PDA

View Full Version : Can someone explain to me why Edison Volquez was a good sign?



redsrule2500
03-02-2008, 10:54 PM
I don't see it...I just don't see it. The stats argue against me, and I just took another look at them and they arne't anything special! How can we say this guy has the starting job, it seems like he should have to compete for it!

How was this a good deal to trade Hamilton for him???? :confused:

(STATS: http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/players/stats?playerId=6401)

Thanks.... :beerme:

reds44
03-02-2008, 10:59 PM
Who said he doesn't have to compete for a job?

And the Hamilton/Volquez deal has been argued and explained many times since it happend. Some people like it, some people don't. Search the threads. One spring appearance won't change anyones opinons, either.

cincrazy
03-02-2008, 11:00 PM
My friend, I would beg to differ. The stats ARE something special, and so is his stuff. I love Josh Hamilton and wish him all the success in the world, but if you can get a pitcher with this much upside and potential for an injury prone outfielder with a history of drug problems, you do it every time.

Hopefully the deal works out on both ends.

*BaseClogger*
03-02-2008, 11:01 PM
scouts

dougdirt
03-02-2008, 11:05 PM
Mid 90s fastball.... check.
Devastating change up..... check.
Average curveball..... check.

Trading him for a drug addict with a history of injury problems and solid platoon type numbers is a problem how?

Take a look at his minor league numbers, they are pretty darn good.

red-in-la
03-02-2008, 11:10 PM
What I don't get is, where does the friggin injury prone come from?

It was a terrible deal when it was made and it is still a terrible deal. The Reds will be lucky to get a dependable set up reliever out of Volquez. The Rangers tried to get Volquez to advance to the next step and he just didn't do it.

And outfield of Dunn, Hamilton and Bruce would have been sweet for years to come.

If you are going to part with any one of these three, as was so much trumpeted all winter, you better get one helluva pitcher. Volquez is far from one helluva pitcher. Seems like Hector Carrasco part duex to me.

dougdirt
03-02-2008, 11:15 PM
What I don't get is, where does the friggin injury prone come from?

It was a terrible deal when it was made and it is still a terrible deal. The Reds will be lucky to get a dependable set up reliever out of Volquez. The Rangers tried to get Volquez to advance to the next step and he just didn't do it.

And outfield of Dunn, Hamilton and Bruce would have been sweet for years to come.

If you are going to part with any one of these three, as was so much trumpeted all winter, you better get one helluva pitcher. Volquez is far from one helluva pitcher. Seems like Hector Carrasco part duex to me.

The last time Josh Hamilton played a full season was in high school.

As for Volquez, just wait and see. I won't convince you, but I think that he will in given time.

cincrazy
03-02-2008, 11:26 PM
What I don't get is, where does the friggin injury prone come from?

It was a terrible deal when it was made and it is still a terrible deal. The Reds will be lucky to get a dependable set up reliever out of Volquez. The Rangers tried to get Volquez to advance to the next step and he just didn't do it.

And outfield of Dunn, Hamilton and Bruce would have been sweet for years to come.

If you are going to part with any one of these three, as was so much trumpeted all winter, you better get one helluva pitcher. Volquez is far from one helluva pitcher. Seems like Hector Carrasco part duex to me.

How do you come to that conclusion? I don't think anyone has seen enough of Volquez to determine whether or not he's not going to make it. And maybe "injury prone" isn't the correct term for Hamilton, but I don't see how one can't have concerns about his durability.

Again, if Josh can stay clean and injury free, he'll have a hell of a career. But that's a big if in my opinion. This team has had no shortage of promising outfield prospects for years... what we haven't had is promising arms.

johngalt
03-02-2008, 11:38 PM
What I don't get is, where does the friggin injury prone come from?


He suffered knee, leg and back injuries in the 2-3 years right after he was drafted and missed a bunch of time. That was BEFORE he spent three years strung out on heroin, coke and anything else he could get his hands on.

Last year, he missed a week or two because of his stomach, missed more time because of his knee, missed time after hurting his hand in the on-deck circle....I mean, do you really think that this is a guy who will get healthier as he gets OLDER?

PuffyPig
03-02-2008, 11:44 PM
The Rangers tried to get Volquez to advance to the next step and he just didn't do it.

Seems like Hector Carrasco part duex to me.

You must be looking at the stats of someone else.

Look at them again.

He dominated at AA last year, and advanced and dominated at AAA.

Absolutely dominated.

He then came to the majors and pitched pretty good in 6 starts.

George Anderson
03-02-2008, 11:52 PM
I consider myself a baseball fan first and a Reds fan second so I do follow many teams and watch many teams besides the Reds. It just seems that Reds fans think that hitting is what wins championships. Reds fans think the off season should be spent looking for as many home run hitters and .300 hitters as possible with the other focus being on more "nice guy" Sean Casey types to fill out the roster. Once the bats and "nice guys" are on the roster then any time thats left can be spent on looking for pitching.

savafan
03-03-2008, 12:10 AM
Hamilton asked to be traded, and the Reds gave him his wish to be with the Narrons. Be glad they got anyone of value for him.

Reds Nd2
03-03-2008, 12:17 AM
I don't see it...I just don't see it. The stats argue against me, and I just took another look at them and they arne't anything special! How can we say this guy has the starting job, it seems like he should have to compete for it!

How was this a good deal to trade Hamilton for him???? :confused:

(STATS: http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/players/stats?playerId=6401)

Thanks.... :beerme:

Your looking at a small sample size of 80 IP at the Major League level and nothing else?


Hamilton asked to be traded, and the Reds gave him his wish to be with the Narrons. Be glad they got anyone of value for him.

Sorry Sava, but have you got a link for that?

Screwball
03-03-2008, 12:21 AM
Hamilton asked to be traded, and the Reds gave him his wish to be with the Narrons.

Got a link?

Everything I've read has Hamilton stating how grateful he'd always be to Cincinnati for giving him the opportunity to start anew in the Big Leagues, a la Brandon Phillips.

VR
03-03-2008, 12:30 AM
I hope to be proven wrong in a big way....but I think the Reds fans will regret this trade in a Robinson like way 5 years from now.

westofyou
03-03-2008, 12:33 AM
Hamilton asked to be traded, and the Reds gave him his wish to be with the Narrons. Be glad they got anyone of value for him.

Too bad he got there BEFORE the Narrons.


It just seems that Reds fans think that hitting is what wins championships.

Yep, only NL team in the last 50 years with a .500 w/l record and sub average team ERA.

Maybe someday some other fans will notice what you , I and many others already have.. the Reds overvalue bats too a fault... and have for the past 40 years.

Spitball
03-03-2008, 12:38 AM
1) The Reds had plenty of outfielders and Jay Bruce in the wings.

2) Dunn and Griffey were untradeable.

3) The Reds desperately needed starting pitching.

4) The Reds offered Hamilton.

5) Volquez, an excellent, major league ready prospect, was the best offer.

Volquez is a gamble, but, outside of salary dumps, trades are always a gamble. I believe many Red fans felt Hamilton proved something last season. He is still a huge question mark. Can he duplicate his numbers? Can he stay healthy? Can he stay clean?

What truly was his market value? Was it better than a Vloquez? I truly doubt it.

George Anderson
03-03-2008, 12:42 AM
Maybe someday some other fans will notice what you , I and many others already have.. the Reds overvalue bats too a fault... and have for the past 40 years.

As long as they hustle like Pete, hit homers like Klu and Johnny, get their uniform dirty like Sabo, sign autographs and kiss babies like Casey, then who really needs pitching?

red-in-la
03-03-2008, 01:15 AM
You must be looking at the stats of someone else.

Look at them again.

He dominated at AA last year, and advanced and dominated at AAA.

Absolutely dominated.

He then came to the majors and pitched pretty good in 6 starts.

In 80 major league innings the kid has a 1.91 WHIP. You guys all like this WHIP thing....well....it doesn't tell a pretty major league story. He has had 3 years of short major league stints to try to just catch on.....on a Texas team that has had NO pitching.....so it wouldn't take that much to stick.

I am all for trading outfielders for pitching.....I have made that known. But WK continues to trade really good outfielders for margin to downright awful pitchers.

Reds1
03-03-2008, 01:22 AM
In 80 major league innings the kid has a 1.91 WHIP. You guys all like this WHIP thing....well....it doesn't tell a pretty major league story. He has had 3 years of short major league stints to try to just catch on.....on a Texas team that has had NO pitching.....so it wouldn't take that much to stick.

I am all for trading outfielders for pitching.....I have made that known. But WK continues to trade really good outfielders for margin to downright awful pitchers.


hmnnn, I think you might eat some crow on this! Who knows though. I like the opinion. Did we get a 2nd pitcher too! How is he? Besides young!!!

red-in-la
03-03-2008, 01:26 AM
hmnnn, I think you might eat some crow on this! Who knows though. I like the opinion. Did we get a 2nd pitcher too! How is he? Besides young!!!

So far WK is down Austin Kearns and Josh Hamilton and to show for it he has Majik, Bray and Volquez.

I would LOVE to eat crow on one of these.

Big Klu
03-03-2008, 01:47 AM
I hope to be proven wrong in a big way....but I think the Reds fans will regret this trade in a Robinson like way 5 years from now.

That's exactly how I feel. However, Volquez is now our guy, so I am rooting for him in a big way. But I still can't shake the feeling that Hamilton is something truly special.

Reds Nd2
03-03-2008, 01:51 AM
Maybe someday some other fans will notice what you , I and many others already have.. the Reds overvalue bats too a fault... and have for the past 40 years.

Untill the Reds find some better pitching, they better overvalue their bats.

Patrick Bateman
03-03-2008, 01:57 AM
In 80 major league innings the kid has a 1.91 WHIP. You guys all like this WHIP thing....well....it doesn't tell a pretty major league story. He has had 3 years of short major league stints to try to just catch on.....on a Texas team that has had NO pitching.....so it wouldn't take that much to stick.

