Get Ready For Garrett Atkins, People
by Charlie Wilmoth on Feb 22, 2011 1:53 AM EST
Email
Print
With Alvarez inside, Garrett Atkins stepped in at third base during defensive work with the rest of the starting infielders. That gives you some idea of the initial depth chart.
This isn't the first time we've heard this - Rob Biertempfel reported that Atkins was working out among the starters (and Pedro Ciriaco) a few days ago, too.
Whether or not Atkins will make the Opening Day roster is a question upon which I can only speculate, and it's surely possible he's getting reps with the starters because of his relationship with Clint Hurdle. But it wouldn't be surprising at all if the Pirates considered him a favorite for a bench spot at this point.
I'm open to the possibility that Atkins could recover some portion of his 2006/2007 form, but it doesn't seem likely - ZiPS thinks he'll hit .248/.307/.373 (although that's a prediction for if he were playing with the Orioles, not with the Bucs). If he makes the team and hits like that, well, he'll belong in a class with recent Pirates veteran acquisitions like Jason Michaels, Craig Monroe and Ryan Church. (Okay, he'd be a bit better than Monroe or Church. But not by much.)
The only advantage Atkins has over potential bench players like John Bowker and Steve Pearce is that he can back up at first base and third base. As bench infielders go, however, that doesn't exactly make him versatile, especially since he isn't much of a defensive third baseman. ZiPS projects Bowker to hit .264/.329/.430 and Pearce to hit .254/.326/.434.
I liked Atkins as a minor-league acquisition, and he'd be fine to have in Indianapolis, if he doesn't have an out clause in his contract that allows him to leave if he doesn't make the team out of Spring Training. As the default candidate for a bench job, though, he leaves a lot to be desired. Three bench spots will go to Matt Diaz/Garrett Jones, Ryan Doumit, and a utility infielder, perhaps Josh Rodriguez. That leaves two. If you want fielding ability, Ciriaco is a better option. If you want versatility, there's Corey Wimberly (who admittedly projects to hit very little). If you want players who can hit, Pearce and Bowker appear to be clearly better. Even if, for some reason, you just have to have a guy who plays third and first, Josh Fields and Andy Marte are younger than Atkins and aren't obviously worse.
Like I said, I'm open to being wrong here, and even if I'm not, having a bad veteran at the end of the bench is just an annoyance, not a huge problem. But there are lots of guys on the depth chart who should be ahead of Atkins right now.
143 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
It's not a trend...
it’s nothing but speculation at this point. I don’t like the idea of it but too early to read much into it. Atkins may be getting a longer look than some others at this point because of his relationship with Hurdle but I can’t believe he has anything locked up.
My biggest problem with NH and co
Is their love of veterans who’ve lost their luster. Not that this is exclusively a Pirates problem…management all over baseball makes these signings every year (Mark Prior and Bartolo Colon, for example). That being said, it’s sad to see Atkins ruining what little shot Bowker and Pearce have left to prove themselves. Even if not to the Pirates, then to another team who might want to acquire them once the Pirates decide it’s time to move on.
I’m not saying that Bowker and Pearce are guys we’ll really, truly regret not giving a fair chance. The chances of them ever being anything more than just average or above-average bench players are pretty small. But still, it’d be nice to see them get a shot before the washed up veteran who hasn’t had a good year in the last 3.
Or perhaps this is making a mountain out of a mole hill…perhaps this is just spring training news fodder. Maybe it’s just posturing to make it sound like everyone is getting a chance to compete for a spot. Who knows. At least we can feel safe that this isn’t the difference between 60 wins and 80, more like 60 or perhaps 61.
Atkins, Fields and Marte...
are fine as NRI. Former prospects or veterans who lost their luster are exactly the type of NRI’s you want. I think it’s way too early to read too much into anything. From what we know write now Hurdle likes Wimberly’s speed and Atkins took grounders with a group that included Ciriaco. So am I to believe that our bench right now consists of Wimberly, Ciriaco and Atkins. I don’t really believe it.
