Reasons we should trade Atkins
by Andrew Martin on Dec 14, 2008 4:03 PM MST
Email
Print
<Reposted from rockiesmagicnumber.blogspot.com>
To lead this off, I like Garrett Atkins. I do. I don't grouse when he gets playing time, I think he's a nice guy, he has a good swing, and he's a pretty good batter in general.
However, he is right in the middle of a logjam.
He is the established 3B, but Ian Stewart is showing all signs of taking over the position and being far more productive.
He's the backup 1B, but Todd Helton's back surgery sounds like it went well.
The organization has stated that his future with the team is linked to Helton's health.
My opinion? Trade him anyhow.
Here's why.
1. Atkins has a poor glove, and one of the strengths of ourorganization is our defensive talent. He can make the plays that are within his small zone, but ask him to range to his left, and the ball is going into Left Field unless Tulowitzki comes up with it. He's a converted 1B anyhow, and he wasn't very good at that either. Stewart, however, has an above average glove and will save the team more runs with his glove than Atkins would, and he's showing an incredible amount of power from his bat, as well as a very good eye.
2. Atkins has a declining bat. In 2006, his 2nd year, Atkins looked like he'd be a cornerstone of this organization for years to come. Lock him up long term. But he decided to go year to year, and it's probably helped the organization more in the long run than him. His batting average has dropped, his power numbers have dropped, basically everything about his game has declined. And I fault this specifically: He's getting impatient. His first 3 seasons, he was a very patient hitter, and his OBP showed it. 2006 he was batting .329/.409/.556. Very solid numbers. His next season, he slumped terribly during April/May, but rebounded and caught fire down the stretch to finish at .301/.367/.486 – still pretty solid numbers. 2008 he was borderline worthless, batting .286/.328/.452.
The biggest thing I noticed about this is the IsoD (OBP-AVG). 2006 it was .080, 2007 it dropped to .66, and 2008 it has dwindled to a mere .042. This tells me he's not walking nearly as much, and with the drop in batting average, it suggests he's getting impatient. He wasn't destroying the ball coming out of the gates this year, and Fangraphs.com's plate discipline numbers show me that he is swinging at 19.1% of balls outside of the zone, an increase from 14.7% in 2006. He's swinging at more inside the zone as well. In fact, his swing% has jumped from 40.0% in 2006 to 42.5%. It's not a MASSIVE amount, but when you consider how many pitches they see in a season, it's a lot more swinging, and a lot of it is coming outside of the zone. His strikeout totals have jumped as well, from 76 to 96 to 100. It's still not a MASSIVE amount, but if you look at his declining contact rates, I don't think his AVG and number of K's is going to improve.
3. We don't need him to back up Helton. Atkins may be the guy to play 1B if Helton's out with a sore back, or so it seems, but we're forgetting that we already have a completely viable backup forHelton already on the team. No, I'm not talking about JoeKoshansky, I'm talking about our own Brad Hawpe. Remember that Brad Hawpe played 1B at LSU, so he's not a stranger to the position. You might then say that Hawpe would be a butcher at 1B, and Atkins is more familiar to the infield. Well, true as this may be, Brad Hawpe is one of the worst defensive RF in baseball, Atkins is already bad at 1B, so I'm guessing Hawpe would have far less of an impact on the team's defense if he were at 1B. An IF of Hawpe-Barmes-Tulo-Stewart is strong defensively at 3 of the 4 positions, and getting Hawpe out of the OF might make room to give Smith more playing time. I'm not suggesting Smith is a defensive whiz, but there's no way he's as bad as Hawpe is. (I know Hawpe has a cannon on his left shoulder, but he lets enough balls by him that it just isn't worth it.)
4. Moving Atkins signals that Stewart is the full time 3B, and it could help his production just in terms of not having to think about playing LF or 2B just to get his ABs in.
---
Should we keep Atkins, the only other option really is to juggle him around between 1B, 3B, and LF – because we should NOT move Stewart for anything at this point. The upside is you keep Atkins' bat, which may be due for a rebound, in the lineup, as well as your other guys, but you suddenly have to deal with more players being pushed out of an optimal defensive position. Stewart ends up playing both 2B and LF, Spilborghs is left in CF (which isn't awful, but he'd be better at a corner with a Sullivan or Gonzalez type in CF), Barmes is booted from the lineup at times (Not awful, offensively, but I like his glove at 2B moresothan Baker or Stewart).