I am all for trading outfielders for pitching.....I have made that known. But WK continues to trade really good outfielders for margin to downright awful pitchers.

Firstly, more than half of those innings occurred in 2005/2006, well before his breakout. Since then, Volquez has matured an awful lot as a pitcher and has totally rehauled his approach/mechanics. Regarding how good Volquez is right now, I don't see those innings as any sort of relevance.

Secondly, his stats during his most recent stint were fairly productive, albeit small sample size. They fit in well with the recent projection Volquez has enjoyed. Coupled with his AA/AAA stats, the signs show a pitcher that's making some major strides.

Thirdly, I'm really not sure why WHIP is the stat their your going to tie your boat too. Really, it has the same flaws that ERA is going to run into. Anyways, most of those major league innings are mainly irrelevant to begin with. Your not going to be able to look at WHIP and get any kind of predictave or feedback level for his prior performance.

Reds Nd2
03-03-2008, 02:05 AM
Maybe someday some other fans will notice what you , I and many others already have.. the Reds overvalue bats too a fault... and have for the past 40 years.

Could you at least quote the post your linking to?

red-in-la
03-03-2008, 02:49 AM
Firstly, more than half of those innings occurred in 2005/2006, well before his breakout. Since then, Volquez has matured an awful lot as a pitcher and has totally rehauled his approach/mechanics. Regarding how good Volquez is right now, I don't see those innings as any sort of relevance.

Secondly, his stats during his most recent stint were fairly productive, albeit small sample size. They fit in well with the recent projection Volquez has enjoyed. Coupled with his AA/AAA stats, the signs show a pitcher that's making some major strides.

Thirdly, I'm really not sure why WHIP is the stat their your going to tie your boat too. Really, it has the same flaws that ERA is going to run into. Anyways, most of those major league innings are mainly irrelevant to begin with. Your not going to be able to look at WHIP and get any kind of predictave or feedback level for his prior performance.

So.....his breakout is 34 innings pitched in 2007 with a 4.50 ERA?

Talk about sample size.....

OK, now that I gave in, WHIP isn't a good measure? Well, pick one then.

Volquez has a fast fastball that he cannot locate, and change up that is useless if he cannot get ahead in the count, and a curveball that he is afraid to throw (because he has more hangers than a dry cleaner).

Maybe that adds up to something at the major league level that I am missing......for what he cost, I sure hope so.

Patrick Bateman
03-03-2008, 03:20 AM
So.....his breakout is 34 innings pitched in 2007 with a 4.50 ERA?

Talk about sample size.....

That's a fine job of misinterpreting what I said. I made it very clear in my post that he had great success in AA/AAA this season as his breakout. The 34 innings of major league ball came after/during, and was more of a bonus. Not a meaningful amount of innings, but there's a clear difference from his previous attempts.


OK, now that I gave in, WHIP isn't a good measure? Well, pick one then.

No singular stat is really going to get the job done, but a combination of K rates, BB rates, and groundball rates would be the best place to start. If your succeeding in those 3 main areas you've got things going for you.

Volquez is a high K pitcher. It's nice having that bat missing ability. Very few recent starting pitching options have been able to rack up as many K's at advanced levels as Volquez. It's a good indicator of the ability he posesses.

Volquez' success will mainly hinge on his ability to command his arsenal and above average stuff. He's always had the bat missing ability, but it has only been recently that he's shown an adept abiltiy to command it. This step forward is the main reason that many here are high on Volquez, and the reason that Krivsky liked him enough to merit moving Hamilton. He pitched well enough in the high minors to be able to project pretty decent major league results. Obviously he still has work to do, and hasn't done anything in the majors yet, but I'm not sure if you appreciate how successful last season was fo Volquez.


Volquez has a fast fastball that he cannot locate, and change up that is useless if he cannot get ahead in the count, and a curveball that he is afraid to throw (because he has more hangers than a dry cleaner).

If this scouting report were true, than Volquez wouldn't have had much of any success in the upper minors last season. That sounds like you picked up last year's edition of BAseball America and tried to apply Volquez' report to the now. A guy that has zero command of his pitches wont have numbers like a K/9 of 11.65/9 or a 3.14 K/BB. Those are numbers of a guy starting to figure out of what to do with their stuff. The fact of the matter is that Volquez produced very well at the high minors last season, and even held his own in the majors. He's only 24 and looks like he's on the cusp of being able to do some serious damage at the major league level.

I appreciate how you feel about the loss of Hamilton. Believe me, I'm not particularly excited about watching Hamilton play ion another team's uniform. Last year, he was be far the most enjoyable part of of the season. But at the same time, the Reds have had gaping holes in the rotation over the last decade, and it needs to be fixed (and needs to take priority over singularly enjoyable players). At some point you need to turn the overload of offense into a need. Volquez is a major league ready power arm. Those don't grow on trees. If you want to get a guy like that, that price is going to be high. So which one is it? Hold onto your offense and hope you can win high scoring games like the Reds have been trying forever, or try something different and address a major need? I'm ready for something different, and I don't see why Volquez can't be a major part of it.

savafan
03-03-2008, 04:18 AM
Sorry Sava, but have you got a link for that?

Nope. I can give you a link that says the moon landing was fake though. An internet link isn't proof of fact, and lack of one isn't proof there isn't fact.

WMR
03-03-2008, 06:11 AM
That's a fine job of misinterpreting what I said. I made it very clear in my post that he had great success in AA/AAA this season as his breakout. The 34 innings of major league ball came after/during, and was more of a bonus. Not a meaningful amount of innings, but there's a clear difference from his previous attempts.



No singular stat is really going to get the job done, but a combination of K rates, BB rates, and groundball rates would be the best place to start. If your succeeding in those 3 main areas you've got things going for you.

Volquez is a high K pitcher. It's nice having that bat missing ability. Very few recent starting pitching options have been able to rack up as many K's at advanced levels as Volquez. It's a good indicator of the ability he posesses.

Volquez' success will mainly hinge on his ability to command his arsenal and above average stuff. He's always had the bat missing ability, but it has only been recently that he's shown an adept abiltiy to command it. This step forward is the main reason that many here are high on Volquez, and the reason that Krivsky liked him enough to merit moving Hamilton. He pitched well enough in the high minors to be able to project pretty decent major league results. Obviously he still has work to do, and hasn't done anything in the majors yet, but I'm not sure if you appreciate how successful last season was fo Volquez.



If this scouting report were true, than Volquez wouldn't have had much of any success in the upper minors last season. That sounds like you picked up last year's edition of BAseball America and tried to apply Volquez' report to the now. A guy that has zero command of his pitches wont have numbers like a K/9 of 11.65/9 or a 3.14 K/BB. Those are numbers of a guy starting to figure out of what to do with their stuff. The fact of the matter is that Volquez produced very well at the high minors last season, and even held his own in the majors. He's only 24 and looks like he's on the cusp of being able to do some serious damage at the major league level.

I appreciate how you feel about the loss of Hamilton. Believe me, I'm not particularly excited about watching Hamilton play ion another team's uniform. Last year, he was be far the most enjoyable part of of the season. But at the same time, the Reds have had gaping holes in the rotation over the last decade, and it needs to be fixed (and needs to take priority over singularly enjoyable players). At some point you need to turn the overload of offense into a need. Volquez is a major league ready power arm. Those don't grow on trees. If you want to get a guy like that, that price is going to be high. So which one is it? Hold onto your offense and hope you can win high scoring games like the Reds have been trying forever, or try something different and address a major need? I'm ready for something different, and I don't see why Volquez can't be a major part of it.

RESPEK!! ::ali g::

:clap:

crazybob60
03-03-2008, 06:19 AM
This is what I had to say about this very same thing in a different forum altogether....sorry for any overlap.

Can I just say that Josh Hamilton is really tearing it up so far this spring and I for one am really, really happy for him no matter which uniform he may be wearing....as long as it is one in the MLB where he belongs and not like the ones worn in the Justice System (aka the jail).

So far here in the Spring, Josh Hamilton has this kind of offensive line:

3 Games, 9 At Bats, 2 Runs, 6 Hits, 2 Doubles, 1 Triple, 0 Home Runs, 4 RBI's, 10 Total Bases, 0 Walks, 1 Strikeout, 0 Stolen Bases, 0 Caught Stealing, .667 OBP, 1.111 Slugging Percentage, and a .667 Batting Average.

Even this early on in the seaon, this kind of Offensive production is tremendous from what I can tell. Personally I think the Reds would still do the trade, but I bet they would think about it a tad bit longer and I bet they would try and get more out of Hamilton than what they really did and they just might have traded somebody, or multiple people instead of Josh. I could very easily see that going down.

We all know that Josh Hamilton is going to be something special and this pretty much confirms, only perpetuating the hype. He is going to be such a great phenom, i can't wait to see him develop over the next 4-5 years!!!

Screwball
03-03-2008, 06:29 AM
Nope. I can give you a link that says the moon landing was fake though. An internet link isn't proof of fact, and lack of one isn't proof there isn't fact.

I'd like to know where you're getting this information. I mean, right now it looks like nothing more than conjecture passed off as though it were fact. Something to back up your statement would lend it some credibility.

redsmetz
03-03-2008, 07:26 AM
While looking at the dates of the trade and the hiring of the Narrons, I found this blog about the trade from a Rangers fan viewpoint. This portion jumped out at me. It's one fan's opinion, but a fairly strong one at that.


Edinson Volquez, though (boy, when I first read about the trade I thought they must have meant Ramon Vazquez). He will be sorely missed by the Rangers. Not only as the #4 starter this year, which he would have been, but because he would have been #3 the next two years and probably #2 after that. Yes, I mean that, I think Volquez is potentially a #2 starter on a major league staff, definitely a #3. Look at his numbers (and ignore the cr** you’ll read on sites like ESPN), you will see his stats improving every single year. Plus, and it’s a big plus, he’s only 24 years old. He was rushed to the majors at a young age and struggled, but then turned it around and came on strong. Unless the Rangers know something bad about him, this is the kind of loss that will come back and haunt us for years to come (am I being a hypocrite, because I’m always quoting TINSTAAPP? No, because I think Volquez has graduated from prospect status, he’s moved into that middle ground of getting ready to explode).