Oh I agree
I’d rather they take a shot at a guy who at least has a distant track record of being good than a guy who’s never been any good. And I agree that it’s probably too early to worry about it. I’m also just saying that I hope the report isn’t as accurate as it’s supposed to be, as I’m not a big fan of Atkins, by a long shot.
I think we are both on the same page with Atkins...
not gonna lose sleep now but I can’t envision a scenario where Atkins making the team is a good thing!!!
I try to look on the bright side and think Atkins is better than Mike Edwards, Jim Tracy's ol' buddy.
It’s not much of a bright side, though.
by patthatt on Feb 22, 2011 8:59 AM EST reply actions 1 recs
I think they’re reading too much into a couple of drills. I’m pretty sure that hasn’t been much of a predictor in the past.
On the other hand, any suggestion of Atkins making the team is disturbing. I don’t care if he hits .950 this spring, the guy is washed up.
You're entitled to your own opinions. You're not entitled to your own facts.
Thank you!
Way, way too early to make anything of this. We haven’t even started playing games yet and we have Atkins at 3rd, Ciriaco at SS, Wimberly at 2nd and Yates closing!
Craig Monroe made the team because he was Russell’s guy, so there is a historical parallel for Atkins/Hurdle.
by Adam Reynolds on Feb 22, 2011 1:12 PM EST via mobile up reply actions
Another perspective
Maybe this is just coming through on a recruitment promise. Hurdle, I assume, wanted to give Atkins a shot, and may have told him he would get a chance to compete for the job. It is still pretty early in the spring, but part of Atkins getting an invite to the big boy camp is his opportunity to show his skill to, not only the Pirates, but to other possible suitors. If Hurdle promised him a shot, I would rather him give Atkins an opportunity then renege on his recruitment promise. As long as he doesn’t make the team, I don’t mind us showing that we are straight forward when we recruit a FA. It may give us credibility down the road in future, meaningful FA signings.
Or, it may just be a stupid waste of a roster spot. Just spit-balling here.
I think there is some merit in this line of thinking...
Hurdle’s connection to Atkins may result in Atkins getting an extended look.
You're certainly right
that this is what you’d expect more or less regardless of what NH and Hurdle intend for Opening Day. Atkins came here to be with Hurdle, and Hurdle will surely reward that with a (better than) honest shot. But it is, indeed, way too early to assume this is a marker.
OTOH, getting a better shot than he deserves can easily bleed into actuallyi getting the job. He hits well, Pearce hits poorly, and suddenly “meaningless ST competition” turns into Atkins on the 25-man and Pearce lost on waivers.
Hope not.
Stupid
Forgot about Pearce’s injury option. So who gets lost to waivers if Atkins makes the team? Anyone?
Bowker, I assume
He’s out of options and I don’t think there’s room for both him and Atkins on the MLB roster.
Rats
I like Bowker more than Atkins, by a lot. And it’s not even that I love Bowker – far from it. But I do believe his upside exists, which is more than can be said for Atkins.
I might add that, whatever value veteranosity may have, it surely has more coming from actual starters than anybody on the bench. I mean, maybe some guy with a long history, like Julio Franco, brings something special to the table, but a guy just past 30 who’s barely staying in the majors? Not bringing a lot to the table.
So do I.
Once they signed Overbay, though, the writing was pretty much on the wall as far as Bowker was concerned.
i disagree on Overbay
I mean, it meant Bowker wouldnt start, but Pearce’s option meant they didnt need to let him go.
Diaz, Bowker, Snyder, 2 of Presley/Ciriaco/JRod seems reasonable to me. What I m saying is they dont need to get rid of Bowker.
I agree—Bowker seems like the ideal choice for the 5th OF. He can spell Tabata or McCutchen (with Tabata moving to CF) against some righties, and if Jones has the kind of year he had last year and Bowker plays well, he could end up replacing Jones in the RF platoon.
He can spell Tabata or McCutchen
We are interested in his baseball skills, not his literacy!
#boom-tish!#
by BlindSquirrel on Feb 23, 2011 7:27 PM EST up reply actions
hey
he would not be taking a roster spot from a 1927 yankee.
by melikie yung tang on Feb 22, 2011 9:28 AM EST reply actions
This is true.
