Re: Josh Hamilton

[jersey cubs fan]

What people are not getting is that though it was a long-shot for Hamilton to perform the way he did, the Cubs had a chance to do the same thing the Reds did and draft him in the Rule 5. Whether it was logical for the Cubs or not. They didn't do it. And they would be better off if they did draft Hamilton. Every team would have been. It doesn't matter that the Cubs traded the pick that became Hamilton. They passed on him, as did every other team in baseball. Every MLB team other than the Reds made a bad decision. 29 wrongs don't make a right.

 

Well then it becomes the argument of complaining about every time a free agent the Cubs didn't sign performs well. You don't see people angry at the Cubs for not signing Barry Bonds in '93, but if Hamilton goes on to have a good career, there will be people screaming about stupid management trading Josh Hamilton back in '07. It's annoying because I can already see it happening, and I don't suffer fools well.

 

That is an absurd comparison. Choosing not to sign a free agent is nothing like missing on a player in the rule 5.

 

He wasn't some obscure kid nobody thought had any talent.

 

 

The Reds must have thought somebody else was going to take Hamilton, which is why they asked the Cubs to take him 3rd.

[SouthSideRyan]

Fine, let's compare it to Chris Carpenter. He was out there for virtually no cost to the team who signed him. There was no denying that he was a talented pitcher before his injuries.

 

What were the personell people supposed to go off of on deciding Hamilton was both over his drug use, and ready to contribute at the major league level? The 50 ABs he had the year before? His track record from 4 years ago, pre-drug suspesnsions, etc.? His potential coming into the amateur draft? Wouldn't you deem it a waste if some team picked Luis Montanez in the draft?(And yes I understand that Luis wasn't as heralded as Hamilton, but Luis had also swung the bat competitively in the previous 4 years.)

[jersey cubs fan]

What were the personell people supposed to go off of on deciding Hamilton was both over his drug use, and ready to contribute at the major league level?

 

That's why you have scouts and a half dozen special assistants to the GM.

[rawaction]

Fine, let's compare it to Chris Carpenter. He was out there for virtually no cost to the team who signed him. There was no denying that he was a talented pitcher before his injuries.

 

What were the personell people supposed to go off of on deciding Hamilton was both over his drug use, and ready to contribute at the major league level? The 50 ABs he had the year before? His track record from 4 years ago, pre-drug suspesnsions, etc.? His potential coming into the amateur draft? Wouldn't you deem it a waste if some team picked Luis Montanez in the draft?(And yes I understand that Luis wasn't as heralded as Hamilton, but Luis had also swung the bat competitively in the previous 4 years.)

 

Again, the Cubs coulda worked out a trade with the Rays and gain the right to send Hamilton to the minors.

[wilk]

Again, the Cubs coulda worked out a trade with the Rays and gain the right to send Hamilton to the minors.

 

After he clears waivers because teams like Cincinnati decided they changed their mind? Sure, seems greatly reasonable...

[Ding Dong Johnson]

Again, the Cubs coulda worked out a trade with the Rays and gain the right to send Hamilton to the minors.

 

After he clears waivers because teams like Cincinnati decided they changed their mind? Sure, seems greatly reasonable...

if they work out a trade with the Rays, he's not exposed to waivers by being sent down. he's only put on waivers if they offer him back to the Rays

[wilk]

Again, the Cubs coulda worked out a trade with the Rays and gain the right to send Hamilton to the minors.

 

After he clears waivers because teams like Cincinnati decided they changed their mind? Sure, seems greatly reasonable...

if they work out a trade with the Rays, he's not exposed to waivers by being sent down. he's only put on waivers if they offer him back to the Rays

 

No... He'd have to first clear waivers and make it back to the Rays before you can work out a trade with them. The other teams get a shot at keeping the player with Rule 5 restrictions first.

[Ding Dong Johnson]

Again, the Cubs coulda worked out a trade with the Rays and gain the right to send Hamilton to the minors.