Because of the constantly juggling lineups, it's helpful to have replacement players like Jeff Baker and Omar Quintanilla who can play multiple positions, but defensively, all the movement is not good for the regular players. Were Hawpe the #2 1B, Spills would stay in LF, Stewart at 3B, Barmes at 2B, and because Spills isn't bouncing from LF to CF all the time, we could call up Dexter Fowler, because he'd know that CF is his to roam with no competition for playing time. Also, when Hawpe plays 1B, it'd give Seth Smith significantly more playing time, and we might be able to see his bat develop a bit more.
Factor in the fact that Atkins is due for an arbitration raise, it'd be a cost effective move, and we might just be able to get some sort of pitching help in exchange. If we're gonna be cheap, let's be smart about it at least.
All the Woody Paige's floating around Denver would hate it, but trading Garrett Atkins is simply a smart move for this ballclub.
Eat. Drink. Be Merry. But the above FanPost does not necessarily reflect the attitudes, opinions, or views of Purple Row's staff (unless, of course, it's written by the staff [and even then, it still might not]).
17 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
I agree with all of this
I actually think Atkins’ presence actually detracts from our roster flexibility than it does add to it, simply because his bat won’t be coming out of the lineup, as he’s considered an established player.
So what happens when Spilborghs struggles to play an adequate centerfield, do you move him to left field? Then, what happens to Stewart or Smith now that Spilborghs has to slide over? One way or another, a promising bat sits if the someone falters defensively.
Your defensive point is the most critical. Going back to Saunders’ article today about lineups without a feared slugger, such lineups work if they take care of the little things as well. The Rockies won’t employ a strikeout pitching staff, especially if De La Rosa fails to make the rotation. That puts a lot of balls in play, which is going to put a larger onus on the defense to limit runs. Can the Rockies afford to have a -11 third baseman, a -6 centerfielder, and a completely raw left fielder? Especially when you consider that it’s not a given that Atkins’ bat is better than the alternative.
The Rockies should be viewing 2009 as a quick transition year, allowing for time for the next wave of players to find their footing yet attempting to maintain competitiveness all the same. The Rockies talk about destractions with Holliday, but Atkins is twice the distraction because his situation is affecting multiple players. What does it tell the team that you are keeping a guy on that you have no intention of hanging on to long term, but you have players you’d like to keep being held back or misplaced because of his presence. Holliday wasn’t holding Seth Smith back simply because the difference between the two was huge. However, the difference between Atkins, Stewart, Smith, and Spilborghs isn’t, and you’re left to wonder if someone is being held back or slow to adjust with a situation that is obviously temporary but certainly not convenient. Is it a good idea to be kicking Stewart around position to position when he has yet to decline a longterm deal? Is it smart to further scatter Seth Smith’s AB’s when you’ll need to know just what type of player he can be in a year?
I think so strongly about the defensive impact that I believe that should the Rockies start Atkins at third base they WILL NOT BE COMPETITIVE IN THE DIVISION THIS YEAR. With the way the pitching is starting to shape up, and the defensive dynamic of the players in question, the Rockies best chance to be competitve is to hand third over to Stewart and open the competition up in both left and center between four players (Smith, Spilborghs, Gonzalez, Fowler).
Right...
If we have one subpar defender at third base, it’s HIS FAULT ENTIRELY if we won’t be competitive in the division this year. Not a starting rotation with lots of questions, a bullpen with just as many that’s counting on a rebound from Corpas and Street so we don’t have regular 9th-inning disasters, hoping Embree is an effective left-handed replacement for Fuentes, if the Viz stops being a tee-ball machine, if Bucky can replicate his outstanding year as a setup man, in addition to counting on rebound offensive years from Tulo, Helton, etc., if CarGon can even come close to replicating Holliday’s production, if Spilborghs can be an effective leadoff hitter/everyday player, plus the question of what, if any, kind of production we’re going to get from second base (Barmes, Baker), how Baylor instructs the new hitters, if Hurdle finally gets a clue, etc. etc…
Nope, it’s Atkins’ defense. Got it.
