Eaton and Atkins

[clapdiddy]

My theory all along was that a Wigginton/Aubrey platoon would have been more productive than Atkins. I was probably right.

[Mike B]

Burrell had a .725 OPS in the second half...not atrocious. Bad for Burrell, yeah, but not horrible. Horrible is Garrett Atkins last year and now.

It's funny how some people blast other team's players but give guys like Adam Jones a pass when he's had 2 good months in a career of mediocre to poor results.

All the sudden a .725 OPS is "atrocious".

His August of that year was poor. His September when he was basically a pltoon was a little better. In addition, there was very little market for Burrell when he was signed to the multi year deal As I mentioned, business brought me to Citizen BAnk quite a bit in 2008 and Burrell was pretty bad in 2008 second half. If you have ever watched him stumble around in left field you would see he was a risky sign at best.

One more thing, you do realize AJ is still young don't you.

One more thing OPS is a nice stat but solely using it as the ultimate and only measuring stick is wrong.

Burrell was a mistake. Answer this..do you think Friedman would do the deal again......if you think no, it was a mistake. Friedman is capable of making a mistake.

[Satyr3206]

Pie was struggling to adjust to MLB, but continued to hit when back in the minors.

Atkins is in a death spiral.

I'd rather be on a brand new plane with tons of exciting bells and whistles that the mechanics are having some trouble getting everything working right on in the shop than one that used to fly great but is in a tight death spiral that is impossible to pull out of.

The first plane may never be able to fly, but if it does, it'll fly great. The second one is guaranteed to crash, its just a matter of how long until it crashes.

Atkins could very well be done, but it's a little early to completely give up on him. He has hit well in the past at this level so he has a track record. Could be a confidence issue, could be mechanical, could be a ton of things. Give part time at bats in certain situations and see if he improves. If not dump him. My point was that some players are given much more leeway from some posters that others.

I also think the start to the season has affected some outlooks and the powder keg is smoldering. That's one of the reasons I haven't been posting much for the last 3 weeks.

[Mackus]

Atkins could very well be done, but it's a little early to completely give up on him. He has hit well in the past at this level so he has a track record. Could be a confidence issue, could be mechanical, could be a ton of things. Give part time at bats in certain situations and see if he improves. If not dump him. My point was that some players are given much more leeway from some posters that others.

That's because some players deserve much more leeway than others.

Atkins deserves nothing. He had not hit at even an average level for a 1B outside of Coors field since 2006. He was about average in 2007, well below average in 2008, and below replacement level in 2009. That track record stops becoming a track record if it was so long ago that its irrelevant. That's the situation in Atkins' case.

[Sports Guy]

His August of that year was poor. His September when he was basically a pltoon was a little better. In addition, there was very little market for Burrell when he was signed to the multi year deal As I mentioned, business brought me to Citizen BAnk quite a bit in 2008 and Burrell was pretty bad in 2008 second half. If you have ever watched him stumble around in left field you would see he was a risky sign at best.

One more thing, you do realize AJ is still young don't you.

One more thing OPS is a nice stat but solely using it as the ultimate and only measuring stick is wrong.

Burrell was a mistake. Answer this..do you think Friedman would do the deal again......if you think no, it was a mistake. Friedman is capable of making a mistake.

Your analysis on Burrell, at least offensively, is just wrong.

He didn't show signs of really falling on his face...His LD% in 2008 was just over 20%, which is solid and better than the year before.

His walk% was down from 2007 but it was still very high. His K rate was the same in 2007 and 2008, which were the lowest of his career.

His HR/FB% was in line with what he had always done.

His slugging % was the second highest of his career and his BABIP was the second lowest of his career, which helped him have the lower BA.

His signing was fine...There were no big red flags...it just turned out bad. That happens...it isn't even in the same atmosphere as the Atkins signing.

[waroriole]

He wasn't a bad signing though...he was a signing that turned out bad.

Guys like Eaton and Atkins were always going to be bad.

Uhh, Burrell had a .875 OPS before he signed with the Rays.

That is nothing like Atkins. We all knew Atkins would suck, Burrell sucking is actually a big surprise.

He also has no speed, no defense and old man skills. It wasn't a terrible signing, but it wasn't a good one. Same with Atkins, declining stats and no bat speed. The difference is that Atkins was signed as a reclamation project on a team that was looking to build his value back up. Burrell was signed as the big addition to last season's team.

[Mackus]

He also has no speed, no defense and old man skills. It wasn't a terrible signing, but it wasn't a good one. Same with Atkins, declining stats and no bat speed. The difference is that Atkins was signed as a reclamation project on a team that was looking to build his value back up. Burrell was signed as the big addition to last season's team.

Burrell didn't need any speed or defense though, he was signed to be a DH. And no, he did not have declining stats. One or two bad months at the end of the year aren't even remotely similar to the type of decline Atkins was on.

Burrell was a decent signing that has ended up not working out. That happens to all teams.

Atkins was a bad signing the day it happened, simply because the potential reward on him was so unlikely that it made the price paid for him completely outlandish. If he had signed a $1.5M deal, then I think the slim chance he bounces back could have been justified, but not at $4.5M.

