We need to be careful how far we take this situation. Was Aiken the absolute best prospect on the board? I'm guessing there was some debate there, but I don't see him slipping outside the top five had we not picked him. So, it wasn't like we picked some hayseed that couldn't break 80 on the gun. Like Correa, he was a top rated prospect, but maybe not the top rated prospect on the board. The situation backfired because of some concerns about the physical makeup of his arm. The question is whether this could have reasonably been avoided. It's my understanding that most prospects do not provide teams medical information prior to the draft. So, how could they reasonably been expected to know? Furthermore, it has been postulated that the Aiken people were somehow disingenuous because they kept this information from other teams. That seems far-fetched as well. What would motivate them to have the tests done at all? If he was never injured there would be no reason for them to have any MRI done at any point.

The long and short of it is that without a significant change to the way the entire industry does business, there is no way the Astros could have known prior to the selection that Aiken was damaged goods. Even that label grossly oversimplifies the situation because Aiken had never been hurt prior to the selection. It was a perfect storm of crap that seemed to bury the  organization. Their options included simply signing him to the agreed amount and hoping for the best, reducing the offer and hoping they would agree, or withdrawing it completely. Withdrawing it completely would force them to forfeit that number two overall pick this year and any rights to him. So, there were only two legitimate choices.

I am a senior writer at thefantasyfix.com and a staff writer at bigleaguesmag.com. The Hall of Fame Index is also still for sale and as relevant as ever.