 

After he clears waivers because teams like Cincinnati decided they changed their mind? Sure, seems greatly reasonable...

if they work out a trade with the Rays, he's not exposed to waivers by being sent down. he's only put on waivers if they offer him back to the Rays

 

No... He'd have to first clear waivers and make it back to the Rays before you can work out a trade with them. The other teams get a shot at keeping the player with Rule 5 restrictions first.

methinks you don't understand the process

[wilk]

Again, the Cubs coulda worked out a trade with the Rays and gain the right to send Hamilton to the minors.

 

After he clears waivers because teams like Cincinnati decided they changed their mind? Sure, seems greatly reasonable...

if they work out a trade with the Rays, he's not exposed to waivers by being sent down. he's only put on waivers if they offer him back to the Rays

 

No... He'd have to first clear waivers and make it back to the Rays before you can work out a trade with them. The other teams get a shot at keeping the player with Rule 5 restrictions first.

methinks you don't understand the process

 

Sigh. Methinks you don't. I'm not going to have an argument over something you misunderstood. You cannot trade for a Rule 5 pick, removing the restrictions, unless the player clears waivers first. That is how it works. Research it or e-mail someone "in the know" whom you trust.

[Ding Dong Johnson]

Sigh. Methinks you don't. I'm not going to have an argument over something you misunderstood. You cannot trade for a Rule 5 pick, removing the restrictions, unless the player clears waivers first. That is how it works. Research it or e-mail someone "in the know" whom you trust.

show me that part of rule 5

[CubColtPacer]

Sigh. Methinks you don't. I'm not going to have an argument over something you misunderstood. You cannot trade for a Rule 5 pick, removing the restrictions, unless the player clears waivers first. That is how it works. Research it or e-mail someone "in the know" whom you trust.

show me that part of rule 5

 

I can't find much either way, but here's something:

 

Trades are worked out occasionally so that the drafting club can keep the player in its farm system instead of keeping him in the big leagues all year or giving him back to his original team. But the key here -- and this nuance is regularly misunderstood by the press -- is that the player has to clear waivers before a trade can be made. If the player is placed on waivers during March and clears, and the drafting club wants to keep him but just not on the big league roster, it may offer the original team a player for the right to keep the Rule 5 pick and assign him to the minor leagues.

 

http://texas.rangers.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20060306&content_id=1336732&vkey=news_tex&fext=.jsp&c_id=tex

[wilk]

Sigh. Methinks you don't. I'm not going to have an argument over something you misunderstood. You cannot trade for a Rule 5 pick, removing the restrictions, unless the player clears waivers first. That is how it works. Research it or e-mail someone "in the know" whom you trust.

show me that part of rule 5

 

I don't know how to "show" you. The official procedure book is technically private so I obviously can't gain access to it and the scan a page. I don't know where there is a comprehensive and accurate account of it online. If I just search Google to find something, I'm sure you'll question the credibility of everything. Maybe you should "show" me the part where you can trade for the guy you draft before he's exposed to waivers... I didn't mention it to have THIS argument. I was sure there are plenty others here who know the rules.

[wilk]

I can't find much either way, but here's something:

 

Trades are worked out occasionally so that the drafting club can keep the player in its farm system instead of keeping him in the big leagues all year or giving him back to his original team. But the key here -- and this nuance is regularly misunderstood by the press -- is that the player has to clear waivers before a trade can be made. If the player is placed on waivers during March and clears, and the drafting club wants to keep him but just not on the big league roster, it may offer the original team a player for the right to keep the Rule 5 pick and assign him to the minor leagues.

 

http://texas.rangers.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20060306&content_id=1336732&vkey=news_tex&fext=.jsp&c_id=tex

 

Well there's one. It's Jamey Newberg of TheNewbergReport too. Now... can we trust Jamey if not me? Or should we go on to another... ;)

[davearm2]

What people are not getting is that though it was a long-shot for Hamilton to perform the way he did, the Cubs had a chance to do the same thing the Reds did and draft him in the Rule 5. Whether it was logical for the Cubs or not. They didn't do it. And they would be better off if they did draft Hamilton. Every team would have been. It doesn't matter that the Cubs traded the pick that became Hamilton. They passed on him, as did every other team in baseball. Every MLB team other than the Reds made a bad decision. 29 wrongs don't make a right.

If you're playing blackjack and hit on an 18, and draw a 3 for 21, that doesn't make it a smart decision. It was an extremely poor decision that happened to work out splendidly despite your stupidity.

