Wouldn't It Be Nice to Have Josh Hamilton Back?
ok, not to rant and rave, but I am actually semi-upset about the handling of our OF situation. don't get me wrong, i think that front office is doing a fine team overhauling this team, putting us in a situation to be perennial winners. but, as of right now, we have no legitimate right fielder, not a single one. sure, we have a bunch of "right fielders", but no one should should be out there on any sort of consistent basis. at one point we have ridiculous depth out there, and i know we still have some, but most isn't major league ready, leaving us in the situation we are in now. now, you might say, well we had Rocco. yes, we did, we always have, but if i thought for one minute that the front office was hinging their plans on having Rocco in RF, then i would be terribly disappointed in their lack of realistic foresight. no, but i believe they knew the same thing we all did, that Rocco was never a sure thing, and that plans need to be made to take that into account.
but instead, what do we do? we don't protect Josh Hamilton, which though at the time may have seemed like not a big deal, this is a man we put millions of dollars and years and years and years of investment into, and just as he was really getting his stuff together, we fail to protect him? and now he's (i know spring training stats don't mean much, but the guy is for real)hitting over .500, has the most RBI's amongst all hitters, and an slugging % over 1. amazing. he might become what we always thought he would become, and looking back it seems like a major major gaffe to not protect him.
secondly, we trade Delmon Young, which was fine with me, b/c at the time i assumed we had a possibly healthy Rocco, and if not then a high-ceiling Dukes waiting to take over.
but then we trade Dukes, which was probably a good move, he probably never would have gotten his life back together here in Tampa, and we got good value in return.
which leaves us with Rocco, who we now know, and probably always knew, even if we tried to convince ourselves that this was the year for him, was never going to play, or at least not play often. now we're down to a platoon of poor fielders and specialty hitters, and have a huge gaping hole not only in our lineup, but in our field.
what i'm getting at is this. trading Young and Dukes were good moves, they probably had to be done. but it's the move we didn't make that could really haunt us now, as all it would have taken was a small sacrifice, which given the sacrafice the team already made to him would seem like a forgone conclusion, for a possible large reward, but we didn't do it.
and now, we're stuck in the situation we are in, all b/c we lacked the most basic and obvious foresight.
0 recs |
28
comments
Comments
Re: Wouldn't It Be Nice to Have John Hamilton Back
by floridaroar on Mar 14, 2008 11:49 AM EDT 0 recs
Re: Wouldn't It Be Nice to Have John Hamilton Back
by SeanDubbs on Mar 14, 2008 12:03 PM EDT 0 recs
Re: Wouldn't It Be Nice to Have Josh Hamilton Back
The real error was that the Rays kept some players on the 40 man who clearly had no future with them, including Tomas Perez who was later released as everyone knew he would be. So given his physical talent, it probably would have been prudent to keep him instead of obviously useless players. I have never heard an explanation of why the Rays did that nor can I figure one out; it seems as if they were careless. But the odds of it biting them were really rather long.
Incidentally, at age 25 in 2006, in short season rookie league ball, Hamilton managed to get into 15 games and 50 ABs. Partly that was because the Rays were going slow as he had not played for 3 full years up to that point, but it did not help since he then got hurt missing the rest of the year. His line was .260/.327/.360 with 3 doubles and 0 home runs.
In 2002, he was demoted from AA ball where in 89 ABs he had hit .180/.221/.236 the previous year. At A+ ball that year he did hit well but then began the string of suspensions and injuries that wiped out 3 years.