BTW, the trade occurred 12/22/07, Johnny Narron was hired short after that. Jerry Narron wasn't hire until late in February. The earlier contention that Hamilton demanded a trade to stay with the Narrons is not upheld by the facts.

That said, I like this bloggers views on Volquez.

Ltlabner
03-03-2008, 07:39 AM
What I don't get is, where does the friggin injury prone come from?

Three stints on the DL in one year? :dunno:

Jpup
03-03-2008, 07:43 AM
I don't see it...I just don't see it. The stats argue against me, and I just took another look at them and they arne't anything special! How can we say this guy has the starting job, it seems like he should have to compete for it!

How was this a good deal to trade Hamilton for him???? :confused:

(STATS: http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/players/stats?playerId=6401)

Thanks.... :beerme:

it wasn't a good idea and it will never be. That's all.

Jpup
03-03-2008, 07:44 AM
Hamilton asked to be traded, and the Reds gave him his wish to be with the Narrons. Be glad they got anyone of value for him.

WTF? :confused: You make up stuff much?

Ltlabner
03-03-2008, 07:52 AM
this is the kind of loss that will come back and haunt us for years to come....from Redsmetz' post quoting the Ranger's fan board.


It was a terrible deal when it was made and it is still a terrible deal....from Redszone.

Shocking...both teams have fan's that think their F.O. sucks and is staffed by idiots. Glad to see baseball fans are alike in different cities and leagues.


I am all for trading outfielders for pitching.....I have made that known. But WK continues to trade really good outfielders for margin to downright awful pitchers.

And there it is! The reference to "the trade" that was made 2 years ago. Forever it shal be the albatross used to pan Wayne until the day he dies. I was wondering how long it would take to drag that old tired tune out.......but....but....but....he made "the trade" you know!

Jpup
03-03-2008, 07:54 AM
Shocking...both teams have fan's that think their F.O. sucks and is staffed by idiots.

maybe that is true. :) Their history seems to back up a statement such as this.

mth123
03-03-2008, 07:58 AM
Too many are basing their opinion of Volquez on his major league stats which are skewed largely from some innings he threw in 2005 and 2006 when he had no business in the big leagues. The Rangers were a team with a number of broken down starters those years and Volquez was rushed in there for lack of other options. Those stats are about as indicative of Volquez future as the phases of the moon. I look at last year's progression and see a guy that finally grew-up and is ready to put it together. Command and control are the last things to come together in a guy like Volquez. I think there is good reason to believe he is ready to make a big step forward.

If Hamilton stays clean, I think he'll be an all star caliber player, but staying clean from a crack addiction is a highly risky proposition. Since Hamilton was acquired on a flyer and really wasn't in the plan prior to last year, it gave the Reds the chance to flip him for a young high caliber arm before he did anything to lose the value that last season built. Its like a high ceiling arm dropped in from the sky. It also provides the ability to move on to a different direction in the OF rather than building the plan around such a high risk. I think the Hamilton acquisition worked out about as well as possible and hanging on to him in hopes he fulfills his potential was pushing it IMO.

Jpup
03-03-2008, 08:04 AM
Too many are basing their opinion of Volquez on his major league stats which are skewed largely from some innings he threw in 2005 and 2006 when he had no business in the big leagues. The Rangers were a team with a number of broken down starters those years and Volquez was rushed in there for lack of other options. Those stats are about as indicative of Volquez future as the phases of the moon. I look at last year's progression and see a guy that finally grew-up and is ready to put it together. Command and control are the last things to come together in a guy like Volquez. I think there is good reason to believe he is ready to make a big step forward.

If Hamilton stays clean, I think he'll be an all star caliber player, but staying clean from a crack addiction is a highly risky proposition. Since Hamilton was acquired on a flyer and really wasn't in the plan prior to last year, it gave the Reds the chance to flip him for a young high caliber arm before he did anything to lose the value that last season built. Its like a high ceiling arm dropped in from the sky. It also provides the ability to move on to a different direction in the OF rather than building the plan around such a high risk. I think the Hamilton acquisition worked out about as well as possible and hanging on to him in hopes he fulfills his potential was pushing it IMO.

I've watch Josh Hamilton play baseball. He shouldn't have been traded. I don't care what Volquez ever does, at the time, it was not a good trade. That's my story and I'm sticking to it. It has nothing to do with Volquez. Josh Hamilton is a freak, you don't trade guys like that.

I hope Volquez wins 20 games this year.

marcshoe
03-03-2008, 08:13 AM
Volquez was a sign that the Reds' are beginning to value talented young pitching and realize that they need to build the team on a foundation of live arms. That seems to be a good sign for me, a sign that this team is headed in the right direction.

Jpup
03-03-2008, 08:15 AM
Volquez was a sign that the Reds' are beginning to value talented young pitching and realize that they need to build the team on a foundation of live arms. That seems to be a good sign for me, a sign that this team is headed in the right direction.

The already had Bailey and Cueto. Maloney looks pretty decent as well. Who is going to play right field beyond this season? To me, it's more of a sign that Krivsky likes Norris Hopper way too much.

Ltlabner
03-03-2008, 08:17 AM
The already had Bailey and Cueto. Maloney looks pretty decent as well. Who is going to play right field beyond this season? To me, it's more of a sign that Krivsky likes Norris Hopper way too much.

Even assuming those three pitchers work out (and we know the chances of all of them actually dominating MLB are slim) you really think 3 pitchers will be all this team needs to shore up a rock solid pitching staff for years to come?

Jay Bruce has RF taken care of post Jr. Even if he flops, it's not as if finding a FA corner infielder is the most difficult task on the planet.

Jpup
03-03-2008, 08:20 AM
Even assuming those three pitchers work out (and we know the chances of all of them actually dominating MLB are slim) you really think 3 pitchers will be all this team needs to shore up a rock solid pitching staff for years to come?

Jay Bruce has RF taken care of post Jr. Even if he flops, it's not as if finding a FA corner infielder is the most difficult task on the planet.

who the Reds got? Bruce should have CF for now. I guess we'll get us some Norris Hopper in the starting 9. Oh joy.

mth123
03-03-2008, 08:34 AM
For me its easy.

Likelihood that Josh Hamilton is a star caliber player when on the field: Very, Very High.

Likelihood that Volquez is a solid or better starter over the next few season: Pretty Good

Likelihood that Hamilton avoids a relapse in the next 2 years: Very Low IMO.

If its my $100's of Millions business, I don't devise my plan around a crack addict. Sorry to be so harsh, but that would be my decision 100 times out of 100. I'd be happy to be proved wrong, but very satisfied with my big arm and some one else holding the risk.

Jpup
03-03-2008, 08:39 AM
For me its easy.

Likelihood that Josh Hamilton is a star caliber player when on the field: Very, Very High.

Likelihood that Volquez is a solid or better starter over the next few season: Pretty Good

Likelihood that Hamilton avoids a relapse in the next 2 years: Very Low IMO.

If its my $100's of Millions business, I don't devise my plan around a crack addict. Sorry to be so harsh, but that would be my decision 100 times out of 100. I'd be happy to be proved wrong, but very satisfied with my big arm and some one else holding the risk.

I think you are lumping in Josh Hamilton with other people. You shouldn't judge him based on anyone but Josh Hamilton.

You're idea that Volquez is a solid or better starter over the next few seasons as pretty good is high unlikely as well. Volquez has never been a solid starter and has little to suggest he was worth giving up on Hamilton for.

Ltlabner
03-03-2008, 08:51 AM
Bruce should have CF for now. I guess we'll get us some Norris Hopper in the starting 9. Oh joy.

Cool. Don't trade Hamilton, bench Hoppper and let the winning begin!

Serriously, haven't you noticed that little problem our pitching staff has after the #1 and #2 spots or in the 8th inning?

I'm not the world biggest Hopper fan, but taking a risk on what could be a solid arm will help this team far more than taking a risk on a solid bat (with a laundry list of issues).

Ltlabner
03-03-2008, 08:56 AM
You shouldn't judge him based on anyone but Josh Hamilton.

Excellent point.

1 year of sobriety versus at many years of hard-core abuse.

3 trips to the DL in one year.

1 more mistake leads to serrious MLB punishments.

That's looking at Josh specifically and it isn't a pretty picture. He was the feal good story of the year, and frankly it was a great story to watch unfold. It was a $50,000 loto ticket that paid off in a big way and a big feather in Wayne's cap. I'm really glad I got to see him play and his attempt at redemption started in Cincinnati.

If the Reds had an abundence of young tallented pitchers just laying around, and a long history of developing in-house tallent, I'd say stick with Josh and ride the wave.

Fact is this team needs pitching in the worst sort of way. You gotta give up something to get something, and giving up a young, tallented but highly volitile player is the exact right move to make.

marcshoe
03-03-2008, 09:03 AM
The already had Bailey and Cueto. Maloney looks pretty decent as well. Who is going to play right field beyond this season? To me, it's more of a sign that Krivsky likes Norris Hopper way too much.


As others have said, Bruce. Honestly, I haven't read into anything that's been said by the FO that Hopper is looked at as a significant part of the future of this team. I look for the team to eventually trade for a center fielder who can fill the position until Stubbs is ready (if he's ever ready--I'm one of the few who thinks he'll be at least an average major leaguer, I guess.)

In the end, you go for legitimately promising young pitching every time, in my book at least.

REDREAD
03-03-2008, 09:15 AM
I see this trade as a very high risk trade for the Reds.

IMO, Hamilton's ceiling is as high as Bruce. I admit that there's a chance he might relapse, but I think the first year is the hardest, and he made it through that. I don't consider Josh any more injury prone that anyone else. At this point, I don't think it's fair to say either way. I find it kind of amusing that no one was really concerned about Josh's relapse chances or injury proneness until he got traded.