It wouldn’t be the correct move as it stands now, but you are correct, this is not the 1927 Yankees.
A good thing...
since a 1927 Yankee would be over 100 years old.
Pearce has an extra option due to last year's injury
so Indy-bound he goes.
Get ready for Garrett Atkins indeed (whether you like it or not)
ugh!
I think the odds are definitely against Pearce starting in Pittsburgh...
From what I have read so far Josh Rodriguez is going to have to play his ass off to get any kind of shot as well.
Yeah there's certainly a Wimberly mancrush goin on in Bradenton
Maybe he’s the spark plug 25th man we so despartely need.
Who knows?
I'll take Rodriguez's offensive upside...
over Wimberly speed and most days and over his grittiness every day. I just don’t see that a pinch runner is as valuable as Hurdle does. Oh well, he’s the manager and I’m not.
yeah
if they dont keep JRod, i hope its because he cant cut it at short and they feel his bat wont hold down 2B than because of wimboslice
by BurgherKing on Feb 22, 2011 10:06 AM EST up reply actions
If the Pirates would do the sensible thing, and go with a 10-or-11 pitching staff, then someone like Wimberly would make an excellent 25th man. Someone who helps win 2 or 3 games with his pinch running and provides defensive flexibility late in games. With a 5-man bench, it’s going to be comprised of guys who are called on to start some games, and I don’t see Wimberly as having value in that role.
I don't see it as a problem anyhow
It’s not like you can’t call up an RP from Indy if the bullpen gets overused.
It seems like a waste to me.
You start burning options
going back & forth, don’t you?
Free your ass and your mind will follow.
by cocktailsfor2 on Feb 22, 2011 2:28 PM EST up reply actions
I really wouldn't worry about that ...
since most relief pitchers are Tyler Yates types.
No, one option lasts the whole year
Option = Ticket to Ride the Indy Shuttle all year. Once you’re sent down, you have to stay down at least 10 days though, so you can’t play reindeer games with relievers and have a de facto 15 man staff just by shuttling 3-4 guys one per day every day.
Nahhh...
you just shuttle Cutch2, Ascanio, etc as the emergency starter
Grazie.
I were cornfoozed there fer a minnit.
Free your ass and your mind will follow.
by cocktailsfor2 on Feb 22, 2011 8:22 PM EST up reply actions
Trouble is
You’ve got only 1 starter who can be expected, from a skill and strength POV, to last 6 innings or more on a regular basis, which means a LOT of BP innings. Even with both Karstens and Olsen capable of throwing 5 innings/week, it’s a lot of wear and tear on just 5 or 6 arms.
If Ohlie were healthier, if Correia had thrown more last season, if it was clear that McDonald can throw even 90 effective (and efficient) pitches every outing, if Morton… were anybody else, then I’d be more gung ho for it. But I really think that, at least through May, we need 7 relievers.
this feels like a premature supposition
its no more likely now that Atkins will be on the roster than when he was signed. I mean, he’s gonna get some workouts and in light of his past ML career, get some reps with the starters. Not like they’d make him languish with likes of Brock Holt before saying goodbye.
Signings like this bring up an interesting thought, for me at least...
There’s something to be said for buying low on a veteran, someone considered “washed up”. These types aren’t going to help the Pirates win long-term, we all know that. They’re brought in here for the hope of re-gaining some lost value and being shipped out at the deadline. Some are signed with a team option, in case said player does re-gain the value, he can’t bolt at the end of the season.
There’s really nothing wrong with this strategy, as the Pirates are still in acquistion mode (IMO). To give a proven “veteran” like Atkins a bench spot and hope he re-gains some value subbing in at 1st and 3rd may not be the worst idea. If he pops 12-15 HR’s and hits for a decent average coming off the bench, maybe he gets packaged with someone else for a B-prospect. This may not be the worst idea, but it may not be the best.
Atkins then takes a bench spot away from an entity like Bowker or Pearce. Unprovens of course, but with some upside and age on their side (At least in comparison to Atkins). The question for me then becomes.. if Atkins did rebound and become respectable again, would an acquired talent be an upgrade over what we have in Bowker/Pearce?
