Isn't he essentially only a backup 1B at this point? I don't see the point in Millar. His attitude wasn't nearly as important as his team's ridiculous production. Yeah, he is pretty much a backup 1B. Knowing how you think (and a lot of people here), its hard to believe that someone's attitude or clubhouse presence had a difference in the play of a team. But if it was possible, if any team could use a boost like the Red Sox allegedly benefited from, its probably the Cubs with their history and recent postseason success. A) We don't have a Yankees. B) Boston won because as often as they were good, it was bound to happen. C) If there's a team in the NL that needs some sort of mental boost, it's much more likely to be the Mets than the Cubs. That team has blown divisions two years in a row in glorious fashion. D) If Millar was any good, I'd be perfectly fine adding him in hopes that there was some sort of intangible mental benefit on the side. However, he's not any good, and he plays a position (RH backup 1B) that the Cubs really have no need for. Boston also faced a number of challenging mental situations during those playoffs that could have ate them up and spit them out including playing the Yankees who had a mental edge on them, facing a 3-0 deficit, their ace playing on one ankle. They had to stay loose somehow. There's no point in arguing it though because its impossible to quantify any sort of mental/chemistry influence in baseball. I don't even think I believe there is much effect. I just brought up Millar and his reputation for chemistry because someone was going to. And yes the Red Sox were very very good in 2004. But so were the Cubs last year. So were the Red Sox in 2003 and 2005.