Josh Hamilton - Worst Off Season Move?

by NO100 on Apr 26, 2007 10:45 AM CDT Comment 47 comments

Just throwing a question out there , and I hope it's diary-worthy.

Was the Cubs' worst off season move trading Josh Hamilton for cash to the Reds? Yes, I know that the Cubs already have a crowded outfield, and keeping him would not have prevented the Cubs from signing Floyd and Ward. No one was really expecting Hamilton to produce at the major league level this year or this well.

AB HR AVG RBI R SB
47 6 .298 12 11 1

Soriano LF, Pie CF, Hamilton RF is a nice outfield. Of course, it can't be removed from discussion that Hamilton's problems won't re-occur. Now, though, Hendry's just handed a potential star player to a division rival to torment the Cubs for years to come.

This is a FanPost and does not necessarily reflect the views of SB Nation or Al Yellon, editor-in-chief (unless it's a FanPost posted by Al). FanPost opinions are valued expressions of opinion by passionate and knowledgeable baseball fans.

0 recs | Comment 47 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

easy there...

it's early and we'll see if Hamilton does indeed become a star or if the league gets a book on him and he tails off

regardless judging this move in hindsight is especially easy

on our team where exactly would Hamilton have been given an opportunity?

We can't even find room for Murton?

Hamilton was only Rule 5 drafted by us to be able to make this deal and grab some cash, we never had an intention of keeping him because we knew we had an already stacked OF and couldnt afford to keep him on the ML roster all season

by DartmouthCubsFan on Apr 26, 2007 10:48 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

With the Cubs outfield situation.....

you take a chance on high ceiling guys.

In all honesty, I never expected this kid to take off like this. However, he had the tools. For a team like the Cubs with a lack of OF talent (outside of Pie) he would, IMHO, been worth the risk.

That being said, I am not angry. I am happy for the kid that he got his life straightened out.

"I guess we will have to agree to disagree on this." Sue369

by timeforachange on Apr 26, 2007 11:16 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

but there's no room for him

as a Rule 5 draft pick he would've had to have been kept on the roster ALL SEASON

we already had committed to Murton, Soriano, Jones, Floyd, and Ward

with Pie waiting in the wings

there wasnt room to keep Hamilton on the roster, and if he was on the roster he would NEVER have played

so essentially we'd have wasted a roster spot all season and never known what we had with the guy

by DartmouthCubsFan on Apr 26, 2007 11:20 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Floyd and Ward.......

should not be thrown in the mix.

Floyd was a late sign (after the Rule 5 Draft) and Ward is a pitch hitter.

If you kept Hamilton, he would have been the fourth outfielder.

As for committing to Murton, I have never been that big of a fan. I think he is a perfect 4th outfielder. With Hamilton's potential, I would have liked to see the Cubs give him a shot.

"I guess we will have to agree to disagree on this." Sue369

by timeforachange on Apr 26, 2007 11:25 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Wonderboy and Floyd

I give Reds credit for giving Josh a chance. Josh might of fit in nice with Cubs and he plays all the OF positions. But, seems Lou was going with vets like Floyd signing later.

Is Josh Hamilton Wonderboy

by David Bloom on Apr 27, 2007 8:34 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

correct me if I'm wrong

but,

a) The deal was pre-arranged.

b) One reason the Reds, instead of the Cubs or any other MLB team, took a chance on Hamilton is the previous relationship he has with Reds manager Jerry Narron. http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=594098

by ron cey on Apr 26, 2007 10:50 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Exactly

I don't think Hamilton would be as comfortable, and putting up these same numbers, for any other manager or organization. Now, maybe the Cubs could have gotten a prospect instead of cash for him, but the Reds only needed one trading partner, so they might have just gotten somebody else to do the draft-and-trade.

The call of the Cub fan, c. 1893: "one long, ravaged, derisive yell...a cyclonic whoop!"

by zambranofan on Apr 26, 2007 11:05 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

worst off season move..

the hamilton trade definitely hurt us but the worst off season move is obvious That guy we paid $136M to hit some homers, steal some bases but generally be a slightly above average player who's only worth of ESPN clips.
And no, I am not saying this just based on only 3 weeks of the season. I thought this was a terrible deal when it firt happened, based on his career #'s, and even based on his career-year in '06. Don't expect more than 30-35 homers from him this year and an OBP % above .325. In two years, don't expect more than 25-30 homers and a .315 OBP.. doesn't look like such a great way to spend $136M, does it? Oh, and I don't even want to think about how bad he'll be in 2014.