If the Pirates feel that a solid rebound season could be anything greater than plausible, then I don’t have too much of a problem gambling on Atkins over Bowker/Pearce. If however, they’re keeping him on the ML-squad just for his 1B and 3B ability, then I think it’s a waste.
Additionally...
players like Fields and Marte still have upside. They were once very highly touted prospects. It’s possible they are late bloomers. It’s also possible they are just not that good. Either way, I think having them as NRI is exactly the type of thing NH should be doing. Now Pearce has an option, so it’s basically these guys against Bowker becaue if Bowker doesn’t make the team he’s gone.
being part timers, not even in platoon situations, pretty much eliminates that "upside" tag beside your name, IMO
how much upside can you possibly have when you barely play in game situations??? seriously.
Several ways...
look at Walker last year. Opportunities could be had via poor performance or the injury bug. Then you get an extended look at the ML level. The opportunity is about all these guys can hope for at this point. If they take advantage of it then we get a diamond in the rough like Garett Jones.
youre right, but....
walker was in the MINOR leagues at the time, not sitting on the bench rotting away with crosby and jaramillo. he was playing fulltime in Indy.
putting Fields or Marte on the bench in Pitt doesnt do their game a bit of good, especially if you think they have upside. i dont mind having veterans on the bench… i would rather have atkins on the bench than fields because fields needs to play… if a player gets hurt, then you bring josh up.
you shouldnt have a 25 man roster full of upside simply because 6 of those players will not be playing on a daily basis
I was thinking those guys...
would fill spots at Indy and get called up should one of the scenarios I detailed occurr. I’d rather not see any of them on the 25 man to start the season.
Not to change the thread..
..but I just checked out the official 2011 draft order for the 1st and supplemental round..
Hadn’t noticed before that the Pirates, despite having the 1st pick in the 2nd round.. will have to wait 60 picks in between 1st overall and the beginning of the second round..
Better pick the right guy to start things off!
60 picks??????
wow! Doesn’t look like a Stetson Allie will fall in our lap this time around.
I hate the comp picks
That’s another thing to do away with in the new CBA.
TB got a bunch of them that they didn’t deserve, e.g., Hawpe.
So does Coonelly, apparently
Kevin: Is the compensation system broken when a team like the Tampa Bay Rays gets 11 picks in the first 75 selections of the 2011 draft, while the Pirates get 1?
Frank: Yes. We need to reduce the compensatory selections so that the second selection of the Club drafting first in the country is not 58 or 60 instead of 31. Now, Tampa received those selections because it lost good players in free agency but it is difficult for the draft to serve its purpose when there are so many compensatory selections before the second round.
That particular question was my idea.
You're entitled to your own opinions. You're not entitled to your own facts.
I don't have a problem with a few of them ...
for truly elite guys.
But a bunch of their comp picks were jokes.
A guy you pick up as a free agent after he clears waivers should not get you a comp pick.
A NRI guy who puts up a good year should not get you a comp pick.
Now, if you lose a Cutch—a guy you had a significant investment in—that would be different.
I’d change it to a supplememtal pick for elite guys, and nothing for “B’s”.
by Adam Reynolds on Feb 22, 2011 11:34 AM EST via mobile up reply actions
The way I’d change it would be to allow compensation only for players who came up through the farm system of the team losing them. I see no reason on earth why a team should get a comp pick for some veteran reliever they had for one year. You could use a number of different standards—the player had to be originally signed by the team as an amateur, he had to debut with them, he had to spend 75% or more of his minor league time with them, whatever—but the point should be to compensate teams for losing guys they developed, not guys they signed as FAs or acquired in a trade two weeks before the end of the season.
You're entitled to your own opinions. You're not entitled to your own facts.
Exactly
What else is the extra pick “compensation” for? To help you get over the emotional impact of your rent-a-reliever completing his contract and moving on?
Of course...
the Pirates aren’t going to get comp picks. They trade guys before they reach free agency. And they don’t even offer arbitration unless it fits within their “internal value” for a player.
The Pirates COULD play the system the way TB does…but they have chosen not to. So they should not be bitching about how the system doesn’t work. They signed off on it.
