Dec 17, 2009, 12:51 PM EDT
In analyzing Garrett Atkins signing with the Orioles last night Matthew predicted that the one-year deal would be worth “$4 million-$5 million.” Official terms of the contract were released this afternoon and sure enough Atkins is guaranteed … $4.5 million.
He’ll get $4 million in 2010 and the Orioles hold an $8.5 million option or $500,000 buyout for 2011, so it’ll either be a one-year, $4.5 million deal or a two-year, $12.5 million deal. Expect the former, because the odds of Atkins being worth $8.5 million in 2011 are slim, particularly with the Orioles using him keeping third base warm for prospect Josh Bell.
I’m not as optimistic about Atkins rebounding in Baltimore as Matthew seems to be. His defense at third base is closer to horrible than average at this point and his OPS has gone from .965 to .853 to .780 to .650 since a career-year in 2006. He’ll bounce back from last season’s putrid .226/.308/.342 mark, but Atkins was also a below-average hitter in 2008 and has batted just .252/.324/.411 away from Coors Field during his entire seven-year career. Toss in the league switch and I’d certainly take the “under” on an .800 OPS.
- 2015 Preview: Toronto Blue Jays 13
- Mariners prospect Victor Sanchez has died 24
- 2015 Preview: Chicago White Sox 15
- Did David Ortiz admit to more than he realized with his Players’ Tribune editorial? 87
- 2015 Preview: Atlanta Braves 15
- David Ortiz: “Nobody in MLB history has been tested for PEDs more than me” 118
- 2015 Preview: Chicago Cubs 14
- Unsigned 2014 No. 1 overall pick Brady Aiken undergoes Tommy John surgery 61
- Ex-Cardinals outfielder Curt Ford was assaulted in St. Louis and told to “go back to Ferguson” (122)
- David Ortiz: “Nobody in MLB history has been tested for PEDs more than me” (118)
- Rob Manfred says it would be hard to reinstate Pete Rose in a limited way (89)
- Mo’ne Davis says college ballplayer who wrote an offensive tweet about her deserves a second chance (88)
- Did David Ortiz admit to more than he realized with his Players’ Tribune editorial? (87)