Anyhow, Hamilton is going to be a contributor next year. Or at least 90% to be an above average contributor.

I give Volquez a 50/50 chance of panning out as an average ML starter. That's not a slam on him, it's just very hard for a young pitcher to become average.

IMO, the Reds traded the sure thing (Hamilton) for an unproven commodity. They should've gotten more. That lefty reliever that Texas threw in is such a longshot that I don't consider him worth much at all.

Sure, Volquez might be able to hold his own as a #5 starter. But that's not enough get back, when you can sign guys like Fogg for that role.

Reds1
03-03-2008, 09:16 AM
So far WK is down Austin Kearns and Josh Hamilton and to show for it he has Majik, Bray and Volquez.

I would LOVE to eat crow on one of these.

Keans would be bench fodder here and hopefully Bray will be healthy and be a nice addition. I wasn't talking about that one though :). This team needs pitching. We've made some nice secondary trades to upgrade the talent pool. 4 youngers who can get it up there at 96. Maybe I eat crow, but OF was our deepest position and we need to find a diamond in the rough. I hope you are wrong on this one.

redsmetz
03-03-2008, 09:32 AM
From the report on Volquez's one outing thus far:


Edinson Volquez retired the first five batters he faced. He was up 0-2 on Jonny Gomes when he hit him. Volquez then gave up a double, walked a batter and gave up a single. "He kind of lost his concentration," Baker said. "He was one strike away from a perfect outing."

This one tiny, meaningless spring training outing is what prompted the initial inquiry about Volquez? Am I missing something here?

I was a big Josh Hamilton fan and hope he stays sober and has a wonderful career, but as many have noted, you needed to give up something to get something. He was the most logical choice. I don't buy that it's a given that he will relapse, but the risk is there and we got a fairly good return for the Rule 5 gamble in just getting Volquez.

(NB: For the comment that folks have just piped up that Josh will relapse didn't just come up with the trade - some folks have been suggesting that possibility from the start. It's certainly a possiblity, but I think he's working on keeping that chance down. Good luck to him and great success).

Ltlabner
03-03-2008, 09:38 AM
I find it kind of amusing that no one was really concerned about Josh's relapse chances or injury proneness until he got traded.

Actually many people have commented on his replapse chances and injury proneness throughout the corse of 2007. Flyer has always brought him that he's a mistake away from a ban. I've mentioned on many occasions that his past abuse could leave him more vulnerable to injuries now.

And the only reason it's being brought up again now is that people are making the case that Hamilton is a sure thing, Volquez sucks and this trade will be a disaster of "Robinsonion" proportions.

TRF
03-03-2008, 10:22 AM
WTF? :confused: You make up stuff much?

In fact, no.

After Jerry Narron was fired, Hamilton was asked about Johnny Narron. He said "if he goes I go. We are a package." Paraphrasing, but you can find the article on MLB.com or enquirer.com. Sorry, but first year players that are former crack addicts don't get to make demands. Johnny Narron was let go by the end of the season I believe. I'm sure after that, and this is a GUESS, Hamilton's demand had a part to play in his trade. He was a great story, and his value was higher than at any point in his career since he was drafted. Getting the Rangers BEST pitching prospect for $100K + a year of league minimum salary and a rookie with as many question marks as accolades was pretty damn shrewd. I give Krivsky props on this one.

REDREAD
03-03-2008, 10:24 AM
Actually many people have commented on his replapse chances and injury proneness throughout the corse of 2007. Flyer has always brought him that he's a mistake away from a ban. I've mentioned on many occasions that his past abuse could leave him more vulnerable to injuries now.

And the only reason it's being brought up again now is that people are making the case that Hamilton is a sure thing, Volquez sucks and this trade will be a disaster of "Robinsonion" proportions.


During the season, I remember Josh's chances for relapse being more of a footnote. Largely, he was the feel good story of the year, Wayne was a genius, etc.

Now that he's gone, the relapse chance is being blown out of proportion to help justify the trade. I guess that's because no one can argue that on a pure talent basis, Hamilton is clearly better than Volquez (at least at this stage of their development).

Oh well, I'm not going to argue about what the board thinks.
I think the Reds are going to lose this trade for reasons I mentioned.

Ltlabner
03-03-2008, 10:28 AM
I guess that's because no one can argue that on a pure talent basis, Hamilton is clearly better than Volquez (at least at this stage of their development).

Sure, compare a guy who's played a full year in the bigs compared to a guy who was rushed into the rotation, has a measley number of IP and has yet to reach an age of "full maturity" as far as pitchers go and chances are good there will be a difference.

That's sorta how it works when you trade for "prospects". Usually the guy you gave up has a track record, the one you get doesn't (or not much of one).

So comparing their tallents at his stage of their development makes zero sense.

That's why the non-tangables have been discussed.

TRF
03-03-2008, 10:29 AM
I see this trade as a very high risk trade for the Reds.

IMO, Hamilton's ceiling is as high as Bruce. I admit that there's a chance he might relapse, but I think the first year is the hardest, and he made it through that. I don't consider Josh any more injury prone that anyone else. At this point, I don't think it's fair to say either way. I find it kind of amusing that no one was really concerned about Josh's relapse chances or injury proneness until he got traded.

Anyhow, Hamilton is going to be a contributor next year. Or at least 90% to be an above average contributor.

I give Volquez a 50/50 chance of panning out as an average ML starter. That's not a slam on him, it's just very hard for a young pitcher to become average.

IMO, the Reds traded the sure thing (Hamilton) for an unproven commodity. They should've gotten more. That lefty reliever that Texas threw in is such a longshot that I don't consider him worth much at all.

Sure, Volquez might be able to hold his own as a #5 starter. But that's not enough get back, when you can sign guys like Fogg for that role.

Drug addicts are addicts for life. The drugs Josh used can and probably have damaged his immune system. He was in a major car accident and suffered a back injury from it. His addiction probably aged his body anywhere from 5-10 years. The only sure thing about him is he's an addict. I guarantee you this, there probably isn't a day that goes by that he doesn't think about using.

If Volquez were a Reds draftee, most everyone on this board would be chomping at the bit for him to be the #3 or even #2 starter. Yes, he's that talented. #5 starter? please.

nate
03-03-2008, 10:38 AM
During the season, I remember Josh's chances for relapse being more of a footnote. Largely, he was the feel good story of the year, Wayne was a genius, etc.

I don't remember relapse being a footnote at all. I remember it being a pretty legit concern. However, the concern doesn't make the "feel good story" feel any less good.


Now that he's gone, the relapse chance is being blown out of proportion to help justify the trade.

It's a very real concern. I think you find most people who talk about relapse also wish Josh the very best and hope he goes on to a long and successful career.


I guess that's because no one can argue that on a pure talent basis, Hamilton is clearly better than Volquez (at least at this stage of their development).

Josh can't hit lefties very well nor as he proven he can play more than 90 games in a professional season. Volquez is working on his control and secondary pitches. Both are younger players working on their game. Both have great raw talent.


Oh well, I'm not going to argue about what the board thinks. I think the Reds are going to lose this trade for reasons I mentioned.

I never understood this whole "winning and losing" trades. Isn't a good trade one where both teams improve?

westofyou
03-03-2008, 10:39 AM
Could you at least quote the post your linking to?

I wasn't quoting a post, I was looking at the Reds lack of pitchers over the last 50 years and the saying that the inability for them to develop anything but bats and still win more then they lose has caused many Reds fans to look at baseball and think that bats are the only thing that one should value.

flyer85
03-03-2008, 10:41 AM
Krivsky simply decided to hedge his bet and cash in. Hamilton is an incredible talent who is worth something today but stands a chance of having ZERO value the next day. In WK's mind the risk was a big enough that it caused him to take a decent return and cash out.

Reds get a good young arm he may just be ready to contribute in the majors. Seemed like a pretty fair trade but both will be judged on how it turns out.

princeton
03-03-2008, 10:44 AM
Krivsky simply decided to hedge his bet and cash in. Hamilton is an incredible talent who is worth something today but stands a chance of having ZERO value the next day. In WK's mind the risk was a big enough that it caused him to take a decent return and cash out.

Reds get a good young arm he may just be ready to contribute in the majors. Seemed like a pretty fair trade but both will be judged on how it turns out.

If the goal was to decrease risk, he wouldn't have traded for a young pitcher.

there are arguments in favor of this trade, but not this particular argument.

PuffyPig
03-03-2008, 11:00 AM
WHileHamilton was the more established player, there is such a premium on pitching today (becuase of the lack of it), you have to pay for perpective pitching with established hitting.

If the Reds are ever going to win, they're going to have to improve their pitching. That's a fact.

This trade was an attempt to do that.

Hamilton's inability to play CF longterm made him a more likely trade target. It's likely that Bruce will have to move to RF eventually, likely as soon as next year.

TRF
03-03-2008, 11:01 AM
If the goal was to decrease risk, he wouldn't have traded for a young pitcher.

there are arguments in favor of this trade, but not this particular argument.

The risk may not have been lessened, but it was altered. A pitcher blowing his arm out, well, that happens. A player that relapses into drug abuse can ripple through a clubhouse. It can take your mind away from your job.

blumj
03-03-2008, 11:09 AM
If the goal was to decrease risk, he wouldn't have traded for a young pitcher.

there are arguments in favor of this trade, but not this particular argument.
He shifted the risk to an area where risk-taking is unavoidable, though. You can't avoid risk by avoiding young pitchers, you can only lower the risk by increasing the size of the pool you get to draw from. He increased the size of his pool.

princeton
03-03-2008, 11:19 AM
He shifted the risk to an area where risk-taking is unavoidable, though. You can't avoid risk by avoiding young pitchers, you can only lower the risk by increasing the size of the pool you get to draw from. He increased the size of his pool.

yes, I think that's the right way to think about it.

the Reds may turn out to lose this particular trade (in fact, I think that they were better off foregoing this one), but the systematic commitment to more pitching at the expense of OFers is an overall winner.

