Eaton and Atkins

[Sports Guy]

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.

Tell that to JJ...There is definitely a difference..Whether it matters to Gonzo or not, who knows...Gonzo also had an injury history.

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).

What would that be? he has been worth, on average, 2.5 million a year since he has been in the majors...I doubt that numbers jumps up 4 million.

[waroriole]

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?

Two totally different situations. Epstein isn't going to sign a guy like Atkins to start, b/c they are looking at competing for a division title. We, right now, are looking for a guy that we can build his value up and then sell at the deadline. If we're in contention you're not going to see AM sign a guy like Atkins either.

[Crazysilver03]

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?

Does Frank Thomas in Oakland count?

[sbauer]

Does Frank Thomas in Oakland count?

Thomas was productive for Toronto in 2007 and Oakland in 2006. When Toronto released him in 2008 after a bad start, Oakland took a chance. So no, I don't think so.

[Mackus]

What would that be? he has been worth, on average, 2.5 million a year since he has been in the majors...I doubt that numbers jumps up 4 million.

The WAR and value numbers don't take leverage into account at all. So they aren't very accurate in terms of relievers.

That $2.5M of normal innings that he's been worth most years is probably worth a good deal more since a large portion of his innings come in late game situations. Move him to the closer's role and that probably goes up further. I don't really think WAR and value is a great way to look at what relief pitchers are worth.

If you show me a closer who pitches to a 2.75ish ERA with over a K per inning and able to go 70ish innings a year, I would think that guy is well worth $6M a year. Those are very solid numbers in very high leverage innings.

Your point about his injury concerns are certainly valid, that would increase the risk a bit.

I still think the Gonzalez contract is a much better comparison to the Burrell contract than the Atkins one is. Atkins had nearly no hope of working out. Burrell and Gonzalez were solid deals at the time (just how solid is debatable, but neither are deals that are clearly mistakes or doomed to fail in any sort of consensus opinion) that haven't or haven't yet worked out.

[Sports Guy]

The WAR and value numbers don't take leverage into account at all. So they aren't very accurate in terms of relievers.

That $2.5M of normal innings that he's been worth most years is probably worth a good deal more since a large portion of his innings come in late game situations. Move him to the closer's role and that probably goes up further. I don't really think WAR and value is a great way to look at what relief pitchers are worth.

If you show me a closer who pitches to a 2.75ish ERA with over a K per inning and able to go 70ish innings a year, I would think that guy is well worth $6M a year. Those are very solid numbers in very high leverage innings.

Your point about his injury concerns are certainly valid, that would increase the risk a bit.

I still think the Gonzalez contract is a much better comparison to the Burrell contract than the Atkins one is. Atkins had nearly no hope of working out. Burrell and Gonzalez were solid deals at the time (just how solid is debatable, but neither are deals that are clearly mistakes or doomed to fail in any sort of consensus opinion) that haven't or haven't yet worked out.

Oh, I agree with that...Atkins isn't even close to a valid comp.

[AgentOrange]

I don't see the big deal in signing Atkins though. It was 4.5 million. It didn't stop us from making any other moves, and it was a 1 year deal to hold for either a top tier FA this offseason or Snyder.

The Atkins signing has little significance to this ballclub and it is being blown out of proportion.

[waroriole]

I don't see the big deal in signing Atkins though. It was 4.5 million. It didn't stop us from making any other moves, and it was a 1 year deal to hold for either a top tier FA this offseason or Snyder.

The Atkins signing has little significance to this ballclub and it is being blown out of proportion.

For the most part I agree, but will say that it did prevent us from going after a better 1B, like LaRoche.

[AgentOrange]

For the most part I agree, but will say that it did prevent us from going after a better 1B, like LaRoche.

Did it though? How do you know that we didn't try to sign him? We could have signed LaRoche and had Atkins play 3b.

The Atkins signing didn't eliminate any 1b or 3b canidates once he was signed.

[Sports Guy]

I don't see the big deal in signing Atkins though. It was 4.5 million. It didn't stop us from making any other moves, and it was a 1 year deal to hold for either a top tier FA this offseason or Snyder.

The Atkins signing has little significance to this ballclub and it is being blown out of proportion.

Again with the money?

Let me ask you this...Do you think it was a good move for AM to sign a player that...

1) showed obvious signs of decline for a few years.

2) Even in his big years, he didn't have league average first baseman numbers if you park adjusted them.

3) Even in his likely best case scenario(800ish OPS), he was still going to be a below average first baseman.

That's a poor signing, no matter what you sign him for.

[waroriole]

Did it though? How do you know that we didn't try to sign him? We could have signed LaRoche and had Atkins play 3b.

The Atkins signing didn't eliminate any 1b or 3b canidates once he was signed.

Well, they said they signed Atkins with the intention of him playing at 1B all along. The pair I would have liked to see would be LaRoche and Miggy.

[AgentOrange]

Again with the money?

Let me ask you this...Do you think it was a good move for AM to sign a player that...

1) showed obvious signs of decline for a few years.

2) Even in his big years, he didn't have league average first baseman numbers if you park adjusted them.

3) Even in his likely best case scenario(800ish OPS), he was still going to be a below average first baseman.

That's a poor signing, no matter what you sign him for.

Money has to play a part in the value of the pick.

We picked him up because:

1. We thought Crowley could turn him around.

2. He signed for 1 year only.

3. He could play 1st or 3rd.

The main deal was point 2. In the rebuilding plan, it was obvious they were going after 2 stop gaps for 1st and 3rd. LaRoche signed for 2 years. Nick Johnson went back to NY. What else was out there for 1b?

[Skeptical]

Laroche had no interest in coming here. He wanted to no part in playing 1B for a 4th or 5th place team. Keep dreaming that he would've come here if you paid him above-market value.

[waroriole]

Again with the money?

Let me ask you this...Do you think it was a good move for AM to sign a player that...

1) showed obvious signs of decline for a few years.

2) Even in his big years, he didn't have league average first baseman numbers if you park adjusted them.

3) Even in his likely best case scenario(800ish OPS), he was still going to be a below average first baseman.

That's a poor signing, no matter what you sign him for.

The counter to this is that the only other option, without trading for a "premium" 1B, is to sign LaRoche. We obviously had a hole at 1B, so signing one was a necessity, unless people were comfortable with a Wiggy/Aubrey platoon. I would have liked to have seen LaRoche signed, or just use Scott at 1B. In hindsight, we needed more than just plugging Scott at 1B due to Pie being injured. It wasn't an ideal situation, but I think they were looking at Atkins as a possible reclamation project. It just hasn't worked out so far.

[AgentOrange]

Well, they said they signed Atkins with the intention of him playing at 1B all along. The pair I would have liked to see would be LaRoche and Miggy.

Sure they had the intention of playing him at 1st, but what if Miggi gets picked up by another team? Then what? We roll with Ty at 3rd?

He isn't even blocking anyone better from playing. The season isn't even over yet. I can bet the house that Crowley is spending extra time with him in the cages trying to straighten him out. The All Star break is a better barometer for this signing, IMO.

I still don't like it, but I see what they were trying to do with it.