MacPhail targeting Atkins for 1st is puzzling

I am a fan of Andy MacPhail. I respect what he is accomplishing with the Orioles. I agree with Sports Illustrated's Jon Heyman (http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/writers/jon_heyman/01/18/top.offseasons/index.html?eref=writers) that the O's have had a good off-season. I fully expect to see the Orioles make significant on-field progress this year, with tangible results on the win side of the ledger.

I have little idea of what to make from MacPhail's quote to The Baltimore Sun (http://www.baltimoresun.com/sports/orioles/bal-sp.orioles19jan19,0,7347196.story) today:

"We've made no secret over the fact that it's our preference to have Atkins go to first," MacPhail said.

Really? I find that to be just perplexing. Since Atkins has signed, there have been repeated comments attributed to MacPhail, that the O's believed he could get time at 1st.

Count me as one that must have misinterpreted those quotes. I always took it as, "Atkins could wind-up getting time at 1st, if we were to sign a 3rd baseman of higher value (ie Beltre), or obtain a better option in trade (ie Kouzmanoff)."

Once Beltre was off the table, it never really occurred to me that Atkins could be looked at as the everyday 1st-baseman. Why would you put Atkins at 1st, when you have existing internal options for 1st, and none at 3rd? Why would you block existing internal options at 1st, to sign another stop-gap player (Crede, Tejada) for 3rd?

I am on record as saying that I expect a .750 OPS, 20 homers, and 80 rbi season out of Atkins. (http://baltimoresportsandlife.blogspot.com/2009/12/will-garrett-atkins-land-in-baltimore.html) However, while I believe he can rebound some, and out produce what you received from Mora in 2009; my primary interest in Atkins has been that he is a place-holder only. Meaning that if it is June or July and he is struggling, you could easily cut-bait and move on to Josh Bell.

I simply see no reason to sign Crede or Tejada for 3rd, to move Atkins to 1st, when you have other existing options. You do not want Snyder to break camp in the Majors? Fine, send him back to Norfolk for a couple of hundred at-bats, and start Luke Scott. Scott will produce enough offensively to help, and you get the added benefits of adding Pie to the everyday lineup in LF, and giving time to Reimold at DH coming off his Achilles surgery. You want another place-holder at 3rd? Use Wigginton for 2-3 months.

If you sign Crede or Tejada for 3rd, and have Atkins at 1st (with Scott at DH, Reimold in LF, and Pie on the bench) it is going to be much harder for Bell, and Snyder to ascend at some-point in 2010 and receive regular Major League playing time. That might not mean a lot to everyone, but to me; when the goal is contention in 2011, you want the players that figure to be playing everyday in 2011 to get as much playing time as possible in 2010.

Frankly, if you are going to sign Tejada; it makes more sense to me to sign him to replace Izturis.

Tejada
2009: .795 OPS, 61 XBH's, .313 avg.
2010 CHONE Projections: .767 OPS, -12 Fielding
2010 Bill James Projections: .791 OPS

Izturis
2009: .622 OPS, 20 XBH's, .256 avg.
2010 Chone Projections: .635 OPS, 12 Fielding
2010 Bill James Projections: .621 OPS

The knocks on Tejada's defense during his tenure with the O's were always overblown.
He got the reputation for having no range, when he was attempting to play SS on 1 leg.

When healthy he had limited range, but was better than his reputation. A very strong arm, from deep in the hole. My knock on his defense was that he would occasionally botch the routine because of a lack of focus.

The argument I would expect to hear is you can not have that, when you have young pitching on the mound. I am just not sure I agree. While I am sure Tejada is a below avg SS, I tend to think a .750 OPS out of him (with Izturis available as a defensive replacement off the bench) would provide more value than starting Izturis.

Let us say that the defensive metrics points to Izturis being worth 2.5 more wins over Tejada. How much would Tejada have to hit to make up for that?

It is a fair question. I would think you would also have to factor in the ideas that Tejada is far more likely to play 150+ games, and that Izturis would still be available off the bench with his glove. Izturis broke into the Majors full-time in 2002, he has played at-least 135 games 4 times in those 8 seasons. Tejada has played 158 games in each of the last 2 seasons. If Izturis only plays 130 games as the starter, factor in his replacement's bat and defense over those 25-32 games as opposed to the production you would gain from Tejada.

So again, if Izturis is worth 2.5 wins over Tejada with this glove, does Tejada make-up the difference with an OPS 130 to 150 points higher than Izturis? If you also factor in the likely offensive production of his backup during the 25-32 games Izturis will likely miss, I think he does.

That conjecture is all well and good, but there is zero chance of the O's signing Tejada to replace Izturis. That is fine, I am ok with that. Again, what I do not understand is why you would sign Tejada or Crede as additional place-holders for 3rd, and definitively move Atkins to 1st, when you can just as easily make Scott the 1st-baseman to start the year.