I view this about the same as i did Randa. I don't care either way. It's not a move generating any emotion either way.
However, I disagree completely with the argument that it gives them flexibility to trade one of the outfielders or Dunn. A significant decision to trade or not trade one of these assets, or even what makes an acceptabble return, should not AT ALL hinge on how it affects the 2006 season. I think it's clear to most that this is a transition season at best and they have no chance of contending. I understand that you don't want to go out and lose 100 games, but any decision that will have long-term implications for the franchise (such as trading a Dunn or Kearns), should be made 100% independently of how it affects the 2006 roster, IMO. Making a move like signing Hatteberg, if done for the purpose of "allowing you trade" someone like Kearns or Dunn is poor business, IMO. If the right deal comes along, take it. If the right one doesn't come along, keep them. I'd hate to think that having or not having a Scott Hatteberg was a difference in these kinds of decisions.