Not apples to apples really...
you’ll have your anwswer when guys like McCutchen and Alvarez approach free agency. There was no reason to keep Bay and Laroche with the team until he became a free agent. Hope fully things are different with this core.
dude, if tampa wasnt in contention last season, do you honestly think they would have just let Crawford walk????
cmon, man!!!!
by white angus on Feb 22, 2011 1:53 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
just to let you know, TB is projected to have a lower estimated payroll by seasons end than the pirates
i know its got nothing to do with this argument, but it needs to be said…
oh, and it was baseball reference who stated this.
Yep...
but then the Pirates have won 91 fewer games over the last 3 years. And the Rays have won 2 division titles…and have spent $23M per season (over the last 3 years) more than the Pirates. Looks like money well spent to me.
$23M per season…would that be enough to make the Pirates competitive?? Doesn’t look like it.
Not this year
But I suspect in 2012 and 2013, it will be.
im amazed that you are comparing win/loss records with the Rays who didnt even have a winning season until 2008
its ridiculous. it sounds exactly like what a Rays fan would say back in 2007.
the Rays are winning simply because they put all of their effort into building up through their system. period. they certainly didnt do it overnight. as a fan of the rays since their inception i feel like i know them slightly better than a random Bucs fan, and trust me when i say this: You are basically repeating exactly what Rays fans said right after Piniella walked off the job.
It gets seriously old.
And the Pirates haven’t had a winning season since 1992…also known as 6 years before the Rays even existed. Both have tried winning on the cheap. Tampa has actually done it. The Pirates have not.
The Rays may have let their stars walk…but they are getting 11 extra picks because they did. You think maybe the Pirates could find an extra useful player, having about a dozen picks in the first 3 rounds like the Rays do? They could have played the system that way. They chose not to.
Not exactly true
They picked up guys like Hawpe, for example, whom they had no desire to re-sign.
Then they got him to agree to not accept arbitration.
The Jays also manipulated the system some.
Now could the Pirates have manipulated it better. Probably.
I would rather trade a guy, then receive 1 sandwich pick for him
I’m not sure what you are trying to argue here. If we had a large group of guys who left as free agents, then that’s one issue, but we haven’t.
I am assuming that your “internal value” comment refers to Capps. True, he wasn’t offered arb, but since he was under team control, he would have been unable to decline it. If the Pirates offered, then they would get him for the next season, no chance as sandwich picks on a player who you control.
by Wizard of Woz on Feb 22, 2011 4:24 PM EST up reply actions
I'm not trying to argue anything.
The Pirates decided to operate in a way that they will never benefit from compensation picks…while other teams operate in a way that they benefit from those picks.
No…the “internal value” comment referred to Sanchez, Wilson, Adam LaRoche, etc. Especially Wilson and Sanchez…as they were offered contract extensions with significant pay cuts (more than the 20% cut that they could have offered in arbitration), which they turned down prior to the trades. It is very safe to assume that had the Pirates held onto Wilson and Sanchez in 2009…they would not have offered them arbitration.
how could have holding onto wilson and sanchez made the team any better??
i’ll give you that it probably wouldnt have made us any worse though… lol
I think he means that the Pirates could have offered them arbitration
and risked that they would have declined it, netting them a pick.
you keep saying the Pirates are doing things wrong, that they arent trying to win
which would be true if all of those Bucs were STILL ON THE TEAM!!! the majority of the players let go or traded were NOT salary dumps, they were let go because they werent WORTH the salaries they would be collecting in the very near future.
A salary dump is when you get rid of a player without concern for getting equal (or any) value back. A perfect example is the Adam LaRoche trade. The Bay and Nady trades wouldn’t be considered salary dumps…especially the Nady trade. In hindsight, the Bay trade may as well have been a salary dump, though. McLouth…definitely a salary dump. Wilson…no…Sanchez…depends on how one valued Alderson at the time of the trade. Duke…you betcha.
If the Pirates front office doesn’t like the idea of supplemental compensation draft picks…maybe they should do something about changing the system?? If they are not part of the solution, they are part of the problem.