Joseph
03-03-2008, 11:22 AM
yes, I think that's the right way to think about it.

the Reds may turn out to lose this particular trade (in fact, I think that they were better off foregoing this one), but the systematic commitment to more pitching at the expense of OFers is an overall winner.

Good attitude there, not that you need me to tell it to you.

red-in-la
03-03-2008, 11:49 AM
yes, I think that's the right way to think about it.

the Reds may turn out to lose this particular trade (in fact, I think that they were better off foregoing this one), but the systematic commitment to more pitching at the expense of OFers is an overall winner.

Making one bad trade after another is not a way to do anything except end up in the cellar.

It is a bad idea here at Redszone to trade for an establsihed, successful pitcher because you don't want to part with the PROSPECTS.

But it is a good idea to trade an establsihed major league outfielder for a prospect (and suspect) pitcher.

I reiterate title of this thread....can somebody explain this one....


"I know funny and Joey Bishop is not funny, can somebody explain this one to me."

TRF
03-03-2008, 11:51 AM
Making one bad trade after another is not a way to do anything except end up in the cellar.

It is a bad idea here at Redszone to trade for an establsihed, successful pitcher because you don't want to part with the PROSPECTS.

But it is a good idea to trade an establsihed major league outfielder for a prospect (and suspect) pitcher.

I reiterate title of this thread....can somebody explain this one....


"I know funny and Joey Bishop is not funny, can somebody explain this one to me."

established? 298 AB's is established?

redsmetz
03-03-2008, 11:56 AM
Making one bad trade after another is not a way to do anything except end up in the cellar.

It is a bad idea here at Redszone to trade for an establsihed, successful pitcher because you don't want to part with the PROSPECTS.

But it is a good idea to trade an establsihed major league outfielder for a prospect (and suspect) pitcher.

I reiterate title of this thread....can somebody explain this one....

Well, a number of folks have explained it, but you're not agreeing. It's very explainable; you're just not liking the answer we're giving.

remdog
03-03-2008, 11:56 AM
"I know funny and Joey Bishop is not funny,..."

Joey Bishop was not funny!?!

Rem

princeton
03-03-2008, 12:02 PM
Making one bad trade after another is not a way to do anything except end up in the cellar.


I agree that you can have a great strategy but if you choose the wrong people, then you're still hosed.

this trade was an important one for all of us. WayneK had better have gotten it right.

I no longer see a point in arguing one way or another. Now, it's time to watch.

Moreover, Hamilton will make this deal look dreadful early, because he's just much more advanced and I suspect that Volquez will have some really bad early moments

Redszoners that really didn't like this trade, like me, will need to be patient. Fortunately, that's our strength ;)

red-in-la
03-03-2008, 12:02 PM
established? 298 AB's is established?

Are you telling me that you think Josh Hamilton is going to struggle to play major league baseball?

298 AB's, 19 homeruns, 47 RBI's and a .292 BA.....368 OBP....

By what measure?

I'll take that on faith. If Josh Hamilton is not a bonafide major league player, then Volquez is still in high school.

Team Clark
03-03-2008, 12:04 PM
established? 298 AB's is established?

I was wondering that myself... Hmmmm. 800 AB's MIGHT get you that tag if you put up some serious numbers.

I have hopped back and forth on the Krivsky fence quite a bit. I am and always will be a huge fan of Josh Hamilton. However, looking at the Reds pitching prospects 3 years ago and looking at the cupboard now I can say that the deal was a good deal. One more legitamte pitching prospect added. Krivsky dealt from a strength. I can find no way to fault him to date.

The addition of Volquez in effect takes pressure off Cueto and Bailey. Even the slightest psychological advantage given to these young pitchers can be a big difference maker, IMO. Two years ago we were not talking much about anyone other than Bailey on this board. Now we are talking 3 names plus another 2 down the road in Maloney and Roenicke. I am leaving out a few other names because I think these 5 have the best chance of making an impact this season or next. I'd like to throw Bray in the mix but his health is a concern. You can't impact from the DL. (Unless you are JUAN CASTRO).

Like others have mentioned. Even if one or two of these guys fail to live up to the hype, I'd rather pull from a pool of 5, 7 or 10 than a pool of 1 or 2.

edabbs44
03-03-2008, 12:06 PM
Excellent point.

1 year of sobriety versus at many years of hard-core abuse.

3 trips to the DL in one year.

1 more mistake leads to serrious MLB punishments.

That's looking at Josh specifically and it isn't a pretty picture. He was the feal good story of the year, and frankly it was a great story to watch unfold. It was a $50,000 loto ticket that paid off in a big way and a big feather in Wayne's cap. I'm really glad I got to see him play and his attempt at redemption started in Cincinnati.

If the Reds had an abundence of young tallented pitchers just laying around, and a long history of developing in-house tallent, I'd say stick with Josh and ride the wave.

Fact is this team needs pitching in the worst sort of way. You gotta give up something to get something, and giving up a young, tallented but highly volitile player is the exact right move to make.

Excellent post.

Ltlabner
03-03-2008, 12:06 PM
Are you telling me that you think Josh Hamilton is going to struggle to play major league baseball?

298 AB's, 19 homeruns, 47 RBI's and a .292 BA.....368 OBP....

Just a quick thought....any possibility that he does, in fact, struggle a bit once pitchers see him enough to figure out his weaknesses?

He's got a bundle of tallent, but in addition to the other concerns you seem to ignore, it's not beyond the relm of possibility that when/if he plays for more time that the league will figure him out.

He may very well adjust and continue to bash away. Then again, he might not.

Again...I don't think he's the "sure thing" you are positioning him as. Very good...yes. Sure thing...nope.

jojo
03-03-2008, 12:11 PM
Just a quick thought....any possibility that he does, in fact, struggle a bit once pitchers see him enough to figure out his weaknesses?

Absolutely. He's neither a sure thing from either a health or a performance standpoint. Playing in Texas will be a boon given the way balls fly out in right but he still needs to prove that he can hit lefties and he's now facing better pitchers.

It will be fun watching him but considering him a sure talent is begging the question on several levels.

princeton
03-03-2008, 12:13 PM
Krivsky dealt from a strength.


I like the rest of your post, in particular the possibility that this decreases pressure on Bailey.

but I don't really agree with the "dealing from a strength" part. Hamilton can actually defend a position and hit the ball. Reds have guys that can do one of those things, but rarely two.

flyer85
03-03-2008, 12:17 PM
If the goal was to decrease risk, he wouldn't have traded for a young pitcher. all depends on how you assess the risk of a Hamilton relapse.

Team Clark
03-03-2008, 12:19 PM
I like the rest of your post, in particular the possibility that this decreases pressure on Bailey.

but I don't really agree with the "dealing from a strength" part. Hamilton can actually defend a position and hit the ball. Reds have guys that can do one of those things, but rarely two.

I can see your point. From my persepctive, you have Dunn, Griffey, Hopper, Freel, Bruce, Stubbs and a few serviceable players. Certainly Dunn and Griff struggle defensively. Bruce and Stubbs are unproven at the MAJOR LEAGUE level. Hopper is a good 4th OF thus far. Freel, well it depends on what Freel you are getting this season.

Is the Reds OF a strength when compared to other teams? Probably not. Is it a strenght when comparing overall ability. Absolutely not. IMO, is it the only strength the Reds have or had at the time of the trade? Yes. That's where I was coming from.

princeton
03-03-2008, 12:29 PM
I can see your point. From my persepctive, you have Dunn, Griffey, Hopper, Freel, Bruce, Stubbs and a few serviceable players. Certainly Dunn and Griff struggle defensively. Bruce and Stubbs are unproven at the MAJOR LEAGUE level. Hopper is a good 4th OF thus far. Freel, well it depends on what Freel you are getting this season.

Is the Reds OF a strength when compared to other teams? Probably not. Is it a strenght when comparing overall ability. Absolutely not. IMO, is it the only strength the Reds have or had at the time of the trade? Yes. That's where I was coming from.

I have one more question:

doesn't the addition of Volquez put MORE pressure on Bailey? It makes it less likely that he makes the team, for instance.

but maybe the competition for a job is a different kind of pressure (and one that depends more on talent) than the pressure that comes from intense media scrutiny (which probably depends more on personality and character)?

flyer85
03-03-2008, 12:29 PM
PECOTA sees Hopper as replacement level

Forecast for 2008 is a VORP of 0.3. He is fungible as a bench player ... as a starter, let not even go there.

remdog
03-03-2008, 01:06 PM
I have one more question:

doesn't the addition of Volquez put MORE pressure on Bailey? It makes it less likely that he makes the team, for instance.

but maybe the competition for a job is a different kind of pressure (and one that depends more on talent) than the pressure that comes from intense media scrutiny (which probably depends more on personality and character)?

The only person that knows the answer to that question is Homer Bailey.

Rem

VR
03-03-2008, 01:17 PM
Just a quick thought....any possibility that he does, in fact, struggle a bit once pitchers see him enough to figure out his weaknesses?

He's got a bundle of tallent, but in addition to the other concerns you seem to ignore, it's not beyond the relm of possibility that when/if he plays for more time that the league will figure him out.



When a guy walks off the street after 5 years away from the game and performs at an OPS of .922 off major league pitching, I'd imagine the league is more concerned about what he will do once he remembers how to play the game.

IslandRed
03-03-2008, 01:21 PM
I have one more question:

doesn't the addition of Volquez put MORE pressure on Bailey? It makes it less likely that he makes the team, for instance.

but maybe the competition for a job is a different kind of pressure (and one that depends more on talent) than the pressure that comes from intense media scrutiny (which probably depends more on personality and character)?

I think it's just the difference in expectations between "we want you to make the rotation" and "we need you to be in the rotation."

