at one point, was very productive...I think the plan with him was to hope that he could regain some of that form and ship him out at the trade deadline for a decent return.

If two 1-year deals are AM's "blunders" then I'd say he is doing pretty well for himself. None of his moves have tied us down long term to someone who won't be productive (some would argue BRob, but that remains to be seen...). We'll see how much the Cardinals and Yankees like their decade long deals when their players get close to 40.

[flashjordnk]

Would Friedman make these kinds of signings? Bill Smith? Billy Beane?

These were moves that were destined to fail. I don't see other GM's of teams similar to the Orioles in payroll/market size, etc... making these kind of no-reward signings.

Really if we could turn Atkins into what he was 2 years ago you'd say that's no reward? The Orioles could use a cheap bat. I think the upside exists on this one.

Eaton...wellllllllll.

[Sports Guy]

Five guys Billy Beane got wrong

Not really the same thing we are talking about here.

[AgentOrange]

Would Friedman make these kinds of signings? Bill Smith? Billy Beane?

These were moves that were destined to fail. I don't see other GM's of teams similar to the Orioles in payroll/market size, etc... making these kind of no-reward signings.

Are you serious? You think any of these GMs havent made mistakes?

You are wrong.

And if these are the two biggest mistakes since he has been here. He has done a hell of a job.

Are you talking about the same Billy Beane who has fielded a sub .500 team the last 3 years?

Funny how Eric Chavez is making 12.5 million this year.

Ben Sheets at 10 million?

How about Pat Burrell? Not a mistake?

That is with little to no research.