Taking a Flyer on Jason Botts?

[Fan4Life]

Imagine if we had a league average SS that wouldn't have to depend on Millar making those saves...

Again I can't believe people think this team is going to suddenly go down the tubes if Millar isn't starting int the lineup everyday. He's still going to be on the team and can still be a cheerleader. He's not helping this team with his sub .700 OPS and is only better than Adam Jones with RISP and Jones is essentially a rookie. Millar being replaced in the lineup would most likely make this team better.

This is an arguement to be had at the end of May if Millar is hitting .220 and his OBP is under .350. It's just too early for me right now to paint any player one way or another. From what I've read about Botts' defense, he sucks. So it isn't Millar that's holding up playing time for Botts, it's mostly Huff. And I'm not interested in replacing Huff with Botts anytime soon.

[Mackus]

That would be a bad move. Huff is still productive and has a large contract unlike Millar that you are trying to move so you want him playing everyday to increase his trade value.

But the main argument, that Expensive Vet isn't a part of the future and its worth the risk of lowered production to bench him in favor of Younger Guy is exactly the same.

If you would support benching Millar for Botts, then you have to support benching Huff for Botts.

Imagine we traded for Tex today.

Would you acquire Botts and replace Huff with him at DH?

[BaltimoreTerp]

Imagine how many errors Luis Hernandez would have if Millar wasn't the 1B. Probably 6-7 by now.

And it would suck not having him on the team anymore

I'd be fine with picking Botts up and letting him get some PT, but I don't think I'd just hand him a starting role and tell him to go to town. He's never done anything to suggest he's a MLB regular. Give him a few at bats and see what he can do. Use him as a PH and occasional starts in the field. If he plays well, increase his time. If not, cut him or try to send him to AAA.

The people who are (rightly so) saying Millar has no place on the team in the future seem to be forgetting that Botts in almost all likelihood also has no place on the team in the future. You can gamble on a one in fifty chance if you want, but it is gonna cause a few rifts in the clubhouse if you bench Millar and its very possible you'll end up with worse raw production even discounting any "chemistry"-related issues.

Except of course for those of us saying that Botts' chance is small, but better then Millar, which is undeniable.

And really, if this team can't take the "loss" of an aging, poor player in the clubhouse, then honestly we should be doing it now to 1) show that no one can keep their job without performing and 2) have them learn how to deal now instead if being emotionally weak when we want to contend.

[glenn__davis]

My point is that winning breeds good chemistry, and losing does the opposite.

That's certainly a popular cliche on this board, but I don't really buy it. There have been teams that hated each other that did great. There have also been teams that hated each other and probably underachieved because of it. The same is true (in reverse obviously) of teams that liked each other.

I'm not even a big fan of Millar, and if we could find a legitimate improvement for him I'd be all for it, but I don't really see the point in jettisoning him for Botts.

[BaltimoreTerp]

But the main argument, that Expensive Vet isn't a part of the future and its worth the risk of lowered production to bench him in favor of Younger Guy is exactly the same.

If you would support benching Millar for Botts, then you have to support benching Huff for Botts.

Imagine we traded for Tex today.

Would you acquire Botts and replace Huff with him at DH?

Huff is better, and signed longer.

[El Gordo]

VAtech leaves and the lunatics sytart running the asylum again:eek:

[Mackus]

Huff is better, and signed longer.

I'm not comparing him to Millar. I'm saying if you support replacing Millar with Botts, you have to support replacing Huff with Botts. The arguments are the same. The degree of age and contract affects it some, but Huff has 0% chance of ever playing on a contending O's team just like Millar, so the conclusion must be the same if thats the argument.

[BaltimoreTerp]

That's certainly a popular cliche on this board, but I don't really buy it. There have been teams that hated each other that did great. There have also been teams that hated each other and probably underachieved because of it.

Like who?

I'm not even a big fan of Millar, and if we could find a legitimate improvement for him I'd be all for it, but I don't really see the point in jettisoning him for Botts.

It isn't about Botts. It's about the idea of not going after players who may help this team long-term because of old, underperforming players here only in the short-term who are perceived as having magical abilities inside the sacred clubhouse.

[JTrea81]

But the main argument, that Expensive Vet isn't a part of the future and its worth the risk of lowered production to bench him in favor of Younger Guy is exactly the same.

If you would support benching Millar for Botts, then you have to support benching Huff for Botts.

Imagine we traded for Tex today.

Would you acquire Botts and replace Huff with him at DH?

Huff is outproducing Millar and is owed more on his contract. It's not the same. We could cut Millar tomorrow and only be out 3.8 million or so. If we cut Huff we'd have to eat 16 million I believe. Big difference. I want to move Huff so I want him to play, I could care less about Millar.

