Millar wants to return

[Dipper9]

There just isn't much use for a bench player that can only DH and play 1b.

Excuse me while I grab this phone call...its Jimmy Dwyer!

Oh, and I have Crowly on hold!

My point is, if you have 9 starters who are all everyday players, you don't need defensive replacements on your bench. You need guys who can come in with 2 outs in the bottom of the ninth and smack a 2 run homer to win the game.

The key is signing Tex and a REAL shortstop. Then you don't need all these bench guys who can fill in in 3 different positions.

[ElToro75]

Oh, oh, oh...wot's this?

Hmmmmm.....

When I was reading the article last night I was wondering how long it would take someone to point out the "chemistry" comment. Millar is the glue that holds things together I think, and he reinforces alot of what Trembley coaches. That's important in a young team in my opinion, for them to see a veteran buying into and believing what a manager says.

The article was a nice piece by the way, I really do like Millar and I wouldn't be against him coming back next year but obviously in a different role than this year.

Does MLB still allow a player/coach? The last I recall was Pete Rose, but he was player/manager in '84.

[square634]

Oh, oh, oh...wot's this?

Hmmmmm.....

Well if our chemistry is so good, why are we in last place?

[Dipper9]

Well if our chemistry is so good, why are we in last place?

Because our pitching sucks! I don't think anyone can argue that the offense has been stellar this season!

[murrayfan420]

Excuse me while I grab this phone call...its Jimmy Dwyer!

Oh, and I have Crowly on hold!

My point is, if you have 9 starters who are all everyday players, you don't need defensive replacements on your bench. You need guys who can come in with 2 outs in the bottom of the ninth and smack a 2 run homer to win the game.

The key is signing Tex and a REAL shortstop. Then you don't need all these bench guys who can fill in in 3 different positions.

True, but that role would be occupied by Scott/Montanez/Reimold.

[Mark Carver]

Millar will be the OD first baseman if we miss out on Tex...I have very little doubt about that.

And I think Huff will be the everyday 1B'man if the Orioles miss out of Tex...

[Frobby]

If Millar is the 2009 OD first baseman, MacPhail should be fired. There are way too many options that are out there that are better than Millar if we don't get Tex. At the very least Huff should start there.

Considering that the O's are third in runs scored, and 13th in runs allowed, I have a feeling that MacPhail is going to focus his energies on how to prevent runs from scoring, rather than how to score more runs.

With Payton gone, there's room for Montanez or Reimold even if Millar is retained. Plus, we have a pretty strong long-term candidate for 1B in Brandon Snyder, but he's a year away.

In that context, I won't be shocked if Millar is back.

[Mark Carver]

If that's true, then the front office has very little imagination...if we don't sign Tex, Huff should start at 1B, Scott should be the full time DH and Montanez/Reimold should fight it out for the starting LF job. Let Scott take some reps at 1B in Spring Training if we need some versatility.

What he said... Millar has been great but his days in an Orioles uniform will end in 2008.

[TommyD4207]

Well if our chemistry is so good, why are we in last place?

That's like saying "Well if our right fielder is so good, why are win last place?" Having good chemistry is important, but it's not everything, just like having a cornerstone player to build around is important, but not everything. It's a piece of the pie.

[wildcard]

Thats an utterly irrelevant scenario. You don't sign Tex to compete in 2009. So the rotation in 2009 doesn't matter.

You sign Tex to compete from 2010-2013. The rotation in those years will include a couple of our prospects, Guthrie, maybe one of Olson, Liz, or Penn if they work out, and probably a FA or two.

Saying that it "is no use to spend the money on Tex if 3/5s of the rotation is DCab, Olson and Penn" shows a complete lack of understanding the rebuilding plan that MacPhail is implementing. Signing Tex isn't the big move that puts us over the top, its just another step in the rebuilding. A big step, but still just a step.

Good points.

However, I still don't believe Tex is coming to Baltimore. Not while Boras is getting a cut of his endorsement package.

[Mackus]

However, I still don't believe Tex is coming to Baltimore. Not while Boras is getting a cut of his endorsement package.

Thats certainly a fair argument, Tex is still only a possibility, and by no means a lock.

[Mark Carver]

Well if our chemistry is so good, why are we in last place?

Team ERA = 4.85, 11th in AL

Team Starters ERA = 5.36, 13th in AL

Team Releivers ERA = 3.93, 9th in AL

[wildcard]

Considering that the O's are third in runs scored, and 13th in runs allowed, I have a feeling that MacPhail is going to focus his energies on how to prevent runs from scoring, rather than how to score more runs.

With Payton gone, there's room for Montanez or Reimold even if Millar is retained. Plus, we have a pretty strong long-term candidate for 1B in Brandon Snyder, but he's a year away.

In that context, I won't be shocked if Millar is back.

Thank you. Always the vocal of reason.

[square634]

You're a very, very smart guy so you must realize that your question isn't logical. We're 61-65 with great chemistry because our pitching hasn't developed as planned. I would think that would have become obvious as we've shuttled pitchers back and forth to AAA like we're running an airline rather than a ballclub.

If this team didn't like each other and didn't play hard, our record could easily be the in same ballpark as the Nats' record. Are you telling me that because the Nats are in last place and we're also in last place that you don't care that our chemistry may have helped our last place record to be 61-65 instead of 45-83? Well, you may not care, but I care. I care a helluva lot.

The Mariners are 46-81. Do you really believe the Mariners are that bad from a talent standpoint when they've essentially lost nobody from last year's team that almost made the play-offs? There is no freaking way. Clearly that team has got some major clubhouse problems that have led them to seriously underachieve. The same is true of the Cleveland Indians IMO.

You guys can pooh-pooh the value of chemistry all you want, but you're just wrong IMO. I can't prove it because the "chemistry" variable can't be isolated. I can't prove the earth is round or that the sun is the center of our solar system either, but that doesn't mean those things aren't true.

Yes, it was partially tongue-in-cheek because we obviously don't have the talent to be in the playoff race. But guys say this all the time. In the first half of 2005 when we were overachieving and in first place, we heard all about how we had great chemistry, and everybody loved each other and had so much fun. Then when it all went down the drain, it was supposedly because we didn't have enough "good clubhouse guys." So then that offseason we went and signed those clubhouse guys and did even worse because the problem was the talent. This year I'd say we have done better than expected because we've gotten great individual performances out of a lot of offensive players. It's not like there is a lot of teamwork involved in hitting, except when it comes to manufacturing runs and small ball which we don't do very much anyway.

By the way, I just reread Millar's quote, and I misread it the first time. I thought he said that "Chemistry wins championships" not "Teams win championships." That (obviously fabricated) idea was what I was objecting to.

[square634]

That's like saying "Well if our right fielder is so good, why are win last place?" Having good chemistry is important, but it's not everything, just like having a cornerstone player to build around is important, but not everything. It's a piece of the pie.

I agree, I completely misread Millar's quote and read something different out of it. However, I would argue that in baseball particularly chemistry isn't as important as people say. Baseball is certainly a team sport, but it is largely made up of individual matchups that don't require a lot of teamwork.