 

Smart decisions sometimes turn out badly, and bad decisions sometimes turn out well.

 

The Cubs taking, and keeping, Hamilton, would've been in the latter category.

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

Shouldn't the real team getting reamed here be the Rays who only had to add Hamilton to the 40-man roster and he would not have even been available in the rule five draft?

[jersey cubs fan]

What people are not getting is that though it was a long-shot for Hamilton to perform the way he did, the Cubs had a chance to do the same thing the Reds did and draft him in the Rule 5. Whether it was logical for the Cubs or not. They didn't do it. And they would be better off if they did draft Hamilton. Every team would have been. It doesn't matter that the Cubs traded the pick that became Hamilton. They passed on him, as did every other team in baseball. Every MLB team other than the Reds made a bad decision. 29 wrongs don't make a right.

If you're playing blackjack and hit on an 18, and draw a 3 for 21, that doesn't make it a smart decision. It was an extremely poor decision that happened to work out splendidly despite your stupidity.

 

Smart decisions sometimes turn out badly, and bad decisions sometimes turn out well.

 

The Cubs taking, and keeping, Hamilton, would've been in the latter category.

 

That's ridiculous. How would it have been a dumb decision for the Cubs to take Hamilton?

[Anomalied]

Didn't read any of the thread, but just wanted to say that a lineup of...

 

Soriano

Fukudome

Lee

Hamilton

Ramirez

Soto

DeRosa

Theriot/Cedeno

 

makes me want to cry.

[wilk]

Methinks it's really nice that got somewhere...

[SouthSideRyan]

What people are not getting is that though it was a long-shot for Hamilton to perform the way he did, the Cubs had a chance to do the same thing the Reds did and draft him in the Rule 5. Whether it was logical for the Cubs or not. They didn't do it. And they would be better off if they did draft Hamilton. Every team would have been. It doesn't matter that the Cubs traded the pick that became Hamilton. They passed on him, as did every other team in baseball. Every MLB team other than the Reds made a bad decision. 29 wrongs don't make a right.

If you're playing blackjack and hit on an 18, and draw a 3 for 21, that doesn't make it a smart decision. It was an extremely poor decision that happened to work out splendidly despite your stupidity.

 

Smart decisions sometimes turn out badly, and bad decisions sometimes turn out well.

 

The Cubs taking, and keeping, Hamilton, would've been in the latter category.

 

That's ridiculous. How would it have been a dumb decision for the Cubs to take Hamilton?

 

Maybe not dumb, more pointless.

[NCCubFan]

The Cubs are huge idiots for not drafting a guy that had 50 ABs (At low A) over the previous 4 seasons.

 

IDIOTS!!

 

Or you could look at it as the Cubs are huge idiots for not drafting a guy that was the consensus #1 pick a few years back and one of the top 15 HS hitting prospects in the history of the game.

Taking a longshot flyer on a guy like Hamilton was completely incompatible with all of the other win-now moves the Cubs made last fall (hiring Piniella, signing Soriano Lilly DeRosa etc.). There was no way they could try and contend while committing a roster spot to a complete unknown.

 

I don't understand why people can't get that and just move on.

 

The Reds took the chance because they were in a position where they could afford to, and they hit the jackpot. Nice for them.

 

There are things that can be done to get around keeping a guy on your 25-man roster though. If the Cubs picked him and liked him well enough, they coulda traded something to Tampa in order to keep his rights. This happened when the As (I believe) took Eric Hinske and traded Scott Chiasson to the Cubs for Miguel Cairo in order to allow Hinske to go to the A's minor leagues.

You have the right players, but the sequence was different. The Cubs drafted Chiasson, then later traded Hinske for Cairo and the rights to keep Chiasson and send him down.

[davearm2]

What people are not getting is that though it was a long-shot for Hamilton to perform the way he did, the Cubs had a chance to do the same thing the Reds did and draft him in the Rule 5. Whether it was logical for the Cubs or not. They didn't do it. And they would be better off if they did draft Hamilton. Every team would have been. It doesn't matter that the Cubs traded the pick that became Hamilton. They passed on him, as did every other team in baseball. Every MLB team other than the Reds made a bad decision. 29 wrongs don't make a right.