So we're stuck in a slump, it's only been a century...

by Old Style Heavy on Apr 26, 2007 10:50 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

I see your...

crystal ball is working well today. Glad you think this was such an abominable signing, and am more glad that you put it down in writing. I think you're assessment of Soriano's skill is terrible, and will be glad to see you locked into your words for this year and those to come.

"Not true at all. Vaseline is manufactured right here in the United States." - Don Sutton, about the rumors that he uses a foreign substance on the ball

by Orangeman94 on Apr 26, 2007 2:30 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

In reality

Since this is an 8 year deal if Soriano has an off season it doesn't mean it was a bad deal necessarily.

If your Dad buys part of the team do you get to shower with the players?

by kerrysotherwife on Apr 26, 2007 4:32 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

it's a bad deal

anyway you slice it.....Jim Hendry screwed this team, litreally screwed it this offseason giving these inane backloaded contracts to anything that has a pulse. Think we'll be able to do anything on the free agent market in a couple years? Think again.

Faith Plus One - Contributing Editor -http://www.inaleagueofherown.com

by Faith plus 1 on Apr 26, 2007 5:27 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I think

that remains to be seen. The Cubs franchise is not one that needs to be locked into a 100 million per year contract scale. This franchise makes money and I believe could get on par with the Red Sox fiscally if a.) they continually try to put a better product on the field - which was attempted this year in signing the four main free agents, and b.) the team wins - and the verdict is still out on this. There is no reason they would not be able to get free agents in a few years, but it will depend on new ownership whether they WILL. This is not a small or middle market team...this is a team that draws 3 million fans despite not winning the world series for 100 years. Don't get me wrong, I did not agree with all of Lilly, Soriano, and particularly Marquis and DeRosa. But at least I see them making an attempt to make the Cubs better. If in fact they do start to win, that leads to increased revenue, and eventually more money to dole out contractually.

"Not true at all. Vaseline is manufactured right here in the United States." - Don Sutton, about the rumors that he uses a foreign substance on the ball

by Orangeman94 on Apr 26, 2007 6:10 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

It is an attempt

to make the Cubs better, however it's a half assed attempt, you cannot throw money at players that are average or slightly above average that superstars see, that's not how you run a team.

2009

Soriano: $16 mil
D Lee: $13 mil
A Ram: $15.6 mil
Lilly; $12.9 mil
Marquis: $9.8 mil
DeRosa: $5.5 mil
Dempster: $5 mil
Uncle Lou: $3.5
Samardzjia: $2mil

This is if they don't resign Carlos Zambrano. Which if they do, let's say he gets a median 5/82, that's another 16mil on top of the already 83.4 that's right there for those sole players, NOT including their bonus. (Just about 100mil if they do sign Z at 5/82)

7 of those men, out of a potential 25, nay, of 40 are going to make more than the whole Athletics, Blue Jays, Braves, Devil Rays, Diamond Backs, Indians, Marlins, Nationals, Padres, Pirates, Rangers, Reds, Rockies, Royals and Twins are forecasted in 2007.

Don't expect much from the Cubs.

Faith Plus One - Contributing Editor -http://www.inaleagueofherown.com

by Faith plus 1 on Apr 26, 2007 10:48 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

thats rough...

(sips a beer)

One of Us!One Of Us!

by HerrProf on Apr 27, 2007 8:36 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

You're missing my point...

I know the salaries and the back-loaded contracts. I'm saying the Cubs are amassing talent, and with a new owner, can push the threshold of the salaries to compete. It doesn't have to stop there, just because the Cubs have hit this "magical 100 million salary threshold." The new owner of the team could go higher should they choose to do so.

You're also skewing the statistics, comparing what Cubs players will be making in 2009 to what other teams are paying in 2007, when over a two year period there's likely to be a 20% increase in salary over that time frame. I'd also be curious(though frankly don't have time right now) to do the research of some other teams locked-in salaries will be in 2009, but I would suspect that these "bad" contracts will be peaches compared to certain other teams, particularly the Yankees, Red Sox, and Mets.

By the way, this is exactly how the Yankees run their organization, and they're complaining that they haven't won the World Series since 2000.

"Not true at all. Vaseline is manufactured right here in the United States." - Don Sutton, about the rumors that he uses a foreign substance on the ball

by Orangeman94 on Apr 27, 2007 2:03 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Well, I kinda a Mets fan

So I'll try this. The only really large contracts that the Mets are locked into in 2009 are Delgado ($16M) in his last year, Beltran ($18.5M X 4), Billy Wagner ($10.5M), also his last year.

