PDA

View Full Version : The Texas View: Hamilton the best Rangers prospect ever?



NJReds
03-05-2008, 12:59 PM
An interesting take on the Hamilton-Volquez deal from Randy Galloway, columnist for the Star-Telegram. link (http://www.star-telegram.com/sports/columnists/randy_galloway//story/512051.html)



Wednesday, Mar 5, 2008
Posted on Wed, Mar. 05, 2008
Randy Galloway: Hamilton might be Rangers' best prospect ever
By RANDY GALLOWAY
Star-Telegram Staff Writer
SURPRISE, Ariz. -- The dark side of Josh Hamilton's life has been well-chronicled all spring. It's a story that needs no rehash from here.
But the game of baseball is what separates Hamilton from being just another street junkie attempting to rescue himself from unthinkable depths.

And it's Hamilton baseball skills that have awed one and all in Surprise. This is a kid blessed with physical tools reserved for very few of God's creatures, and no other current Rangers.

"To watch Josh play this game is to see a freak of nature," said his new teammate, pitcher Jason Jennings. "And to pitch against him, which I did last season, is to see a hitter who makes you wonder how great he can be."

Believe me, the Rangers -- from the front office to his teammates -- are wondering.

Using caution wisely, no one with the team will publicly say what they are privately thinking:

Will a bona fide "star" emerge in Arlington this season?

Not that Mr. Fogerty had Josh Hamilton in mind, but can Chuck Morgan go ahead and cue up Centerfield at The Ballpark?

There is, however, a legitimate disclaimer in this camp that involves a prominent "if."

If he can stay on the field, in center field. That means stay both healthy and clean.

Another thing:

For whatever reason, the Cincinnati Reds traded Hamilton over the winter, despite some impressive yet limited stats last season, and despite Hamilton having quickly become a fan favorite and a feel-good story for seemingly rescuing his troubled life.

The Reds got pitcher Edinson Volquez for Hamilton; Volquez wasn't a serious contender for even the Rangers' rotation. In other words, the price wasn't high for Josh.

It's a legitimate question to ask why Cincinnati traded him.

Even so, not once in spring training since the Texas portion of the franchise's history began in 1972 can I remember one player so quickly captivating teammates and team officials because of his ample display of skills.

Juan Gonzalez as a 19-year-old rookie was something to see. So was Pudge at the same age. Hitting coach Rudy Jaramillo, a longtime Rangers' employee, called Ruben Sierra "the most polished young player I've ever seen."

But after working with Hamilton this spring, Rudy noted, "This kid is off the charts when it comes to the complete package of talent."

Manager Ron Washington, a baseball lifer, dealt with some immense talent that came through the A's system. "For having all the skills, I never saw one like Josh," he said. "He has all the somethings you are looking for. Now we've got to find out what it all means."

Alex Rodriguez is the most complete player ever in a Rangers uniform. But those skills had already been on display for years in Seattle, so there was no A-Rod surprise in his first spring with the team.

Hamilton arrived here with a reputation, good and bad, but also with very limited baseball exposure. It's remarkable that this is only his third professional spring training.

Until last season, Josh was suspended and out of the game for three years because of his drug abuse problems. Very few teammates had actually seen him play.

"Just to see this kid's God-given talent, you start thinking of great baseball names you don't like to even mention with any unproven player," Jerry Narron said over the weekend. "But, on talent alone, Josh is certainly way way up there."

Narron was Cincinnati's manager last season when Hamilton was added to his first major league roster. Jerry's brother, Johnny, became Hamilton's spiritual adviser and baseball stepfather with the Reds. The Narrons and Josh all have North Carolina roots. Johnny once coached Josh as a 10-year-old.

Johnny was hired by the Rangers as a coach as soon as Hamilton was obtained. Jerry, fired by the Reds in July, was hired last week by the Rangers as a special consultant. Jerry, of course, is a former Rangers manager and coach.

Despite his extensive history with drugs, Hamilton is consistent in one area outside of baseball, according to Jerry Narron.

"He is the nicest, most polite, most unassuming kid you will ever meet," he said."The fans will love him because he's such a friendly young man. The media will love him because you won't ever see an attitude with him. His teammates here, from what I hear, already love him, and that was also the case immediately in Cincinnati."

When Jerry was asked if the thought Hamilton was "finally clean" for good, he answered: "Nobody can say that for sure, not even Josh. But I know he's battling it hard; I know he trusts in Johnny, who loves him like a son."

On the field, the sacred Five Tools are obvious -- Hamilton can hit, hit for power, run, throw and go get 'em in center.