Mistake to expose him, yes. But there is no reason to dwell on it. Why anyone would expect him to stick in the majors after that record is mystifying, and the fact that he did makes the move a mistake but not a stupid decision.
by bobr on Mar 14, 2008 1:18 PM EDT 0 recs
Re: Wouldn't It Be Nice to Have Josh Hamilton Back
You mentioned Tomas Perez, and I believe the other 2 players they left on were Damon Hollins and Travis Harper. Not only were all 3 of these players left on the roster, but they were subsequently waived or released follwing the draft. Why not waive them prior to the Rule 5 draft and protect Hamilton???
by td32 on
Mar 14, 2008 1:33 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Re: Wouldn't It Be Nice to Have Josh Hamilton Back
by SeanDubbs on
Mar 14, 2008 2:30 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Re: Wouldn't It Be Nice to Have Josh Hamilton Back
by davidsmarch on
Mar 14, 2008 2:46 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Re: Wouldn't It Be Nice to Have Josh Hamilton Back
Sean's been here a while, and from his work at the academy he has tons of sources within numerous organizations.
For the record, he did fail out of rehab numerous times and preaching / giving inspirational speeches does little to account for his true character. Public perception yes, true character no.
by R.J. Anderson on
Mar 14, 2008 2:54 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Re: Wouldn't It Be Nice to Have Josh Hamilton Back
Model citizens don't need a shadow.
by SeanDubbs on
Mar 14, 2008 4:27 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Re: Wouldn't It Be Nice to Have Josh Hamilton Back
?
by davidsmarch on
Mar 14, 2008 4:38 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Re: Wouldn't It Be Nice to Have Josh Hamilton Back
I never post things that are not true. I post opinions as everyone else does, but even in past steroid conversations on the site I refused to accuse one player of juicing unless they had a prior positive test. I have speculated on certain players that fit pre-determined outlines, but never just accused out of suspicion and would not do so even in this case.
In the meantime, lets look at some facts when it comes to Hamilton.
- On his last leg in baseball, has had approximately six strikes already
- Had two teams give up on him within one year
- Has contemplated suicide on many occasions
- Has difficulty staying healthy (wonder why)
- Reds took a chance on a personal level that just happened to work out
- Deserted his wife and kids
- Has constantly needed someone to watch his back all his life, and every time that support system has left he has crumbled
- Has frequently shown that he is given a choice between right and wrong, he runs to the dark side
- Yelled rude comments towards the DRO at last years draft despite all that the Rays had done for him in the past
by SeanDubbs on
Mar 14, 2008 5:05 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Re: Wouldn't It Be Nice to Have Josh Hamilton Back
http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=2926447
by SeanDubbs on
Mar 14, 2008 7:56 PM EDT
up
0 recs
And to make it easier...
by SeanDubbs on
Mar 14, 2008 7:58 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Re: And to make it easier...
by davidsmarch on
Mar 14, 2008 8:29 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Re: And to make it easier...
Every addict who is clean refers to himself as recovering, not as cured, no matter how long they stay away from the drug. In other words, they are constantly in need of some sort of support to keep from backsliding. In Hamilton's case, part of that support is being kept away from temptation by not having the money to indulge. He knows that should he be able to buy the drugs it is entirely possible he would.
He claims to have other assistance, but apparently that is not enough. In addition to his own resistance which he claims is inspired by his religious commitment, he requires a very practical brake-not having ready cash.
I have no comment on whether any of this proves one way or the other that he is a better person now or a reformed "bad character", but by his own admission he is never far away from returning to drugs. We may sympathize, but we have to recognize the risk exists.
by bobr on
Mar 14, 2008 8:48 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Re: Wouldn't It Be Nice to Have Josh Hamilton Back
by davidsmarch on
Mar 14, 2008 2:27 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Re: Wouldn't It Be Nice to Have Josh Hamilton Back
Again, I concede it was definitely a mistake, but that is in hindsight. Whether there were reasons we never heard for exposing him, perhaps along the line that Sean suggests, I don't know. But the point remains that he had been in the organization for 8 years, and there had been more disappointment than progress. He had been injured again and it seemed unlikely he could succeed in the majors in 2007. It's time to put it behind and move on.
Of course it would be nice to have him as an option, but the Cubs could say the same thing as could any other team that had a shot at him. It's not a terribly profitable speculation.
by bobr on Mar 14, 2008 2:41 PM EDT 0 recs
Re: Wouldn't It Be Nice to Have Josh Hamilton Back
I heard an interview with Hunsicker, where he basically admitted, that it was a mistake, and though they had discussed whether to protect Hamilton or not, they miscalculated and thought nobody would want him. Obviously it was a huge miscalculation because he was taken as the first or second pick (as I recall).