REDREAD
03-03-2008, 01:21 PM
Sure, compare a guy who's played a full year in the bigs compared to a guy who was rushed into the rotation, has a measley number of IP and has yet to reach an age of "full maturity" as far as pitchers go and chances are good there will be a difference.

That's sorta how it works when you trade for "prospects". Usually the guy you gave up has a track record, the one you get doesn't (or not much of one).

That's exactly what I'm saying. It's a risk. Most of the time when a ML club trades a proven commodity for a prospect, they lose.
That's why I don't like this trade from the risk perspective.
Hopefully, Volquez eventually becomes a solid starting pitcher.
Even more hopefully, he becomes above average. But it's not a given. On the other hand, there's a strong chance Josh will turn in a solid season this year. That's precisely why the Rangers made this trade, and why they probably wouldn't have in Spring 2007.






So comparing their tallents at his stage of their development makes zero sense.

No, it makes a lot of sense. It's trading the bird in the hand for one in the bush. How can we discuss a trade if comparing the player's current talents is off limits? Makes no sense to me.

I've said several times that Volquez might pan out, and might be a good contributor in 2009 or 2010. Right now though, it's a risk. We might get nothing of note out of him. Do you not concede that?




That's why the non-tangables have been discussed.

And that's fine. To me, the chance of Volquez washing out (or ending up below average) is greater than the chances of Josh relapsing. If you disagree, fine.

REDREAD
03-03-2008, 01:23 PM
If Volquez were a Reds draftee, most everyone on this board would be chomping at the bit for him to be the #3 or even #2 starter. Yes, he's that talented. #5 starter? please.

Maybe eventually he will be a #2. This year, I'd be very pleased if he held his own as the #5. That's what I meant. Also, at this stage of developement, he's a long, long way from becoming a #2 starter. Hopefully he will pan out.

Falls City Beer
03-03-2008, 01:24 PM
I think it's just the difference in expectations between "we want you to make the rotation" and "we need you to be in the rotation."

Or "show us some results, you overhyped non-Bedard-worthy hothead."

:p:

remdog
03-03-2008, 01:25 PM
When a guy walks off the street after 5 years away from the game and performs at an OPS of .922 off major league pitching, I'd imagine the league is more concerned about what he will do once he remembers how to play the game.

That's a great point VR. However, when I watched Josh bat against lefites last year it seemed that they could consistantly tie him up by going up and in. Personally, I think that Josh can learn to either lay off that pitch or look for it and pound it. (shrug)

All of that aside, the Reds need to find pitching (both starters and bully) and Josh was the one (cheap) chip they had to gamble with.

Rem

REDREAD
03-03-2008, 01:30 PM
I like the rest of your post, in particular the possibility that this decreases pressure on Bailey.

but I don't really agree with the "dealing from a strength" part. Hamilton can actually defend a position and hit the ball. Reds have guys that can do one of those things, but rarely two.

I also hardly count guys like Freel and Hopper as "strength".

But it's clear that Wayne decided to rebuild this year, so I guess it's ok to hand the job to Bruce and not worry about Jr getting hurt.

I would've loved to see them keep Josh and flip Bruce, Homer, or Ceuto for Haren instead.

pedro
03-03-2008, 01:32 PM
Are you telling me that you think Josh Hamilton is going to struggle to play major league baseball?

298 AB's, 19 homeruns, 47 RBI's and a .292 BA.....368 OBP....

By what measure?

I'll take that on faith. If Josh Hamilton is not a bonafide major league player, then Volquez is still in high school.

I think there is a very good chance he doesn't hit LHP and ends up a platoon player, albeit a good one.

VS. LHP in 2007 .222/.296/.292/.588

TRF
03-03-2008, 01:52 PM
Here are some more "facts". I loves me facts. The Reds always seem to find bats, regardless of the FO. JimBo, the committee of GM's and even Krivsky, with DanO being the lone exception, but he found Bruce. But a strange thing seems to be happening. One of the things I have railed against Krivsky for was his consistent (it seemed) ability to acquire bad pitching. Now I am starting to see it as acquiring as much pitching as humanly possible. yes "the trade" was deplorable, from a scouting POV. I mean you give up two starters and a former 1rd pick in Wagner, and you better be coming home with Jon Rauch. But the premise was sound.

Now the Reds have something the haven't had in my lifetime it seems. 4 starters age 24 and under, pitching at the highest levels of the organization and dominating. Well, Volquez dominated AAA for the Rangers, and he dominated a hitters league while doing it. All four on the cusp of being major leaguers. Their emergence can actually make the organization stronger by making the likes of Arroyo, Belisle, Affeldt and Fogg available at the deadline. Oh, there are some serious possibilities there.

Ltlabner
03-03-2008, 02:44 PM
I've said several times that Volquez might pan out, and might be a good contributor in 2009 or 2010. Right now though, it's a risk. We might get nothing of note out of him. Do you not concede that?

Sure, once you concede that Hamilton is not this lock to be a solid stud-like contributor you make him to be and that he's got some major question marks that should at least be considered when evaluating him.

Falls City Beer
03-03-2008, 02:57 PM
This relates to a point in another thread: whenever you can trade a sought-after commodity with injury issues (Hamilton) for a sought-after commodity without injury issues (Volquez), you do it.

Sure, you'll lose a few, but that's a damn good rule of thumb (cf. Cameron for Griffey).

Ltlabner
03-03-2008, 02:58 PM
No, it makes a lot of sense. It's trading the bird in the hand for one in the bush. How can we discuss a trade if comparing the player's current talents is off limits? Makes no sense to me.

Nice attempt to twist things around. I didn't say comparing players talents is off limits.

Here's what you said...


I guess that's because no one can argue that on a pure talent basis, Hamilton is clearly better than Volquez (at least at this stage of their development).

My point was that comparing them makes no sense because anyone with 1/16th of a brain can figure out that the guy with the longer track record of success is going to be "clearly better" than the guy with less track record when compared right now. That's a pretty clear "no kidding" sort of statment. Hey...Arrang Harrang has more tallent now than Drew Stubbs has!

You aren't comparing tallent of player A NOW to tallent of player B NOW to evaluate this move, but rather tallent of player A NOW to what tallent of player B COULD BE DOWN THE ROAD. As you said, one in the hand versus the bush.

In that framework, the tallent Volquez has shown, coupled with what he is projected to become, coupled with the desperate need for pitching (relative to another strong OF bat + issues) says that Volquez has a bigger payout to the Reds than Hamilton does.

westofyou
03-03-2008, 02:59 PM
This relates to a point in another thread: whenever you can trade a sought-after commodity with injury issues (Hamilton) for a sought-after commodity without injury issues (Volquez), you do it.

Sure, you'll lose a few, but that's a damn good rule of thumb.

Yep, no use holding two pair when you know you need three of a kind to win.

Amos Rusie for Christy Mathewson... Boy I bet the Reds fans thought they were the winners in that one if they just looked at the numbers.

princeton
03-03-2008, 03:06 PM
This relates to a point in another thread: whenever you can trade a sought-after commodity with injury issues (Hamilton) for a sought-after commodity without injury issues (Volquez), you do it.


like when someone's an old 30?

Ltlabner
03-03-2008, 03:34 PM
Returning as a designated hitter after a couple of days off, Josh Hamilton went 3-for-3 with a double and an RBI from the cleanup spot on Sunday


Josh Hamilton, complaining of soreness, was given Friday and Saturday off to rest and will return to action Sunday.

From HERE (http://www.rotoworld.com/Content/playernews.aspx?sport=MLB&filter_teams=TEX)

I don't know how accurate Roto is, and I'm not saying this is proof of him being fragile (or proof of anything really), but I did think it germain to this discussion.

Team Clark
03-03-2008, 03:34 PM
I have one more question:

doesn't the addition of Volquez put MORE pressure on Bailey? It makes it less likely that he makes the team, for instance.

but maybe the competition for a job is a different kind of pressure (and one that depends more on talent) than the pressure that comes from intense media scrutiny (which probably depends more on personality and character)?

Several indicators have led me to believe that Homer is very content with being Homer. Not the next Seaver, Palmer, etc... Having read the recent article about him enjoying being in the background a bit this spring, to me, it's seems best for him psychologically. Nothing worse than standing on the mound "hoping" you succeed vs. "Knowing" you can succeed. I believe that healthy competition between Bailey, Volquez and Cueto gives them equal opportunity to grow.


The only person that knows the answer to that question is Homer Bailey.

Rem

Rem, I absolutely agree 100%. Great post.

Jpup
03-03-2008, 04:22 PM
In fact, no.

After Jerry Narron was fired, Hamilton was asked about Johnny Narron. He said "if he goes I go. We are a package." Paraphrasing, but you can find the article on MLB.com or enquirer.com. Sorry, but first year players that are former crack addicts don't get to make demands. Johnny Narron was let go by the end of the season I believe. I'm sure after that, and this is a GUESS, Hamilton's demand had a part to play in his trade. He was a great story, and his value was higher than at any point in his career since he was drafted. Getting the Rangers BEST pitching prospect for $100K + a year of league minimum salary and a rookie with as many question marks as accolades was pretty damn shrewd. I give Krivsky props on this one.

Eric Hurley is their best pitching prospect. That all but gave up on Volquez last year.

pedro
03-03-2008, 04:24 PM
Eric Hurley is their best pitching prospect. That all but gave up on Volquez last year.

so much so that he made 6 starts in september huh?

dosn't sound like "giving up" to me.

I'd challenge the Hurley thing too.

TRF
03-03-2008, 04:26 PM
like when someone's an old 30?

no more like when someone is a young crack addict. people against the trade want to ignore this. But it, coupled with his injury history makes him a risk. Krivsky increased the talent pool of high level pitching (AAA and higher). for minimal cost. I hope Josh Hamilton plays 15 years, but I'll bet he won't. Comparing him to the Robby trade is waaay offbase.