[AgentOrange]

Burrell is doing the same thing as Atkins at 2/16. And all he can do is hit. He can't even play the field.

Tragic.

[Sports Guy]

He also has no speed, no defense and old man skills. It wasn't a terrible signing, but it wasn't a good one. Same with Atkins, declining stats and no bat speed. The difference is that Atkins was signed as a reclamation project on a team that was looking to build his value back up. Burrell was signed as the big addition to last season's team.

He was paid to come in and hit...There was no signs that the hitting was going to decline...It is really that simple.

Its not remotely similar to atkins and its not something I think should be looked at poorly upon Friedman.

[waroriole]

Burrell didn't need any speed or defense though, he was signed to be a DH. And no, he did not have declining stats. One or two bad months at the end of the year aren't even remotely similar to the type of decline Atkins was on.

Burrell was a decent signing that has ended up not working out. That happens to all teams.

Atkins was a bad signing the day it happened, simply because the potential reward on him was so unlikely that it made the price paid for him completely outlandish. If he had signed a $1.5M deal, then I think the slim chance he bounces back could have been justified, but not at $4.5M.

I probably worded this wrong, but I wasn't saying that Burrell had declining stats, just Atkins. I was saying that Burrell had old man skills and was 32 when he was signed, meaning he was likely past his peak years. Couple that with the fact that he was supposed to be the big addition for the Rays offense, I think you could say he was a bad signing.

Also, I agree that Atkins was a bad signing, but I think there was some justification for it. I still wouldn't have made that move, but it's not as egregious as some are making it out to be.

[Mackus]

He was paid to come in and hit...There was no signs that the hitting was going to decline...It is really that simple.

I think a pretty good comp for the Burrell signing is the Gonzalez signing. I don't know if TB had to give up a draft pick, but those two moves are more similar.

Both signings were pretty solid at the time, but haven't worked out.

Note: I think its far too early to say the Gonzalez signing isn't going to work out, but that's the better comparison to the Burrell signing, not the Atkins signing. Uehara is another decent comparison, although that one had a lot more potential for floppage than either the Gonzalez or Burrell signings.

[waroriole]

He was paid to come in and hit...There was no signs that the hitting was going to decline...It is really that simple.

Its not remotely similar to atkins and its not something I think should be looked at poorly upon Friedman.

OK, you know what, I hate when people do what I might be doing so I'll just say I'm wrong. It wasn't a signing that was terrible at the time. But, I don't think you can say there were no signs that Burrell wasn't going to fall off like he has.

Anyway, the point that started all of this was someone saying that great GM's don't make mistakes and that's just not true. The problem with nailing Friedman on one of them is that he doesn't get to sign too many FA, so what kind of track record does he have to be judged by. Even Epstein and Beane make big mistakes, so the larger point remains that yes every GM makes mistakes.

[Sports Guy]

I think a pretty good comp for the Burrell signing is the Gonzalez signing. I don't know if TB had to give up a draft pick, but those two moves are more similar.

Both signings were pretty solid at the time, but haven't worked out.

Note: I think its far too early to say the Gonzalez signing isn't going to work out, but that's the better comparison to the Burrell signing, not the Atkins signing. Uehara is another decent comparison, although that one had a lot more potential for floppage than either the Gonzalez or Burrell signings.

I disagree for a few reasons:

1) Gonzo was signed to be a closer, something he really hadn't proved he could do at this level outside of 1 year.

2) Gonzo has never been worth 6+ million a year...Burrell was worth 7+ million a year every year but one.

Also, pretty sure Burrell didn't cost them a pick.

[Sports Guy]

OK, you know what, I hate when people do what I might be doing so I'll just say I'm wrong. It wasn't a signing that was terrible at the time. But, I don't think you can say there were no signs that Burrell wasn't going to fall off like he has.

Anyway, the point that started all of this was someone saying that great GM's don't make mistakes and that's just not true. The problem with nailing Friedman on one of them is that he doesn't get to sign too many FA, so what kind of track record does he have to be judged by. Even Epstein and Beane make big mistakes, so the larger point remains that yes every GM makes mistakes.

Actually, what NMS said is, when did those guys make a signing like Atkins?

In other words, have the GMs he mentioned signed an obvious declining player to be a starter for their team?

I am not sure that means those guys don't make mistakes...Just, have they made those types of signings?

[Mackus]

I disagree for a few reasons:

1) Gonzo was signed to be a closer, something he really hadn't proved he could do at this level outside of 1 year.

2) Gonzo has never been worth 6+ million a year...Burrell was worth 7+ million a year every year but one.

1) This is somewhat valid, although closing isn't very different from not closing. Its not like he had a chance at being the closer before and completely melted down. There was certainly some risk that he wouldn't be able to handle the role, but I don't think there is very much. And its not like his recent mechanical meltdown was because of the pressures of the closer's role, at least not IMO.

2) Put Gonzalez' normal performance into the higher leverage situations of the closer's role, and then I think he would be worth the $6M we're paying him and then some. Burrell, as you said was worth the money he was signed for, but, moving him to DH cuts his value a lot, to where $7M may actually be overpaying for him even if he did put up an .840-.865 OPS (I estimated a bit down from his previous 4 years due to league, park, and division effects).