If you're playing blackjack and hit on an 18, and draw a 3 for 21, that doesn't make it a smart decision. It was an extremely poor decision that happened to work out splendidly despite your stupidity.

 

Smart decisions sometimes turn out badly, and bad decisions sometimes turn out well.

 

The Cubs taking, and keeping, Hamilton, would've been in the latter category.

 

That's ridiculous. How would it have been a dumb decision for the Cubs to take Hamilton?

Because they would have been playing 24-on-25 for as long as Hamilton was on the roster.

 

Folks think Lou didn't give Pie a fair chance... just imagine the non-chance a guy with 50 ABs of .687 OPS in lo-A ball would've received.

 

Look just see the situation for what it was -- the Cubs weren't built for rolling the dice on longshot reclamation projects in hopes of a longterm payoff, they were built to win right away.

[Larry Horse]

What people are not getting is that though it was a long-shot for Hamilton to perform the way he did, the Cubs had a chance to do the same thing the Reds did and draft him in the Rule 5. Whether it was logical for the Cubs or not. They didn't do it. And they would be better off if they did draft Hamilton. Every team would have been. It doesn't matter that the Cubs traded the pick that became Hamilton. They passed on him, as did every other team in baseball. Every MLB team other than the Reds made a bad decision. 29 wrongs don't make a right.

If you're playing blackjack and hit on an 18, and draw a 3 for 21, that doesn't make it a smart decision. It was an extremely poor decision that happened to work out splendidly despite your stupidity.

 

Smart decisions sometimes turn out badly, and bad decisions sometimes turn out well.

 

The Cubs taking, and keeping, Hamilton, would've been in the latter category.

 

That's ridiculous. How would it have been a dumb decision for the Cubs to take Hamilton?

Because they would have been playing 24-on-25 for as long as Hamilton was on the roster.

 

Folks think Lou didn't give Pie a fair chance... just imagine the non-chance a guy with 50 ABs of .687 OPS in lo-A ball would've received.

 

Look just see the situation for what it was -- the Cubs weren't built for rolling the dice on longshot reclamation projects in hopes of a longterm payoff, they were built to win right away.

 

Wade Miller, Chad Fox.....

[CuseCubFan69]

What people are not getting is that though it was a long-shot for Hamilton to perform the way he did, the Cubs had a chance to do the same thing the Reds did and draft him in the Rule 5. Whether it was logical for the Cubs or not. They didn't do it. And they would be better off if they did draft Hamilton. Every team would have been. It doesn't matter that the Cubs traded the pick that became Hamilton. They passed on him, as did every other team in baseball. Every MLB team other than the Reds made a bad decision. 29 wrongs don't make a right.

If you're playing blackjack and hit on an 18, and draw a 3 for 21, that doesn't make it a smart decision. It was an extremely poor decision that happened to work out splendidly despite your stupidity.

 

Smart decisions sometimes turn out badly, and bad decisions sometimes turn out well.

 

The Cubs taking, and keeping, Hamilton, would've been in the latter category.

 

That's ridiculous. How would it have been a dumb decision for the Cubs to take Hamilton?

Because they would have been playing 24-on-25 for as long as Hamilton was on the roster.

 

Folks think Lou didn't give Pie a fair chance... just imagine the non-chance a guy with 50 ABs of .687 OPS in lo-A ball would've received.

 

Look just see the situation for what it was -- the Cubs weren't built for rolling the dice on longshot reclamation projects in hopes of a longterm payoff, they were built to win right away.

 

Wade Miller, Chad Fox.....

 

Don't forget the duct tape.

[WindyCity]

And it looks like Texas is now looking at locking up Hamilton to a long term deal: link

 

Hopefully, for his sake, getting handed all that cash won't lead him back to temptation.

[treyZz]

the ballpark helps...

 

home:

385/417/736/1.154

 

road:

253/320/473/793

 

BUT HE HAS THE MOST RBIS

 

Triple crown leader.

 

That opposite field home run in the bottom of the 10th the other night was DIRTY. Unreal power.

 

"He's really a freak of nature," Houston Astros slugger Lance Berkman said, shaking his head in disbelief during a recent series against Texas."