Jump to content

Millar wants to return


Frobby

Recommended Posts

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.

Synder is more than a year away IMO as he hasn't even made it to Bowie yet. To count on him as being our future 1st baseman is foolish.

We've got plenty of pitching in the minors, and most of this high powered offense is gone after 2009 with expiring contracts of Huff, Hernandez, Roberts and Mora. So there is a need for offense for the future. Brandon Snyder isn't going to provide it all himself.

If we sign a FA pitcher like Burnett and Bergesen and Berken can make an impact in the rotation which I think they can, we can easily go to middle of the pack in pitching, combined with a stellar offense this team could win 85-90 games. Then when Matusz and Tillman enter the picture, the rotation will finally match the hitting and that's when we can start competing.

Without that high powered offense though, we'll be like the Toronto Blue Jays. That's why we still need to add a bat like Tex, Dunn or Burrell and why Millar is unacceptable at 1B.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 105
  • Created
  • Last Reply
http://baltimore.orioles.mlb.com/news/article_perspectives.jsp?ymd=20080821&content_id=3344893&vkey=perspectives&fext=.jsp

Read the rest of the article. I really makes you appreciate why Millar is considered such a good clubhouse guy.

If we lose the Tex sweepstakes, does it make sense to bring Millar back? What's the alternative? Moore or Costanzo?

Huff is the alternative with Oscar Salazar taking Millar's roster spot and either Montenez or Reimold taking Payton's spot and playing DH or LF (with Scott going to DH).

This saves the O's money, gives them a really strong bat against lefties off the bench and clears room for Montanez / Reimold to play full time. If they can drop the bullpen down to a more reasonable size, then they can get all three guys on the squad.

Resigning Millar would be a significant step backwards IMHO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Bottom line is chemistry doesn't outweigh talent. It doesn't outweigh the need to bench vets that have no future here for young guys that do.

In other words, chemistry doesn't outweigh the future of the team.

Chemistry is important when you have a team that has a chance at contending...We are even remotely there yet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bottom line is chemistry doesn't outweigh talent. It doesn't outweigh the need to bench vets that have no future here for young guys that do.

In other words, chemistry doesn't outweigh the future of the team.

Chemistry is important when you have a team that has a chance at contending...We are even remotely there yet.

Aside from Reimold, who in the minors would you want called up now that the vets are blocking? Currently, we know RF, CF (when Jones returns), 2B will be on this team for many years to come, this assuming we extend Roberts, which I think they will. Either we sign Tex or Huff takes first next year. SS we have tried everyone AND their brothers. There are no third baseman ready to come up. And at catcher, the Orioles think Wieters can use more time in the minors. So aside from giving Mora and Millar a few days off here and there, who besides Reimold are they really, truly blocking that will have a future with us? I don't count Moore or Salazar as future pieces of this team, but maybe that's just me???

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, I do realize that the O's will be 'smart' enough to start 37 year old Melvin Mora with his expiring 2009 contract, everyday at 3rd, while putting 25year Nolan Reimold in AAA, and tell everyone with a straight-face that they are rebuilding.

Bingo! How does a team that is two years into "rebuilding" go into 2009 with Millar, Mora, Roberts, and who knows what at SS, plus maybe Hernandez. If those 4 are in our OD starting line up, then, call it whatever you want...but it ain't rebuilding.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bingo! How does a team that is two years into "rebuilding" go into 2009 with Millar, Mora, Roberts, and who knows what at SS, plus maybe Hernandez. If those 4 are in our OD starting line up, then, call it whatever you want...but it ain't rebuilding.
It certainly can be rebuilding if we don't have any younger options at those positions that those guys are blocking.

Rebuilding doesn't only have to do with your MLB roster.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It certainly can be rebuilding if we don't have any younger options at those positions that those guys are blocking.

Rebuilding doesn't only have to do with your MLB roster.

Then you make the moves to get those guys...You trade your older players to accomplish your long term goal.

To me, rebuilding doesn't come with being short sighted. You can't have be both.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It certainly can be rebuilding if we don't have any younger options at those positions that those guys are blocking.

Rebuilding doesn't only have to do with your MLB roster.

OK, but when I reference rebuilding I'm talking about the Major League club.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then you make the moves to get those guys...You trade your older players to accomplish your long term goal.

To me, rebuilding doesn't come with being short sighted. You can't have be both.

Playing Mora, Huff, Millar, and those other guys isn't neccesarily short-sighted.

We've traded away all of our big assets except for Roberts, and the offers for him haven't been all that great. Sherrill might be able to get us one prospect similar to Jason Donald, but even that might be a stretch (although probably wasn't in July, I think he's the only guy we missed the boat on trading). There isn't any market for guys like Mora or Huff or Hernandez.

You always advocate buying and selling. Well, buying, selling, and holding pat can all be done at the same time as well. We can try to sell off any average veterans of value like Huff or Bradford or Sherrill, hold pat on moving guys that are capable of either helping us on the field or in trade (Roberts), and buy on guys that are young MLBers or close to ready prospects (Greene, for example).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Playing Mora, Huff, Millar, and those other guys isn't neccesarily short-sighted.

We've traded away all of our big assets except for Roberts, and the offers for him haven't been all that great. Sherrill might be able to get us one prospect similar to Jason Donald, but even that might be a stretch (although probably wasn't in July, I think he's the only guy we missed the boat on trading). There isn't any market for guys like Mora or Huff or Hernandez.

You always advocate buying and selling. Well, buying, selling, and holding pat can all be done at the same time as well. We can try to sell off any average veterans of value like Huff or Bradford or Sherrill, hold pat on moving guys that are capable of either helping us on the field or in trade (Roberts), and buy on guys that are young MLBers or close to ready prospects (Greene, for example).

I don't think we can/will buy and sell if we keep BRob.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think we can/will buy and sell if we keep BRob.
Yeah I pretty much agree with that. And I don't see us trading Roberts (and don't think we should for what offers I'd expect to get for him).

I can see Sherrill being moved, but I think his value will be far lower than it was in July. He's the one guy who I think we missed the boat on trading. Everybody else we could get similar offers in the offseason (not necessarily good offers, just similar to the offers being made in July).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bottom line is chemistry doesn't outweigh talent. It doesn't outweigh the need to bench vets that have no future here for young guys that do.

In other words, chemistry doesn't outweigh the future of the team.

Chemistry is important when you have a team that has a chance at contending...We are even remotely there yet.

I strongly disagree:eek:

We are NOT that far from contending!

I also think chemistry can be priceless!:)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...