Jpup
03-03-2008, 04:27 PM
so much so that he made 6 starts in september huh?

dosn't sound like "giving up" to me.

I'd challenge the Hurley thing too.

you could, but you would be wrong.

pedro
03-03-2008, 04:29 PM
you could, but you would be wrong.

really?

Volquez's minor league stats are much better than Hurley's and Hurley got roughed up at AAA last year.

TRF
03-03-2008, 04:29 PM
you could, but you would be wrong.
Not according to everything I've read here in Texas. Volquez was their #1 pitching prospect, and would have been on BA's list had they not deemed him ineligible for prospect status.

fearofpopvol1
03-03-2008, 04:46 PM
So far WK is down Austin Kearns and Josh Hamilton and to show for it he has Majik, Bray and Volquez.

I would LOVE to eat crow on one of these.

Way to not tell the whole story and exclude Arroyo (for Wily Mo). Or Phillips for a PTBNL.

dougdirt
03-03-2008, 04:52 PM
you could, but you would be wrong.

He would actually be very right. Baseball America has said they would rate Volquez between Bailey and Cueto, which means he would fall somewhere in the 10-30 range on their top prospect list. Eric Hurley on the flip side ranked as #77. That pretty much means that Volquez would be a better (much better) prospect than Eric Hurley.

Kc61
03-03-2008, 05:57 PM
A team usually needs about 8 or 9 effective pitchers to compete. Whether Volquez winds up as a starter, a reliever, and whether he is ready now or a bit later, he is a good bet to be one of those guys.

It's hard to get effective pitchers. The Reds had to make this deal.

It looks to me like the Reds will likely begin the year with Volquez in relief. I think Fogg, Affeldt and Belisle will fill out the rotation (absent injury). And Bailey may be next in line.

Fine with me. In fact, I think this is probably best for Volquez's development. Let him learn to throw two good major league innings before we make him handle 6 or 7.

PuffyPig
03-03-2008, 06:21 PM
you could, but you would be wrong.

Count me among the majority who thinks he's right.

Volquez is a very good pitching prospect.

Reds1
03-03-2008, 06:29 PM
From HERE (http://www.rotoworld.com/Content/playernews.aspx?sport=MLB&filter_teams=TEX)

I don't know how accurate Roto is, and I'm not saying this is proof of him being fragile (or proof of anything really), but I did think it germain to this discussion.

This is what you get. A true talent that can hit, run, and throw, but he also can hurt himself in the on deck circle. :) I wish him luck and hope he kicks butt, but this team needs pitching and had to take a chance. It hasn't worked with Kearns and Felipe, but that doesn't mean it doesn't work this time.

REDREAD
03-03-2008, 06:31 PM
Sure, once you concede that Hamilton is not this lock to be a solid stud-like contributor you make him to be and that he's got some major question marks that should at least be considered when evaluating him.

Whatever man.

We clearly disagree with this. IMO, Hamilton has a much greater chance of being a stud this season. We'll see how the season plays out. I hope you are right, because I really want this to work, but it seems totally based on hope than logic.

Volquez is a 2 pitch pitcher that has struggled. (working on a 3rd pitch). I don't see him as a #2 starter this year.

Hamilton is going to be the starting OF for the Rangers. Volquez might not even make the 25 man roster. That's the basis of my argument, but I doubt you will see that, so I'm done talking about it.

red-in-la
03-03-2008, 06:35 PM
Way to not tell the whole story and exclude Arroyo (for Wily Mo). Or Phillips for a PTBNL.

I wasn't not telling the whole story.....geez. To say WK has made BAD trades I have to list all of his trades?

He has made two really bad ones, that is my point.

TRF
03-03-2008, 06:35 PM
Whatever man.

We clearly disagree with this. IMO, Hamilton has a much greater chance of being a stud this season. We'll see how the season plays out. I hope you are right, because I really want this to work, but it seems totally based on hope than logic.

Volquez is a 2 pitch pitcher that has struggled. (working on a 3rd pitch). I don't see him as a #2 starter this year.

Hamilton is going to be the starting OF for the Rangers. Volquez might not even make the 25 man roster. That's the basis of my argument, but I doubt you will see that, so I'm done talking about it.

And you keep ignoring the crack addict in the middle of the room. You keep ignoring how Volquez DOMINATED three levels and how he'd be rated higher than Bailey or Cueto by most publications. Ignore how Reds powerhouse offenses of the past 7 years have gotten tham squat. Ignore that Bruce is as likely to AT LEAST repeat Hamilton's numbers without a shadow over his head.

fearofpopvol1
03-03-2008, 06:43 PM
I wasn't not telling the whole story.....geez. To say WK has made BAD trades I have to list all of his trades?

He has made two really bad ones, that is my point.

The problem is, it's cherry picking. It doesn't really tell the whole story. I didn't love the Kearns trade either, but I think you at least have to acknowledge the good trades with the bad, otherwise, your argument lacks substance.

Ltlabner
03-03-2008, 06:43 PM
That's the basis of my argument, but I doubt you will see that, so I'm done talking about it.

I see your argument very clearly. It's just so full of holes and logically inconsistancies that I can't just jump up and shout "hooray Redread's got a humdinger there".

red-in-la
03-03-2008, 07:04 PM
The problem is, it's cherry picking. It doesn't really tell the whole story. I didn't love the Kearns trade either, but I think you at least have to acknowledge the good trades with the bad, otherwise, your argument lacks substance.

Well, you present it your way and I'll present it mine. A bad trade is a bad trade no matter how many good ones you make.....and in the GM world, unless you are Bob Howsam, you are probably only remembered for your bad ones.

TRF
03-03-2008, 07:05 PM
Well, you present it your way and I'll present it mine. A bad trade is a bad trade no matter how many good ones you make.....and in the GM world, unless you are Bob Howsam, you are probably only remembered for your bad ones.

Except this wasn't a bad trade. That you don't get that is your own fault.

REDREAD
03-03-2008, 07:05 PM
I see your argument very clearly. It's just so full of holes and logically inconsistancies that I can't just jump up and shout "hooray Redread's got a humdinger there".

:lol: And you just keep shouting "He's a crack addict that gets hurt". :lol:

Seriously, I don't know why you are so emotional and defensive over this. Give me a good reason why you think Volquez will actually succeed this year, other than the fact that he's been ordained a top prospect.

I'm with everyone that says that if Volquez turns into a #2 starter, then the trade was an overwhelming success, no matter what Hamilton does. I just don't think he's going to get there.

If Volquez turns out to be an average pitcher in 2010, then the Reds probably still lose, but at least it's not a big loss.

Obviously, if Josh does fall off the face of the earth, the Reds win.. I just don't see that happening.

But if you want to tell me what you expect out of Volquez this year, and why you think he'll even make the roster this year, I'm all ears.

REDREAD
03-03-2008, 07:08 PM
And you keep ignoring the crack addict in the middle of the room. You keep ignoring how Volquez DOMINATED three levels and how he'd be rated higher than Bailey or Cueto by most publications. Ignore how Reds powerhouse offenses of the past 7 years have gotten tham squat. Ignore that Bruce is as likely to AT LEAST repeat Hamilton's numbers without a shadow over his head.

I see a good prospect with 2 pitches in Volquez. Maybe he gets the curve figured out, maybe not. It's a risk. Hamliton is less of a risk IN MY OPINION.

Having Bruce doesn't justify trading away Hamilton for less than he's worth. We could certainly use both of them. I think Wayne undersold on Hamilton.

I know the Reds need pitching. That's why I wanted Haren or Bedard, not another prospect that might give us "squat".

fearofpopvol1
03-03-2008, 07:20 PM
Well, you present it your way and I'll present it mine. A bad trade is a bad trade no matter how many good ones you make.....and in the GM world, unless you are Bob Howsam, you are probably only remembered for your bad ones.

That's fine. You can present your argument(s) any way you want, but just be prepared to be criticizied and questioned on it because of its faulty logic.

savafan
03-03-2008, 07:21 PM
While looking at the dates of the trade and the hiring of the Narrons, I found this blog about the trade from a Rangers fan viewpoint. This portion jumped out at me. It's one fan's opinion, but a fairly strong one at that.



BTW, the trade occurred 12/22/07, Johnny Narron was hired short after that. Jerry Narron wasn't hire until late in February. The earlier contention that Hamilton demanded a trade to stay with the Narrons is not upheld by the facts.

That said, I like this bloggers views on Volquez.

He didn't demand to be traded. He asked to be traded after Johnny Narron wasn't retained by Dusty Baker. I heard this on 700 WLW, take it for what it's worth.

TRF
03-03-2008, 07:24 PM
How is a known crack addict less of a risk than another teams TOP PITCHING PROSPECT? That makes no sense. Steve Howe. Daryll Strawberry. You do remember these guys right? They went through their addictions at the MLB level after attaining and sustaining some measure of success. Josh Hamilton thus far has established that he destroys RH pitching, couldn't hit a LH if he fell out of a boat, is injury prone, and is missing at least 2-3 years of needed development that he'll have to get facing the best pitching at any level. He's going to have to face The Yankees AND their fans. He's going to be doing this in a much hotter climate, and how his body, once ravaged by drugs handles the Texas heat for sustained periods is anyone's guess. Keep looking at his talent, immense as it is, in the micro and you miss the larger picture: Josh Hamilton defines the word risk.

Ltlabner
03-03-2008, 07:24 PM
If Volquez turns out to be an average pitcher in 2010, then the Reds probably still lose, but at least it's not a big loss.

There's been plenty of reasons given to indicate he's got a chance to be successfull. You've ignored all of them in your reductive "win/lose a trade" paradigm. If you can't see beyond that construct than discussing this further is a waste of time.

That you can't even understand the value of "an average pitcher" in todays baseball world tells me that you'll likely not move beyond the "win/loss" gibberish you've made up.

But hey, if you want to focus on who makes the roster this year and let that be the basis of your "logic" then by all means.