And I remember them releasing Damon Hollins only a few days after they'd lost Hamilton. So they could have had space at that point in time. Oh well. Bob makes a good point that though, that the Rays didn't want him sitting on the bench when he could have been developing in the minors.
by pcbredemeier on
Mar 14, 2008 3:01 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Re: Wouldn't It Be Nice to Have Josh Hamilton Back
by R.J. Anderson on
Mar 14, 2008 3:11 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Re: Wouldn't It Be Nice to Have Josh Hamilton Back
by pcbredemeier on
Mar 14, 2008 3:35 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Re: Wouldn't It Be Nice to Have Josh Hamilton Back
by davidsmarch on
Mar 14, 2008 4:23 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Re: Wouldn't It Be Nice to Have Josh Hamilton Back
As for the character issue mentioned above, I have not idea whether Hamilton has turned it around or whether he needs constant monitoring to keep him on track. But the fact of inspirational speeches and religious commitment is entirely irrelevant to the question. Aside from the fact that such activity and pronouncements are handy scams to demonstrate that someone has changed, there are innumerable examples of people who have done the same thing only to backslide. Gooden and Strawberry are just 2 noted examples; I knew a couple of less famous frauds in my neighborhood a few years ago. Even if the religious conversion is legitimate, there is no definitive connection between such conversion and character improvement.
by bobr on
Mar 14, 2008 3:37 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Re: Wouldn't It Be Nice to Have Josh Hamilton Back
They have Jay Bruce coming up, along with Adam Dunn and Griffey their OF was pretty full.
While leaving Hamilton unprotected was a poor decision, at least we didn't leave Johan unprotected like the Astros. Worst decision ever?
by rglass44 on Mar 14, 2008 3:53 PM EDT 0 recs
Sean
by TomT on Mar 14, 2008 9:48 PM EDT 0 recs
Re: Sean
Also, please keep in mind I have no respect or pity for drug addicts. At some point in their life they had the opportunity to make the right decision. They call it a disease which I disagree with. Cancer is a disease, drug addiction is a choice.
Now, if you replace Hamilton with Bonds I would do it in a heartbeat. He's still one of the top 5 hitters in baseball and if he meant a legitimate playoff run then he'd be worth the distraction. Very hypocritical of me in some sense, but Hamilton can't post a .450 OBP and slug .700.
by SeanDubbs on
Mar 14, 2008 11:55 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Wait a minute....
I'm not going to advocate taking or shunning either player, but it would seem to me that morally objecting to one player while freely welcoming the other is inconsistent and, as you put it, hypocritical. I would think that there is a high probability that Hamilton would outperform any of our current right field candidates, however there is always the question concerning his ability to do so and stay healthy. It is up to you to weigh the risks.
As for your view of drug addicts, the only thing that I can say is that I vehemently disagree. While their struggles do ultimately result from a voluntary choice that they made at one point, any action taken by one to straighten up their life should be commended, and they should be assisted in their long and difficult struggle to recovery. Addiction is something painfully hard to overcome, and in my view it is a disease. You can call it 'their problem' and 'something of their choice' all you want, but instead of turning our backs on people who genuinely want to straighten out their life, we should be helping them along. Drug addiction is a disease, perhaps a self-inflicted one, but a disease nonetheless. And without offering up an opinion on Hamilton specifically, I tend to take a very sympathetic look to drug addicts wanting to turn themselves around.
by Patrick L. Kennedy on
Mar 15, 2008 1:58 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Re: Wait a minute....
Would you try cocaine knowing what it could do to you? In a more general sense, you could blame God for cancer, but not for smoking rocks.
by SeanDubbs on
Mar 15, 2008 2:55 PM EDT
up
0 recs