Disagree on McLouth
They were selling high on McLouth. WRT Bay, the package they got certainly appeared to be better than 2 comp picks at the time of the trade. At least to me it did. LaRoche was a salary dump, yes, and they probably would have been better off keeping him and offering arb. Though I think there was some doubt at the time as to whether Adam would even make Type B status.
agree
neither mclouth nor Bay was a salary dump. It’s a silly suggestion
by BurgherKing on Feb 22, 2011 10:17 PM EST up reply actions
Adam LaRoche
His value was at rock-bottom when they traded him, as he was in the midst of an awful season. As soon as he got to the Red Sox, he was traded again, I believe. He was traded because he was sucking, not necessarily because he was sucking a bunch of money – though that wouldn’t have been a bad reason at all to get rid of him.
Nate and Bay – no salary dump. Stupid suggestion.
Thunder…..geesh.
by CabreraKilledMyChildhood on Feb 22, 2011 10:39 PM EST up reply actions
Reading comprehension
-1…
I said that the Bay trade was NOT a salary dump…but in retrospect…with the return we got on the trade…it produced like a salary dump trade.
The McLouth trade…for selling high…we got squat…unless Locke produces…3 years after the trade.
random speculation
-1
There’s a very very big difference between not getting any return from a trade and a salary dump. I m sure you know it too. So unless you’re just throwing in the bigram “salary dump” to rile up readers, I don’t see what the point is.
McLouth…definitely a salary dump.
Not really, no. They traded him just a couple of months after signing him to a huge extension with a substantial signing bonus. If they were primarily trying to get rid of his salary, they wouldn’t have signed him to that extension and paid out millions of dollars in bonus money, y’know?
Common sense.
I've wondered about that
It seemed like there are an awful lot of supplemental picks that go around, and I thought that might make “second round” sort of a phantom concept. Our 2nd pick is effectively first pick in the 3rd round. Jeez.
Now the full scope of NH's plan has come to light
Not only does he want a rotation comprised entirely of Zachs, he wants a lineup comprised entirely of Garretts. He’s 2/8ths there, and Garret Anderson is a free agent. Just sayin’.
(And for those of you perhaps wondering, my handle here is in fact my real name . . . “Garrett” was considered pretty unusual when I was young, so the fact that we now have multiple players with my name is straight-up weird for me.)
Can you play short?
You're entitled to your own opinions. You're not entitled to your own facts.
by WTM on Feb 22, 2011 12:09 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Sadly, no . . .
only keyboard.
I’m no Vince Lascheid but last year I did manage a 3.4 GAR (Grooves Above Replacement Level).
by Garrett122 on Feb 22, 2011 1:13 PM EST up reply actions 2 recs
Double rec
Looks like those spring training reps are starting to shake the rust off! Everybody fall in… time for block quote drills!
I do know...
we had Shawn Garrett in our system in 2001-2003.
Shawn Garrett
Is there a Zach Garrett available?
Lino Donoso
by Lino Donoso on Feb 22, 2011 12:20 PM EST up reply actions
no
but i bet lief garret isn’t doing much these days
Reminds me of Littlefield...
and his 2003 fixation on 2Bs. Traded for Sanchez and Bobby Hill, and pushed hard to get Jost Barfield from SD (“settled” for Bay instead). I thought at the time that maybe he was going to pioneer a new defensive alignment comprised largely of 2Bs.
Born and raised
in Garrett Pa. Could be a minor league affiliate soon if NH gets his way.
I think we can assume the Pirates aren’t using ZIPS projections at this point. That much is true.
by Adam Reynolds on Feb 22, 2011 11:26 AM EST via mobile reply actions
GEEKY?
How dare you sir? I still wear them and make that little “Z” motion with my feet before breaking into a windsprint!
Slick1
I always pictured you wearing some old Cuga sneakers with velcro on top.
If the Bucs keep guys like Yates and Atkins it will increase their spot on the league veteranosity meter,
and this is important, isn’t it?
If the Bucs traded for Kendal, they could lead the league in veteran presence.
by Adam Reynolds on Feb 22, 2011 1:10 PM EST via mobile up reply actions
I'm still pulling for Steve Pearce to get at least 15 more games with the Bucs this year.
It’s really important for the team’s future.
