Prior to 2006, DeRosa was a career role player who was given an opportunity to start in Texas and made the most out of it. That earned im a big contract, that was ill advised at the time. It payed off, and it made Hendry look good. Similarly, prior to 2008, Aaron Miles was a career role player who had a pretty good year last year after getting a lot of playoff time. Hendry thought he could try the same thing, with a smaller contract. We all know how that turned out. In seasons with at least 100 AB's DeRosa was 4-for-6 in having an .700+ OPS before singing with the Cubs. Miles, using the same criteria, was 1-for-5. Also DeRosa always drew a decent amount of walks per at-bat while Miles never did. There is a big difference between the two. Miles you knew he was below average and just hoped he could play up to being an average player. DeRosa was an average player that you hoped could play up to being good. And yet again, Miles was not signed to replace DeRosa on his own. DeRosa was signed to be a fulltime player. Miles was not. This isn't excusing the signing of Miles or justifying how bad he's been, but it's disengenuous to stack the two up as if the Cubs were expecting the two to have the same role. If DeRosa wasn't traded, would Miles have been signed? He may not have replaced DeRosa in the lineup, but I think it's pretty clear Hendry signed him to fill in many of the roles that DeRosa filled. Utility infielder, right side of a platoon with Fontenot, etc. Thw two moves were definitely related in the offseason. Hendry was going to get/keep one of the two, but not both.