[BaltimoreTerp]

I'm not comparing him to Millar. I'm saying if you support replacing Millar with Botts, you have to support replacing Huff with Botts. The arguments are the same. The degree of age and contract affects it some, but Huff has 0% chance of ever playing on a contending O's team just like Millar, so the conclusion must be the same if thats the argument.

But we aren't talking about Huff. We're talking about Millar.

If we trade for Teixiera this year, after the pigs finish flying out of my tucus and over the frozen wastelands of West Baltimore, and Millar is being dumped for him, then we can talk about Huff for Botts.

[laxtonto]

Ok, after reading this entire thread, let me try to help solve some of these little disagreements. I have personally seen Botts play both in AAA and in the Majors.

Botts feasts on mistake, espically on ones with off speed pitches. He has extreme trouble with decent fastballs, espically ones place on the inside portion of the plate.

Hes extremely patient at theplate, that may be one of his problems inthe majors. A large portion of hs K's are of the looking variety.

He is an absolue butcher in the OF. Below average a very good descriptor of his OF defence. Hes never really had the footwork to play 1B, which he only started working on playing at the end of last season.

Botts problem is that if you can locate your fastball, espically in you are going to own him. He works the count, and takes walks but does poorly aginst MLB. He really seems like a AAAA DH.

I hope the guy does well, hes actually a really nice guy. Im not going to hold my breath about it though.

[JTrea81]

I'm not comparing him to Millar. I'm saying if you support replacing Millar with Botts, you have to support replacing Huff with Botts. The arguments are the same. The degree of age and contract affects it some, but Huff has 0% chance of ever playing on a contending O's team just like Millar, so the conclusion must be the same if thats the argument.

Huff was only 2nd to Markakis in OPS last year after the break. He can absolutely be part of a contending team, but we aren't there yet so he's more valuable as a trade chip. Millar is a sunk cost that only would be seen as a bench player at most in a trade. Right now his best role is backup 1B/DH and a defensive replacment.

[Mackus]

Huff was only 2nd to Markakis in OPS last year after the break. He can absolutely be part of a contending team, but we aren't there yet so he's more valuable as a trade chip. Millar is a sunk cost that only would be seen as a bench player at most in a trade. Right now his best role is backup 1B/DH and a defensive replacment.

Right, Huff can't be a part of a winner here. Botts might be able to. So using your argument (and my assumption that Huff is untradeable, because of his terrible contract) we should bench Huff for Botts, because Botts has some small hope of being useful to a contending O's team.

I wouldn't replace either of them with Botts, at least not without giving Botts a small opportunity first and him succeeding in that role, I'm just showing the inconsistencies with the argument the "bench Millar" crowd is making. Huff and Millar are different shades of the same problem. Obviously you try to get rid of Millar first, but the basic argument is the same, and if you wouldn't replace Huff with Botts, then you shouldn't want to replace Millar.

Sign Botts, put him on the bench and let him play 3 times a week, fine. But to hand him a starting job is simply crazy.

[JTrea81]

Right, Huff can't be a part of a winner here. Botts might be able to. So using your argument (and my assumption that Huff is untradeable, because of his terrible contract) we should bench Huff for Botts, because Botts has some small hope of being useful to a contending O's team.

I wouldn't replace either of them with Botts, at least not without giving Botts a small opportunity first and him succeeding in that role, I'm just showing the inconsistencies with the argument the "bench Millar" crowd is making. Huff and Millar are different shades of the same problem. Obviously you try to get rid of Millar first, but the basic argument is the same, and if you wouldn't replace Huff with Botts, then you shouldn't want to replace Millar.

Sign Botts, put him on the bench and let him play 3 times a week, fine. But to hand him a starting job is simply crazy.

Huff is producing more than Millar and is a threat in the lineup, that's why he plays and Millar doesn't. It's that simple. And like I said Millar would have a Payton role and Payton is getting plenty of ABs. Botts plays everyday so you can see if he can be a cheap DH and as he needs consistent playing time to evaluate him properly, that's what you give him. If we are truly rebuilding, then we can afford to afford that chance to Botts.

[Mackus]

Huff is producing more than Millar and is a threat in the lineup, that's why he plays and Millar doesn't. It's that simple. And like I said Millar would have a Payton role and Payton is getting plenty of ABs. Botts plays everyday so you can see if he can be a cheap DH and as he needs consistent playing time to evaluate him properly, that's what you give him. If we are truly rebuilding, then we can afford to afford that chance to Botts.

I'm not saying replace Huff instead of Millar. Read what I'm writing. The argument is the same. So if we replaced Millar with a good young 1B, and Botts is still out there, if you wanted to replace Millar with him, you'd then have to want to replace Huff with him. If you don't, you aren't being consistent.