Phillies Nation

38 Responses to “Report: Phils Asked About Atkins”

1. Georgie Says:
   November 12th, 2008 at 12:14 pm

   No, huge defensive liability (at 3rd, who knows about LF?), and from what I see, batting #’s much worse on the road.

2. Paul Says:
   November 12th, 2008 at 12:20 pm

   I’ve always been a big fan of Atkins. I’d be happy to see him in a Phils uni.

3. Manny Says:
   November 12th, 2008 at 12:30 pm

   If we can get him AND a good pitcher (read: Lowe), I’m game.

4. TwoTonsOfIrony Says:
   November 12th, 2008 at 12:31 pm

   I wanted him here when they were shopping around for a third basemen the last two seasons. If he can play left field reliably then I like it. He’s the right kind of guy for the spot the Phils need to fill. BTW many batters are worse away than at home, people only notice it when they look at the Rockies.

5. Robbi P Says:
   November 12th, 2008 at 12:40 pm

   I think if we can put him in LF that would be great and replace some of Pat the Bats production if he doesn’t resign. I mean if we can keep Feliz’s glove at third and he can pick up his production to his career numbers that would be great! Then we have two powerful right handed bats in the lineup with Werth ready as well against lefties such as Santana. I think this may just be a rumor however, Atkins always gets linked to the Phils cause of our 2nd Baseman Chase “World Ph@cking Champs” Utley

6. Geoff Says:
   November 12th, 2008 at 12:45 pm

   I heard his defense was terrible last year at third so he would be playing left field were you can get away with average defense because shane victorino plays GOLD GLOVE centerfield.

   But the power numbers are good and the average isnt terrible. i mean. thats a good cheap alternative to someome who could cost a lot more like dye (monetarily) or resigning burrell. unlike hoilliday, he wont cost too much in a trade and his production wont tail off too much when he leaves colorado because he isnt overhyped.

   make this move, im ok with that, save the money for cole hamels and another starting pitcher and another reliever.

7. NJ Says:
   November 12th, 2008 at 12:45 pm

   He’s like Baldelli was to us before the health issues, the Phils love Atkins but it seems the window of opportunity has closed, though he is a right handed bat and though he’s only made 2 starts in left has a high range factor suggesting he could play the position.

   The toughest read here is what his trade value is right now, we know the Phillies love him and the Rockies will try to move him as they don’t have a hope in hell of moving Helton but what will it take… Are we talking straight-up for a guy like Werth, one or more bluechip prospects or could it be an easier deal to make that we think?

8. Geoff Says:
   November 12th, 2008 at 12:46 pm

   dye would STILL be preferable because hes a better player plain and simple though. i just dont think the phillies would be all about that type of money. their style is to get someone like atkins.

   it would certaintly be better than overpaying some turd like milton bradley.

9. Geoff Says:
   November 12th, 2008 at 12:48 pm

   it makes NO sense to trade jayson werth for garrett atkins. the phillies would automatically lose that trade. you trade a prospect like JA Happ. and maybe nothing else. then you go and with that extra money saved by atkins go and get a starting pitcher

10. Evrybuddy Hits woohoo Says:
    November 12th, 2008 at 12:55 pm

    I’m not sure why the Rockies would shop him other than to attract pitching, which we don’t have to give up. No chance of this happening IMO.

11. NJ Says:
    November 12th, 2008 at 12:57 pm

    Atkins would be a good move and though he wont be a gold glover he’ll be solid, remember most of those ‘bad defense’ 3rd basements struggle because of footwork.

    Dye’s major appeal is he’s controllable for a couple of years and below current market value for a slugging corner outfielder. It’s been stated the priorities pitching but we don’t want to get into the Lowe/Burnett/Dempster sweepstakes which would result in a lengthy contract with prospects on the horizon, it’s different for the Cubs or Mets who’ll pay well over value for their rotation but are more limited when it comes to pitching prospects.

12. From Section 113 Says:
    November 12th, 2008 at 1:01 pm

    Atkins has 2 yrs left which is good. But I’d still take Dye over Atkins. I actually don’t understand why the White Sox would even trade Dye. If they want to shed payroll, the can trade Vazquez. Dye is still producing and if they do trade him who do they replace him with? I would trade Donald for Dye but not for Atkins. I wonder if Golson is worth anything to anyone. Would Golson/Happ entice them?

