Taking a Flyer on Jason Botts?

[Dr. FLK]

You know what builds a winning atmosphere? Winning.

I guarantee if we were in last place eight games under .500 already our clubhouse wouldn't be singing Kumbaya like they are now.

I want a long-term winning team. Kevin Millar will NOT be a part of that. Jason Botts may not be a part of that, but he has a better chance. And if not, the next guy might be, or the next guy.

Clubhouse chemistry is bull. You can win with bad chemistry, but you can't win with bad players who are "good in the clubhouse".

Can good chemistry make "good, but not great players" play better as a team than they would as individuals?

[BaltimoreTerp]

Neither is Kevin Millar. His second half OPS was 740 last year or 60-80 higher than what Jason Botts has been able to produce thus far in his career. How about if you start using stats rather than things like "tanked" to described things since it appears that you have a sliding scale for evaluating performance based on how much you like a player?

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/players/splits?playerId=3820&type=batting&year=2007

Ok. That .740 OPS was 76 points lower then the first half. And his OPS in July was .835, so what does that tell you about August and September?

[BaltimoreTerp]

Can good chemistry make "good, but not great players" play better as a team than they would as individuals?

No. Players playing well does that. Players playing poorly means that players get pissed, and become "bad in the clubhouse".

[JTrea81]

Good points here, you have to look at what Millar is doing now and the chances of him rebounding back to an OPS over .800 at age 36 are slim. He's not an asset in the lineup and is not part of this teams future. Guys like Botts and Moore could be if actually given a chance.

I think that while vatech and others that think that I'm biased against Millar and that clouds my judgement, the same is true for them. They like Millar so much as a person and are looking too much at the chemistry aspect, that they are too clouded to see his actual performance in the lineup and how he is hurting the team by being in a full time role.

[Dr. FLK]

No. Players playing well does that. Players playing poorly means that players get pissed, and become "bad in the clubhouse".

You didn't really answer my question...

I know that losing typically leads to bad chemistry. But, a team can play "well" without having good chemistry, can't it? And, maybe chemistry would help a "good" team play better. I'm not saying that chemistry can make a bad team good. But, I also don't think it's quite as cut and dry as you make it out to be.

[Fan4Life]

I don't see taking a risk on Botts as a bad thing, but, I'm certainly not going to slam the FO (like I'm sure many posters here will down the road) for passing on him and letting Millar play itself out.

[glenn__davis]

Can good chemistry make "good, but not great players" play better as a team than they would as individuals?

I think so.

Someone on this board, when talking about Derek Jeter, said he was probably the game's most overrated and underrated player, depending on who you talk to.

I think the same is probably true of "chemistry". IMO it's neither as irrelevant nor as important as some make it out to be.

[BaltimoreTerp]

You didn't really answer my question...

I know that losing typically leads to bad chemistry. But, a team can play "well" without having good chemistry, can't it? And, maybe chemistry would help a "good" team play better. I'm not saying that chemistry can make a bad team good. But, I also don't think it's quite as cut and dry as you make it out to be.

My point is that winning breeds good chemistry, and losing does the opposite. If we were losing, we wouldn't be talking about how good Millar is in the clubhouse, anything he "does" there would be irrelevant.

[Ruzious]

Botts was DFA'd today. Any chance we take a chance on him? He's done really well in Triple A, unfortunately, the Majors haven't been too friendly with him thus far. He's 27, maybe worth taking a flyer on...

Yeah, but he's put up the stats in the PCL in his mid 20's, and he hasn't performed well in a hitter's park - Texas. I don't think you cut Millar for Botts, at this point.

[Mackus]

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

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.

[JTrea81]

Yeah, but he's put up the stats in the PCL in his mid 20's, and he hasn't performed well in a hitter's park - Texas. I don't think you cut Millar for Botts, at this point.

You don't have to cut Millar, but you can bench him and give Botts the full time DH role putting Huff at 1B.

[Mackus]

You don't have to cut Millar, but you can bench him and give Botts the full time DH role putting Huff at 1B.

JTrea, what would be your opinion if they signed Botts, benched Huff, and put Botts at DH fulltime?

Would that be a good move or a bad move?

[JTrea81]

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

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.

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.

[YardBirds13]

JTrea, what would be your opinion if they signed Botts, benched Huff, and put Botts at DH fulltime?

Would that be a good move or a bad move?

I'll answer Mack, even though you werent asking me.

Good move, but not the best move.

Botts is worth taking a risk on, but it shouldn't be at the expense of Huff, it should be at the expense of Millar.

And I have no biases against Millar, it's just that Huff is younger and a better player.

[JTrea81]

JTrea, what would be your opinion if they signed Botts, benched Huff, and put Botts at DH fulltime?

Would that be a good move or a bad move?

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. Huff is still a threat in the lineup and is performing much better than expected in the early going. This is why you put him in the field to play 1B and 3B so that National League teams can get a look at him. He's not a butcher at either corner, probably league average.

Then when you trade him you can bring up Scott Moore to take his place in the same role.