Craig Monroe
I don’t care what you say, Craig Monroe was awesome. I went to one of those rare Pirates Saturday afternoon games against the Braves and Monroe hit not one, but two 3 run HRs to deep center. He even got a curtain call. Later that year McCutchen had the 3 HR game and Dejan said it was the only curtain call of the season. I had to write in to correct him.
Correct me if I am mistaken
Didn’t Steve Pearce play some 3B at Indy last year?
Also I feel that the Bucs will keep JRod if he can prove capable of playing SS, but otherwise they’ll probably end up sending him back to Cleveland or hopefully they can work out a trade to hide JRod at Indy (I.e. Evan Meek)
by 2010 will be the year on Feb 22, 2011 2:15 PM EST reply actions
Bring back Andy LaRoche!
Yes, Pearce did play five games at third. By all indications he was not too bad.
But let’s look ahead. Marcel the Monkey says
Atkins will have a wOBA of 300.
Fields will have a wOBA of 305.
Marte will have a wOBA of 299.
Pearce will have a wOBA of 315.
And for the grand finale, LaRoche will have a wOBA of 294.
I think Marcel may need a banana. He’s probably depressed. Or should be.
In addition the historical record suggests that Fields will be terrible at first, third, and the outfield. I believe that’s called consistency. Marte looks OK at third, but pretty limited at first. In comparison to Atkins though, he looks like Brooks Robinson. Pearce plays a pretty decent first base and could fill in in the outfield.
But Andy has fielded three balls at first base flawlessly for a UZR/150 of 46! Plus he’s fielded 11 of 12 balls in the second base zone. Also flawlessly for a UZR/150 of 42! OK, so he’s just an average third baseman. But the way forward is clear.
Bring back Andy LaRoche! Unless somebody good comes along.
Viva Clemente!
After reading the puff piece in the Post-Gazette today..
Corey Wimberly’s a guy I’m interested in at least watching in Spring Training..
He’d have to play great to get a spot, but if everyone else underwhelms it would certainly be interesting. As Charlie points out, his versatility is the main reason he’d earn a spot. He can play almost anywhere on the diamond. In addition, being a switch hitter with serious wheels he’d provide a good late-game spark plug.
His minor league numbers suggest he can get on base pretty well, but I don’t know his weaknesses enough to know if that would be exploited at the ML-level.
Until pitchers figure out he can't hit
by Wizard of Woz on Feb 22, 2011 4:26 PM EST up reply actions
well
Nyjer Morgan dragged a couple of seasons out with his skillset, so there’s a possibility he can be an OK guy till we get help.
well
that cant hurt either. I m simply pointing out that he could fend for himself in the big leagues for a couple of years with a no-power skillset.
Atkins
I guess I’m not as concerned about Atkins potentially making the team as most of you are. From where I’m sitting he wouldn’t be my choice, but when choosing between a has-been and five never-wases, I’m fine with whoever the coaching staff likes.
I’d probably take a look at Rodriguez, Pearce, and Wimberly combination.
But it doesn’t matter too much who we roll with. Atkins wouldn’t see his 100th PA if he isn’t any good. Plenty of bodies to cycle in. Probably no one as good as a Hinske or Mientkiewicz.
by Adam Reynolds on Feb 22, 2011 7:10 PM EST via mobile reply actions
Another senseless post
Garett Atkins isn’t making the team. And, even if he does, the fact that he is getting grounders on the first couple of days of Spring Training is hardly indicative of the same.
Nice try…..
by CabreraKilledMyChildhood on Feb 22, 2011 10:42 PM EST reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Bucs Dugout
Related FanShots on Bucs Dugout
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
Baseball Nation Recent Stories
In Association With
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- The Juice: Nelson Cruz matches career high eight RBIs, Pujols stays hot in Seattle
- Benches clear at Fenway as Red Sox-Rays rivalry heats up
- Keeping good company: Albert Pujols becomes fourth-youngest player to hit 450 home runs
- Giancarlo Stanton misses cutoff man, and Logan Morrison is thankful he did (Video)
- Snoop Dogg delivers memorable first pitch at U.S. Cellular Field