    I wonder what it would take to net Atkins? They probably would want Donald. What’s interesting is that if we got Atkins is it possible in 2010 to move Atkins to 1B and move Howard??

    I don’t think we are getting anyone at this point of signifigance. Probably Juan Rivera.

13. Jim Says:
    November 12th, 2008 at 1:04 pm

    Is there any Rockie, ever, that didn’t have better numbers at home than on the road?

14. Georgie Says:
    November 12th, 2008 at 1:04 pm

    I never played positional baseball, so could someone please enlighten me? Is it that easy to switch from playing 3rd to LF? Sounds like he’s not too savvy of an infielder, so he’d be OK out there? What about his throwing arm, Pat’s got a great arm? I always get the heebie-jeebies when I hear someone sucks defensively, defense and pitching won us a WS.

    You know, for all the pissing and moaning we did about our hitting, it WAS apparently adequate enough when it needed to be. Giving up Werth for Atkins would be INSANE, there’s no reason to start moving any major pieces now.

15. NJ Says:
    November 12th, 2008 at 1:04 pm

    Geoff I mean’t what would the Rockies want? It would be unlikely to be for Werth since they come at virtually the same cost and Evrybuddys right, the Rockies have been very vocal they want pitching but this rumor has been around for long well over a year but not once have I actually read something saying what the deal could be.

16. griffin Says:
    November 12th, 2008 at 1:09 pm

    oof, stay away from Atkins. He’s a Coors monster. I’m sure the Rockies will ask for a decent haul in return since Atkins has two years left. I would rather have had Holliday for one than Atkins for two.

17. NJ Says:
    November 12th, 2008 at 1:14 pm

    Pat’s got a good arm but his positioning is sometimes bad and he has very poor range. A lot of 3rd basements are very atheltic but their reactions can be a little slow for the hot corner and their footwork can get them into trouble particularly with the throws needing to be so accurate. In LF they don’t have to rely on their footwork and have time to read and react to the play, as we’ve seen with guys like Braun and Headley who’ve been moved from 3rd to LF most of these guys are mobile enough and having the security of the cut-off man.

    Our best case scenario would be to get a cannon rightfielder like Dye and have Vic and Werth covering the ground like the Rays do with Crawford/Upton.

18. Georgie Says:
    November 12th, 2008 at 1:20 pm

    Thanks NJ, makes sense. I just remember Pat throwing some rockets to home plate and surprising the runners.

19. NJ Says:
    November 12th, 2008 at 1:36 pm

    Pat benefits from his reputation sometimes but it’s been be ugly when the balls not hit in his comfort zone.

    Am still scratching my head as to what the Rockies would want for Atkins…

20. Bruce Says:
    November 12th, 2008 at 1:42 pm

    Jermaine Dye? He will turn 36 years old in January. With one year left on his contract ($10 million) and a limited no trade team clause, he would be a one year rental with no guarantee in resigning him. The better solution is to sign Burrell for 3 years at 13-14 mil per year. Remember, Burrell is only 32 years old and would be hard to replace his productive numbers…averaging 31 HRs, 99 RBIs for last 4 years. And defensively, is among league leaders in assists during the same number of years.

21. NJ Says:
    November 12th, 2008 at 1:46 pm

    Dye’s meant to have two options years after next year at around $11m, he’s not young but there’s nothing to suggest he hasn’t got a good couple of years left in him and Werth in left and Vic in centre could cover more than enough gound.

22. had_my_phil Says:
    November 12th, 2008 at 2:02 pm

    Yes. Make this move happen. Atkins would fit nicely in this lineup and can take over at third when Feliz is done next year. He’s young, a good hitter, cheap, and we wouldn’t need to trade the whole farm system for him.

23. griffin Says:
    November 12th, 2008 at 2:07 pm

    Don’t be surprised if the Rockies ask for Carrasco, Taylor and another prospect for Atkins. He won’t come cheaply since he’s 2 years away from free agency.

24. Eb Says:
    November 12th, 2008 at 2:11 pm

    The Rockies asking price will be way to high, especially becasue their pull for Holliday was not that great

25. Werth It Says:
    November 12th, 2008 at 2:12 pm

    As intriguing as Atkins is, his splits are horrendous.

    2008:
    .342/.380/.523 at home.
    .233/.278/.383 on the road.