Of course Jose Reyes would have $14.75M left on his contract, while David Wright would have $36.5M left on his.

For 2009, I would say that the Mets are in very good financial shape.

visiting A's fan.

by rfloh on Apr 27, 2007 2:18 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Not a bad move...

...cuz he's on my fantasy team!! Muhahahahha.

Dan

Evey Hammond: Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici. V: By the power of truth, I, while living, have conquered the universe.

by dtpollitt on Apr 26, 2007 10:57 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

How did anybody know

that a former crack addict was going to turn his life around so dramatically? Good for him, the Reds got lucky. Don't blame the Cubs for questioning his character.

by San Diego Smooth Jazz Man on Apr 26, 2007 11:01 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

I hope

he can stay clean for his and his family's sake. Because come contract time, that guy is going to be worth a lot of money. If he stays clean, he is obviously the real deal. There is NOTHING awkward or tentative about the way Hamilton plays baseball.

Would that we could say that about some of the players on this roster.

"I lof to hit de home ron."

by Tekboy on Apr 26, 2007 11:05 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Hamilton

This is how the Rule 5 draft works. Teams ask other teams to draft players. The Cubs had no interest in him. Further I think its a farily safe bet that if the Reds didn't want him, no one would've taken him. He was tremendously high risk and the Reds were willing to bring him in due to the Narron connection. These types of deals happen all the time.

DmL

by dmlichte on Apr 26, 2007 11:24 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Fair enough

If there was one thing about this deal that bothered me is that they were doing the Reds a favor, essentially.

He probably would have ended up in Cincy one way or the other and at least the Cubs got some cash from it. I just wish they wouldn't have helped a division rival. I'd much rather have seen them do this for Atlanta or San Diego, or even better the AL.

by NO100 on Apr 26, 2007 11:28 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

There must have been another team

interested in Hamilton that had a pick between the Cubs and the Reds. Otherwise, the Reds would simply have drafted him with their pick. When I first saw that we drafted him, I was real happy until I found out we just picked him to trade him to the Reds. I thought he was worth a flyer at the time.

But I agree that spending $136 million for a low OBP LFer, on a team with 2 other LFers now trying to play RF, is stranger than the Hamilton deal.

by bleacher on Apr 26, 2007 12:31 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Not necessarily

The Reds also took someone with their own pick, so perhaps they wanted two players. Further they didn't want to risk losing Hamilton. Its possible someone else may have taken him but with his track record, my guess is that most teams had no interest.

DmL

by dmlichte on Apr 26, 2007 12:35 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Hamilton

just gunned down a Cardinal trying to score from 2nd on a single, then hits a ground-rule 2B to lead off the next inning. He's 2nd in rookie BA and hits and 1st in runs, HRs, walks, and RBIs.
Looks like a solid RoY candidate.

by bleacher on Apr 26, 2007 1:06 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re:

The story I read was that we agreed to make a choice for the Reds for a set amount of money, seconds before our choice came up we were given the name they wanted to choose. We had no choice, we'd already agreed to make the deal and weren't in a position to re neg on it at the time.

by hauss007 on Apr 26, 2007 12:19 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

listening to the cards game

and Hamilton just threw out a runner at home from deep right field to get out of the inning. Bad trade or not, that crackhead gots an arm on him.

One of Us!One Of Us!

by HerrProf on Apr 26, 2007 1:03 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

and ground rule doubles in his next at bat!

He is going to be a thorn in the side of the nlc for the next few years I think.

One of Us!One Of Us!

by HerrProf on Apr 26, 2007 1:05 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Wrong

Worst off season deal, signing of Ward.

"You can't take life to seriously, you don't get out of it alive"

by wild bill on Apr 26, 2007 1:42 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

i disagree

I really like Ward. His patience off the bench is refreshing. His OBP is right at .500

by Bebo1060 on Apr 27, 2007 12:20 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Maybe so

I just think his signing is not a good fit for this roster. I also do not like having a one dimensional player. With only 25 to choose from, I prefer having a more flexible player to utilize.

"You can't take life to seriously, you don't get out of it alive"

by wild bill on Apr 27, 2007 9:08 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Good Lord

stop with all this Ward hate. He's seen minimal AB's and will continually see minimal AB's/Games.

Stop with this intangible Morganist bullshit and focus on what's truly ailing the team, i.e the two shortstops that aren't doing shit.

Faith Plus One - Contributing Editor -http://www.inaleagueofherown.com

by Faith plus 1 on Apr 27, 2007 11:00 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Such an intense

reaction defending these players at SS that you seem to have some rationale for backing.