DoogMinAmo
03-03-2008, 07:39 PM
A little exercise:

Take the Reds team as it stands now sans Volquez, would you take Griffey Jr. or Johan Santana in their primes if you had a choice?

Just curious what people find more valuable.

FWIW, I take Santana.

OnBaseMachine
03-03-2008, 08:11 PM
I love Josh Hamilton, I'm one of his biggest fans you will find but I would still do this trade 10 times out of 10. Hamilton could relapse and be out of baseball tomorrow. Even if he stays clean (which I hope he does) all the years of drug abuse have ate away at his body. He was injury prone before the drugs and now it's probably going to be worse. In addition to that, he can't hit lefties as others pointed out. This was a great deal for the Reds IMO. Volquez has electric stuff and is on the brink of putting it together IMO. He's been the talk of camp so far.

princeton
03-03-2008, 08:17 PM
I love Josh Hamilton, I'm one of his biggest fans you will find but...


I like how people say things like "I'm one of his biggest fans" and then proceed to demonstrate why that's not true because you'd trade him

a really BIG fan is a fanatic, who would not possibly consider seeing a player on another team.

you're a Reds fan. You cheer for the laundry. It's OK. You're in the right place.

OnBaseMachine
03-03-2008, 08:19 PM
I like how people say things like "I'm one of his biggest fans" and then proceed to demonstrate why that's not true because you'd trade him

a really BIG fan is a fanatic, who would not possibly consider seeing a player on another team.

you're a Reds fan. You cheer for the laundry. It's OK. You're in the right place.

Actually I am a huge fan of Josh Hamilton (whether you wanna believe it or not) and if trading one of my favorite players for a player who I think will make this team better then I have no problem with it.

cincrazy
03-03-2008, 08:46 PM
Reds fans need to get away from falling in love with singular players. That accomplishes nothing. I don't get attached to any ballplayer nowadays. It's a business, they come and go. I want the Reds to win, by whatever means possible.

I'm a Josh Hamilton fan. I wish him all the luck in the world. But with that being said, I want to see the Reds win. And trading an injury prone outfielder with a history of drug problems for a stud young pitcher is a way of accomplishing that.

princeton
03-03-2008, 08:50 PM
Reds fans need to get away from falling in love with singular players.

I agree that Josh Hamilton is singular

cincrazy
03-03-2008, 09:41 PM
I agree that Josh Hamilton is singular

I suppose that sentence didn't make a ton of sense, hahaha. Hey, I'm hopped up on Oreo's and Pepsi, but at least I'm providing some humor :cool:

Reds Nd2
03-03-2008, 10:54 PM
Nope. I can give you a link that says the moon landing was fake though. An internet link isn't proof of fact, and lack of one isn't proof there isn't fact.

If you believed
they put a man on the moon
man on the moon
If you believe
there's nothing up my sleeve
then nothing is cool

Reds Nd2
03-03-2008, 11:11 PM
I wasn't quoting a post, I was looking at the Reds lack of pitchers over the last 50 years and the saying that the inability for them to develop anything but bats and still win more then they lose has caused many Reds fans to look at baseball and think that bats are the only thing that one should value.

Ok. Gotcha' Thanks for the explanation woy.

BTW, if Harang stays healthy this season, he will move to #25 on the all time list of Reds for games started.

OldXOhio
03-03-2008, 11:13 PM
BTW, the trade occurred 12/22/07, Johnny Narron was hired short after that. Jerry Narron wasn't hire until late in February. The earlier contention that Hamilton demanded a trade to stay with the Narrons is not upheld by the facts.



Just b/c Ham arrived first doesn't mean an agreement in principle hadn't been reached w/ one or both of the Narrons to join the Rangers in the event a trade could be made.

LoganBuck
03-03-2008, 11:15 PM
I used to smoke, I quit years ago, and have stayed away from them. I still crave cigarettes. If that works like crack, Josh will have plenty of demons to keep away.

Reds Nd2
03-03-2008, 11:57 PM
In fact, no.

After Jerry Narron was fired, Hamilton was asked about Johnny Narron. He said "if he goes I go. We are a package." Paraphrasing, but you can find the article on MLB.com or enquirer.com.

"I talked with Wayne about it," Hamilton said from Raleigh, N.C. "I told him it was his decision, ultimately. Would it have helped me if he stayed? Yeah, it would have. At the same time, it won't affect if I come back and play."



Hamilton didn't seem concerned about moving forward with neither Johnny nor Jerry Narron around next season.

"This is what was planned out. I've known for a little bit," Hamilton said. "Wayne said he'd do everything he could to help me out. I'm comfortable with that. If it were up to me, I'd have somebody around me all the time. Everybody can use someone to make them stay honest, not just me. I'll find ways to adjust to it and figure out what I'm going to do."

http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20071031&content_id=2289843&vkey=news_mlb&fext=.jsp&c_id=mlb

red-in-la
03-04-2008, 12:04 AM
Actually I am a huge fan of Josh Hamilton (whether you wanna believe it or not) and if trading one of my favorite players for a player who I think will make this team better then I have no problem with it.

Nobody was a bigger fan of Lee May than I was.....gee, I am still upset that Howsam traded him.;)

pedro
03-04-2008, 12:36 AM
BTW, if Harang stays healthy this season, he will move to #25 on the all time list of Reds for games started.

That's an interesting piece of information Reds Nd2.

That seems like an exceptionally low number for a team with as long a history as the Reds, though I can't say I'm surprised.

The Reds have been offensively focused for as as I can remember and honestly it hasn't been working for a good long while. I don't know if they'll be successful with the new direction, but at least if they remain losers it won't be for not trying something new.

WOY recently told me something about the number of teams that have won the WS with worse than average pitching. It's a really low number, somewhere around 7-10%. That tells me the Reds better get some pitching because it's pretty unlikely they're going to hit themselves out of their problems.

westofyou
03-04-2008, 02:32 AM
Edison can at least be thankful he isn't Noah.

http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/recap?gid=280303126


IP H R ER BB SO HR

N Lowry 1 0 4 4 9 0 0

cincrazy
03-04-2008, 08:07 AM
Edison can at least be thankful he isn't Noah.

http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/recap?gid=280303126


IP H R ER BB SO HR

N Lowry 1 0 4 4 9 0 0

Holy crap

PuffyPig
03-04-2008, 08:52 AM
a really BIG fan is a fanatic, who would not possibly consider seeing a player on another team.

you're a Reds fan. You cheer for the laundry. It's OK. You're in the right place.


I disagree.

You can be a huge fan of a player, yet, at the end of the day, you are a bigger Reds fan.

I consider myself a huge Hamilton fan. I still am,and hope he does very well in Texas.

But I make that trade.

But I'm still a huge Hamilton fan.

And no one can tell me different.

princeton
03-04-2008, 10:26 AM
Edison can at least be thankful he isn't Noah.

http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/recap?gid=280303126


IP H R ER BB SO HR

N Lowry 1 0 4 4 9 0 0

good time to make a trade proposal

TRF
03-04-2008, 10:53 AM
in the link about Lowry at the bottom of the page.


Rangers OF Josh Hamilton, 6-for-9 in his first three games, is expected to return to the lineup after taking a day to rest a sore leg. …

nope. not injury prone at all.

Ltlabner
03-04-2008, 10:55 AM
in the link about Lowry at the bottom of the page.



nope. not injury prone at all.

Was that in addition to the other few days he had off over a weekend because of generalized soreness?

TRF
03-04-2008, 11:04 AM
dunno, but it goes to the point that Josh Hamilton is a risk, because MLB is in uncharted territory with an athlete of his stature plus the severity of his addiction. The truth is nobody outside his physician, and possibly not even he knows the long term effects of what Josh did to himself coupled with the 7 month grind of MLB.

Josh wasn't stashed last year. He was legitimately hurt. a lot it seemed.

PuffyPig
03-04-2008, 11:25 AM
good time to make a trade proposal


It's never a good time to make a trade proposal for Lawry.

You will always overpay.

Even if you just take on his salary.

Chip R
03-04-2008, 11:31 AM
Whatever man.

We clearly disagree with this. IMO, Hamilton has a much greater chance of being a stud this season.



I agree. I think Hamilton may wind up having the better season. Mad Dog may not even make the 25 man roster. But I don't think this trade was made for this year necessarily. If Volquez works out this year, great. If he doesn't, he can work on the things he needs to work with in LOU and develop into a quality starting pitcher.

westofyou
03-04-2008, 11:36 AM
I agree. I think Hamilton may wind up having the better season. Mad Dog may not even make the 25 man roster. But I don't think this trade was made for this year necessarily. If Volquez works out this year, great. If he doesn't, he can work on the things he needs to work with in LOU and develop into a quality starting pitcher.

So some trades are made with more then the next 162 games in mind?

Whoa..... paradigm time.

Ltlabner
03-04-2008, 11:38 AM
So some trades are made with more then the next 162 games in mind?

Whoa..... paradigm time.

Now that's just crazy talk.

redsrule2500
03-04-2008, 11:47 AM
I like how people say things like "I'm one of his biggest fans" and then proceed to demonstrate why that's not true because you'd trade him

a really BIG fan is a fanatic, who would not possibly consider seeing a player on another team.

you're a Reds fan. You cheer for the laundry. It's OK. You're in the right place.

Actually, fan is just short for fanatic. And he's definitely not a fanatic, as I still don't see how this trade is clear one way or the other.

wheels
03-05-2008, 10:11 AM
Actually, fan is just short for fanatic. And he's definitely not a fanatic, as I still don't see how this trade is clear one way or the other.

Why does it have to be?

A significant need was addressed, and addressed well.

11larkin11
03-11-2008, 04:30 PM
I believe the OP has his answer now...

klw
03-11-2008, 06:16 PM
Edison can at least be thankful he isn't Noah.

http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/recap?gid=280303126


IP H R ER BB SO HR

N Lowry 1 0 4 4 9 0 0

Won't Lowry's value be high? He just threw a no-hitter!