In all seriousness, David, I love your work and am in general awe at your baseball knowledge, but I think that’s a pretty unfair claim to make. Stewart is clearly the superior defender and looks as if he’ll get plenty of playing time, so I don’t think plugging Atkins in at 3B is going to be the sole cause of our demise. I too like Atkins, and I am not opposed to trading him for the right deal, but don’t think there’s much to be had out there and there are a lot of questions in the lineup as it is. Atkins is hardly a perfect player — as I said, I think that if we’re entering our biannual rebuilding mode, it makes sense to go for the full monty and send Atkins off to the AL West to join his buddy Holliday. That’s fine with me. What I am objected to is trading him just for the hell of it — O’Dowd shouldn’t force a deal if there isn’t one in a weak market. If he can get some pieces likely to make us better in 2009 than we would be with Atkins on the team, go for it. Otherwise, see if Atkins can have a good first half and be worth more in July.
Blast and botheration.
by Silverblood on Dec 15, 2008 10:34 AM MST up reply actions
I agree with you here
Although I’m more optimistic about you on the rotation, I think David’s fear is exaggerated. Atkins’ defense simply won’t be bad enough to tank the season that quickly in the span we’d be talking about. He could continue in a decline on offense and be worse than Stewart, but all the projections are saying he’ll rebound and be better.
Spilborghs may be a terrible defender in center, or his poor showing in 2008 could have been a small sample problem, as he wasn’t that bad in a larger sample in 2007. Even though I think trading him will ultimately be in the best interest of the club, I think there are a lot of speculative leaps one has to take to see Atkins as the poison pill he’s portrayed to be in David’s post and this diary.
I was kind of all over the place in that reply
I just want to make it clear that I meant ultimately trading Atkins is the best interest of the club, not Spilly, and like Silverblood, I don’t see the same do-it-now imperative.
I think you missed something
David wasn’t claiming that Atkins’ awful glove would kill the entire team, it’s the fact that when he plays, he’s almost a negative impact on the run production effort (and I’ll have to doublecheck my numbers on that, he’s at least below Stew’s potential production), and by keeping him in the lineup, we have to take Barmes out (Barmes’ MLVr in 2008 was higher than Atkins, and we know his UZR/150 is going to be higher as well) and then juggle the entire team into positions they CAN play, rather than positions they’d excel at.
I’m about to make another fanpost touching on who should play at what position, just based on per-game run production/prevention.
It's Tricky to rock a rhyme, to rock a rhyme that's right on time It's Tulowitzki!...Tulo-witzki-witzki-witzki ..... rockiesmagicnumber.blogspot.com
by Andrew Martin on Dec 15, 2008 11:37 AM MST up reply actions
Hmm.
I halfway see your point, but I’d say that this:
I think so strongly about the defensive impact that I believe that should the Rockies start Atkins at third base they WILL NOT BE COMPETITIVE IN THE DIVISION THIS YEAR.
was fairly unambiguous.
Blast and botheration.
It was not Atkins alone, but the chain reaction
And I was trying to lay that out in my post.
In my opinion, defense is going to be the most important factor in covering the potential weaknesses of the team. As I said about the rotation, our starting five are more likely to allow the ball be put in play than most others in the division, and with the expansive grounds of Coors Field, more consideration needs to be made about the Rockies’ outfield defense than is being planned out in media reports.
It’s not Atkins’ glove alone that hurts the defense, if that was the negative defensive point, I could easily live with that.
My biggest concern is with the chain reaction. I don’t like the idea of having Stewart learn left field alongside a centerfielder that won’t be able to cover for his mistakes. Hawpe is already breaching -30 in right field, and Stewart is a complete crapshoot in left field, and my best guess would be that he doesn’t take to it so quickly as Braun did (maybe he will, but Coors is a much more difficult outfield to play than Miller). Let’s say conservatively that Stewart is a -3, or even a zero, that gives a negative in two if not all three outfield positions next season. That cannot happen with only two GB pitchers likely to be in the rotation next year.
That above simply does not make it worth playing Atkins, in my opinion. AS Rockiesmagic number points out in a later post, the offensive bump of this lineup does not appear to outway its defensive shortcomings.
I never said it was all Atkins’ fault, nor did I intend to imply as much. My personal belief is that the Rockies best chance to contend will come with Stewart at third, Spilborghs the primary third baseman, and one of Gonzalez or Fowler manning center early. Run prevention is going to make this thing work. That or Morales breaking out into a K machine, De La Rosa and Francis finding a way to work their fastballs better down in the zone, etc.
Instance where
an edit function would work. Spilborghs would be the primary left fielder, I assume.