How in the world, is their production (or lack therof) not a contributor to this team's losing season so far?

Got Hebrew National?

by Kinky Reggae on Apr 27, 2007 11:48 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

umm

you missed my point, I'm saying they aren't doing shit.

Faith Plus One - Contributing Editor -http://www.inaleagueofherown.com

by Faith plus 1 on Apr 27, 2007 1:38 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

thereby

contributing minimally to the teams overall offense. I'm not defending them, I'm not sure if you are either, but if you are, please explain because I'm baffled.

Faith Plus One - Contributing Editor -http://www.inaleagueofherown.com

by Faith plus 1 on Apr 27, 2007 1:40 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

My bad

We are in complete agreement. The two SS suck and need to go! Not too impressed with Ward either but would rather say goodbye to Cedeno/Izturis.

Misread.

Got Hebrew National?

by Kinky Reggae on Apr 27, 2007 2:58 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

is all good

Faith Plus One - Contributing Editor -http://www.inaleagueofherown.com

by Faith plus 1 on Apr 27, 2007 11:37 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I

am somewhat susprised at your response to my post. I have no hatered towards anyone on this earth. I merely pointed out my viewpoint with my thoughts on one player.

"You can't take life to seriously, you don't get out of it alive"

by wild bill on Apr 27, 2007 2:00 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

figure of speech

my generation uses the word in a different context.

Of course they're your viewpoints, however your viewpoint doesn't take into account the problem with this player is absolutely positively minimal.

Faith Plus One - Contributing Editor -http://www.inaleagueofherown.com

by Faith plus 1 on Apr 27, 2007 2:11 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Baby boomer?

I understand where you are coming from. Moving on to the debate at hand.

Yes maybe one player like a Ward would affect the team negatively in a minumal way. But I think it is multiplied by the fact that he is one dimensional. Add a (gulp) Cedeno and Izturis we have three players on a 25 man roster that effect the team as a whole. That becomes 12% of the roster that is not producing. I maintain that anyone of these three should go bye bye, and be replaced with a defensive OF replacement player.

"You can't take life to seriously, you don't get out of it alive"

by wild bill on Apr 27, 2007 2:32 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

me?

naw man, I'm only 22.

I see where you're coming from, however Ward has done nothing yet good or bad, so until that time I shall reserve judgement.

and of course you and I are in complete agreeance as far as the SS issue goes, I think Cubs fans as a whole agree about that.

Faith Plus One - Contributing Editor -http://www.inaleagueofherown.com

by Faith plus 1 on Apr 27, 2007 11:38 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Yeah but...

His OBP is a direct result of being intentionally walked 4 times in order to face a weaker hitter (Cedturis) or to get to that righty/righty match-up.

Farnsworth!

by Teamsleep on Apr 27, 2007 11:20 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

How many 1 month wonders have we seen?

Let's call Arod and tell him his title of the best player in baseball is being taken away and given to Hamilton.

If he hadn't had to be guaranteed a spot on the 25 man all season I'd be more inclined to agree.

If your Dad buys part of the team do you get to shower with the players?

by kerrysotherwife on Apr 26, 2007 4:35 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Josh Hamilton is a ballplayer

I've seen Hamilton play on a few ocassions this season (on the tube). I am deeply impressed by his skill set. The kid is flat out an athlete. If he can keep his head screwed on right, then he will become a perennial All-Star in short order. He has got one of the sweetest swings I have seen in awhile and should be able to hit for a high average and drive in runs. And the talent is there to become a Jim Edmonds type outfielder too.

The Cub offense - "I'll never be your feast or famine..."

by BlueMike on Apr 26, 2007 10:11 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

By Jim Edmunds Type,

I hope that doesn't mean another Cub Killer.

"You call that pitching? This is baseball! Not tennis!" Ham Porter

by N Oakley on Apr 27, 2007 8:47 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Soon

he will be snorting the nose candy again. I saw a special on this guy. I believe it was Real Sports on HBO about a year ago and his wife has to drive him everywhere because he can't trust himself to go get some blow. This guy is really messed up.

by cubfaninSTL on Apr 27, 2007 9:57 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Hammy

Sure, he like any former drug user needs to be watched. But, with the proper support the former number one overall pick can be a nice replacement for the Kearns loss.
Lou had him in camp one year as a Devil Ray. So, wonder if that is why he is not with Cubs or not.

Is Josh Hamilton Wonderboy

by David Bloom on Apr 27, 2007 8:41 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs