Part of me says, 4 spots, if there’ s no one else, why not. Personally, I think he’s a lefty pen arm, and within our system, he would be behind Lambert and Papelbon for me (even though the latter is supposedly going to be in the rotation). That said, neither guy is up for 40 man protection yet (at least, last I checked). Why not?

Now, I definitely understand the other argument. He hasn’t shown any improvement, his mechanics are a mess, and there were some reports late in the year that said he lost some velo. But if there isn’t anyone else, why not? And if we make a signing, we can clear him off the 40 man as well, so I’ve got mixed feelings on it.

Care to put a meal on it? :)

when we had the #1 pick and could select any player eligible? Turned out the Reds management was a lot smarter than ours.

an error implies that this was something that people could expect, that some fault can be assigned. i guess we may be talking about an issue of semantics here, but I don’t see any justifiable reason, outside of the benefit of hindsight, to give fault here.

As for your other argument – it all reverberates to the same basic thing. What justifiable reason, based on the available knowledge, was there to take Hamilton and hope that he could stick on a major league roster? Based on what was known on Josh Hamilton at the time, there was no reason to expect that he would’ve made it out of spring training. He looked awful the previous year. Again … why should the front office have taken that chance, particularly in a year when they were trying to build a competitive team in Lou’s first year?

This isn’t to defend Pagan. I thought he was ridiculously overhyped on Cubs boards. This is to ask the same basic question people are asking you – if you want to assign fault to the Cubs front office, then explain to me what justifiable reason was there to assume that Josh Hamilton would’ve made the roster, without the benefit of hindsight in judging the decision? If I remember his Penn League reports, he just didn’t look good offensively and defensively.

Btw, I think it was Narron’s brother.

you said what I was trying to say a lot better and more concise.

First off, let me be clear. I’m not a Hendry apologist, nor a Hendry hater. I think he’s made some boneheaded decisions, and he’s made some really sweet moves as well.

I agree with not necessarily giving the Reds credit. I was just saying, it’s more the Reds doing good than the Cubs getting blamed.

The issue isn’t money. If it was, then I’d be blasting the Cubs easily. It’s an issue of roster space. Again, outside of hindsight, at that moment in time, when the draft was happening, there was no justifiable reason to take that gamble and be stuck with the roster space. He was struggling offensively and defensively, and with his history … the question isn’t why not, it’s why.

Sure, I wish we had him now. Heck, if we had him last year, we might’ve not dropped that dough on Kosuke, which would’ve given us more versatility this offseason. As for Jacque Jones, I won’t defened Jacque Jones, the player. He was overrated. But I think it was perfectly fine for Hendry to go into 2007 with Jones penciled into a spot, as he did have a passable 2006. With Soriano locked up, there was only one roster spot left. Murton certainly looked promising, and while I wasn’t on BCB then, I’m sure many were supportive of giving him a look. There was Pie, there was Ward eating a roster spot up. There had been rumors about Floyd all offseason, although that didn’t get done, if recollection serves me correctly, until January.

Short of it is, for me at least, and to each their own, to find fault with the transaction would mean that there was

a) A reason to believe that Hamilton would’ve done well (again, I don’t think we would’ve taken Hamilton had we kept the pick – probably an arm)

and to tie in

b) The roster flexibility to need and keep Hamilton on the bench.

I just don’t see enough there to justify finding fault with the Cubs to make that move.

Btw, an issue of semantics, but the Cubs couldn’t “keep” Hamilton. They could’ve kept the pick, and I think they would’ve gone another route than Hamilton.

These players are subjected to the Rule 5 Draft for a reason – for every Josh Hamilton, there is a half dozen names like Ramon Tatis, Scott Chiasson, Andy Sisco, Jason Dubois, Jason Szuminski, or Ed Campusano who struggle to ever stick with the big club.

The Reds gambled – they hit a big home run, but to keep this guy with the big club, you have to say the club can do without someone like a Ward/Hoffpauir in that bench-utility role? Sure, you could hit it big, but it seems more like doing this takes away a potential useful spot on the 25-man roster and is the equivalent in some cases of playing a man down.

FYI, here’s the Baseball America order – link below.