"Never Surrender Dreams" - Inscription on J. Michael Straczynski's bench
Purple Row - Covering all your Rockies needs!
No third, trust me
you can just tell he’d be a good third baseman. I’m actually preparing a post where I explain why I think Torrealba also has the goods to play left field, and we’ll replace him behind the plate with lefty Greg Smith.
I'm with you
I accidentally over-limited the number of games the OF could play, and basically the 162 × 3 games weren’t being covered, so the game decided to throw Torrealba into CF for like 100 games.
The Rockies scored/prevented a total of 277 runs BELOW average.
It's Tricky to rock a rhyme, to rock a rhyme that's right on time It's Tulowitzki!...Tulo-witzki-witzki-witzki ..... rockiesmagicnumber.blogspot.com
by Andrew Martin on Dec 15, 2008 10:59 PM MST up reply actions
and by that
I mean the computer program I used in my other fanpost did that
It's Tricky to rock a rhyme, to rock a rhyme that's right on time It's Tulowitzki!...Tulo-witzki-witzki-witzki ..... rockiesmagicnumber.blogspot.com
by Andrew Martin on Dec 15, 2008 11:06 PM MST up reply actions
Wait a Minute
Can we back up a little bit on our love of Stewart? I know he lit things up in July/August last year, but he hit .259 with a .349 OBP, and he hit .237 against righties.
I know he was a rookie, and I know he’s only going to get better. But remember last year, when we all assumed that Tulo would only improve upon his rookie year? Let’s not get ahead of ourselves. Like Tulo, Stewart (or Atkins) could get hurt, he could get in a slump, or any of a number of things that force his productivity to decline.
There was a time last year when we only had two starters who were in the opening day lineup. I think we should plan for depth a little better this year.
You raise a good point
But say that Stewart is the guy, he shows he’s the man, somehow. Atkins becomes a 6M backup.
It's Tricky to rock a rhyme, to rock a rhyme that's right on time It's Tulowitzki!...Tulo-witzki-witzki-witzki ..... rockiesmagicnumber.blogspot.com
by Andrew Martin on Dec 15, 2008 1:14 PM MST up reply actions
from Fangraphs:
Marcel forecasts Atkins as a .357 wOBA hitter next season, which would signal an improvement of 20 points from this past season. This would result in +13 runs offensively. If we consider his defense to be about -9 runs, then Atkins would be a +2.4 win player next season. There are several teams on which a +2.4 win player would serve as an upgrade, but it is not as if these teams are acquiring a top-notch power hitter. His 2007 and 2008 seasons have shown that this is more likely his true talent level.
That would be up .6 wins from ‘08, which doesn’t seem like a significant enough rise to warrant his being around next year to regain some value.
The problem isn’t that Atkins is going to bring the team down next year. He’ll hopefully play no worse than ’08, and ideally would bump up a little to the level noted above. The problem is that moving Atkins could solve a bigger hole in the rotation or outfield, while allowing his production to be filled by Stewart and other members of the current roster (like Baker getting more time at first).
If the Rockies can get a young 2-spot starter OR a young established outfielder for Atkins (because they’re not going to get both now or during the season), it is worthwhile because it plugs big holes in the lineup that would exist with him on the team. Subtracting Atkins is a loss for the team, but adding a positive return, especially in the rotation, while replacing his production with Stewart would outweigh the negative of losing him.
2.4 wins?
How on earth do 4 runs translate into 2.4 wins?
It's Tricky to rock a rhyme, to rock a rhyme that's right on time It's Tulowitzki!...Tulo-witzki-witzki-witzki ..... rockiesmagicnumber.blogspot.com
by Andrew Martin on Dec 15, 2008 1:33 PM MST up reply actions
A replacement level player is worth just over two wins.
Every ten runs above that is another win, so +4 runs over replacement equals 2.4 in a quick estimate. Technically, as long as Garrett remains solely at third it will be closer to 2.9, though because of a positional adjustment for playing at a premium place.
I just don't think the Rockies could get either of those at this point.
The market just has him undervalued, I’m guessing because of fear with his home/road splits. Teams are worried that they would be trading for a player that’s below replacement level at lower elevations so they’re only willing to offer a 1.5 win return right now, while the Rockies want a five or six win return. I think the Rockies have to keep him to start the season next year to close that gap from both directions. The Rockies will be more willing to give him up for less if they see Stewart and/or Helton performing, teams will be more willing to offer more if they see Atkins performing.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