    2007:
    .349/.409/.527 at home.
    .254/.327/.446 on the road.

    Pretty significant difference. The funny part is he has hit a couple more HRs on the road in those past two years. His RBIs are fairly even if you average them. The point is, I’m not giving up very much for a guy who cant hit outside of Coors. Its just ugly.

26. griffin Says:
    November 12th, 2008 at 2:15 pm

    Werth it, I totally agree. Not a big fan of this guy, although he was a groomsman in Chase Utley’s wedding (they played at UCLA together). The price will be too high for Atkins.

27. NJ Says:
    November 12th, 2008 at 2:21 pm

    They can ask but they know their not going to get Carrasco, with Gonzalez they won’t want Golson and Donald’s not a it for them. Happ fits the profile but I can’t for the life of me see how this deals going to happen.

28. Groty Says:
    November 12th, 2008 at 2:28 pm

    He played 61 games at first last season.

29. Gavin Says:
    November 12th, 2008 at 2:42 pm

    The best move is still to re-sign Burrell. Dye would be next on that list, followed by Baldelli, and maybe Atkins. Look at Burrells #’s compared to these other guys, he’s the same if not better and he’s younger.

30. Gavin Says:
    November 12th, 2008 at 2:42 pm

    How about re-signing Burrell and adding Baldelli as a 4th OF.

31. MP Says:
    November 12th, 2008 at 2:54 pm

    Gavin, LOVE that idea.

    Does anyone else think the mention of this is kind of ridiculous? We have two guys more than capable of playing third. What do we have to give them for Atkins? If this was some stud player, then I’d be more open to it, but I don’t think he’s worth trading Werth, Carrasco, Happ for or any of the names mentioned. I’m sorry, but I really, REALLY don’t see the appeal for this guy.

32. Lewisauce Says:
    November 12th, 2008 at 2:57 pm

    Gavin, we have a fourth OF, guy by the name of Jenkins.

    The Rockies got fleeced with the Holliday deal, and if we can pull of something similar, I say go for it. Atkins can play LF for $10 million per year LESS than Burrell, with similar production numbers. That’s $10 million you can use on Cole/Howard/Madson/Pitcher to be named later/etc.

    For Happ and Golson, I’d consider it.

33. NJ Says:
    November 12th, 2008 at 3:00 pm

    The issue is which Baldelli are you getting, we love his bat but we have no idea how much this guy can actually play? I’d love to see him have a resurgence as a Phil but we saw up close the guy can barely handle being more than a pinch hitter and I’d rather see us use that hypothetical $2m+ on another arm in the pen.

34. Georgie Says:
    November 12th, 2008 at 3:04 pm

    Lewisauce, Atkins made almost 4.5M in 08, probably will be asking for more, no way we (or anyone, I doubt) will pay Pat 15M, so it wouldn’t be 10M difference to play with, plus we give up who knows what in a deal for him.

35. NJ Says:
    November 12th, 2008 at 3:07 pm

    Rockies really didn’t get fleeced, though I think they should have held out and reached on a stud prospect pitcher like Gio but people rave about Carlos Gonzalez and if they choose they can and likely will flip Street making it into a much bigger deal. It was a great deal for both sides and though Holliday has the Coors stigma the A’s hold the prime trade-deadline property and that’s if they don’t make a run in the West in which they get most of their investment back in compensation.

36. RichieAllen Says:
    November 12th, 2008 at 3:10 pm

    Heres something I have not heard anyone consider….What happened to Geoff jenkins last year?…He is a career 275 hitter with a lot of years at 25-30 homers and 85-95 rbi per year…And we have him signed for next year.
    Do we give this guy a chance?Why did we get him in the first place?Did he just fall off a cliff as far as talent last year?

37. Manny Says:
    November 12th, 2008 at 4:06 pm

    RichieAllen, I think that Jenkins will come back up. He is a very good player and I wouldn’t be surprised to see him gradually get back in our lineup at some point next season.

    Again, re-signing Burrell is the best option for our LF problem. If we end up NOT resigning him, then we better use those $15 million and bring a solid FA pitcher.

38. J-Man Says:
    November 13th, 2008 at 2:17 am

    I say pull the plug on this trade…He won’t cost you alot of players (i’d say J.A. Happ and Greg Golson) and and we know he bring good chemistry because him and Chase Utley are best friends.

Leave a Reply