"I've never worked with anyone who can hit a baseball as far as Josh can," said Jaramillo, "and I've had some big bombers along the way. Just nothing like him."

Rangers catcher Gerald Laird was speaking of Hamilton on Tuesday, and he was stuck for the proper description. "I see him do something, and go, 'Wow.' About five times a day, I say, 'Wow.'"

Actually, Hamilton has caused a daily "wow" echo in this camp, mainly from his teammates. It's players reacting to skills they are seeing from a new player.

Hamilton, however, doesn't seem to notice the attention. I asked him this week if he was aware of The Ballpark's reputation as a haven for home runs.

"I've certainly been told about it," he said, smiling. "I'm looking forward to taking some swings there. They tell me a left-handed hitter will really like the way the ball jumps out to right-center."

Ah, yes. The old jet stream.

But then Hamilton, who had 19 homers in only 298 at-bats last year, added a word of caution. "Cincinnati is a good hitter's yard, too," he said. "I didn't take advantage of that enough.... I've got to make my park in Texas work for me."

Hamilton, of course, is simply lucky to have survived the streets and be alive. He is fortunate to be back in baseball. He will be forever in debt to the Reds and Jerry Narron for giving him a major league shot.

"But I was tremendously excited about the Rangers trading for me," he said. "I'm thinking maybe I was meant to be in Texas.

"It feels great to be needed and wanted."

When Hamilton missed extensive playing time last season with wrist and hamstring injuries, the fear became that years of drug abuse to his body were taking an ongoing toll.

A kid who was once the most highly regarded minor league talent in the game, he's still only 26 years old. The Rangers hope last season's injuries were a case of the body adjusting to sudden physical demands after three years of severe neglect.

Whatever, Josh Hamilton is a Surprise story. The story. The baseball story.

So far, so good, but with the "if" factors constantly serving as an ever-present sign of caution.

Randy Galloway can be heard on Galloway & Co. weekdays 3-6 p.m. on ESPN/103.3 FM.

fearofpopvol1
03-05-2008, 01:04 PM
When Jerry was asked if the thought Hamilton was "finally clean" for good, he answered: "Nobody can say that for sure, not even Josh. But I know he's battling it hard; I know he trusts in Johnny, who loves him like a son."

Is it me, or is that just not a good sign?

SunDeck
03-05-2008, 01:05 PM
When does he stop being a prospect? He's 26 years old.

And I think Narron is just reflecting the mantra of recovery. No one is ever over an addiction.

dabvu2498
03-05-2008, 01:06 PM
Is it me, or is that just not a good sign?

The saying is true... once an addict, always an addict.

Another one... never say never.

westofyou
03-05-2008, 01:07 PM
Are you still a prospect at his age and after what he did last year?

Are they forgetting the pimping of Clyde, Inky or Juan Gon?

Short memory in the heat of Dallas.

Screwball
03-05-2008, 01:07 PM
Is it me, or is that just not a good sign?

I think it was just an honest answer. From everything I've read, he'll have to battle the temptations for the rest of his life - some days more so than others. Just staying clean to for this long after what he was doing is an accomplishment by itself.

Having said that though, I miss Josh Hamilton. A lot.

RedsManRick
03-05-2008, 01:09 PM
Is it me, or is that just not a good sign?

Just an honest response from somebody who understands the nature of addiction.

TeamBoone
03-05-2008, 01:16 PM
I miss Josh Hamilton. A lot.

I do too. I hope it doesn't end up being a bad trade because, IMHO, he was a lot to give up.

fearofpopvol1
03-05-2008, 01:22 PM
I know it's an honest answer. I'm just saying, I'm not sure (if I were Hamilton) that's what I'd want to hear.

M2
03-05-2008, 01:27 PM
Josh Hamilton makes for great articles. He is Roy Hobbs. He's half icon, half man.

red-in-la
03-05-2008, 01:27 PM
I do too. I hope it doesn't end up being a bad trade because, IMHO, he was a lot to give up.

It is already a bad trade.

As was said in the article, Volquez wasn't even a candidate...a candidate...to make the Texas rotation.....TEXAS!

I just hope this article puts Volquez and the "good young arms" discussion into a more proper light.

lollipopcurve
03-05-2008, 01:28 PM
I hope the kid rips off a huge year sometime. As a baseball fan, you want to see what a huge talent like that can do. The story of his comeback from addiction has already been written, now it's time for the baseball story that was almost never written.

westofyou
03-05-2008, 01:33 PM
dp

westofyou
03-05-2008, 01:33 PM
It is already a bad trade.

As was said in the article, Volquez wasn't even a candidate...a candidate...to make the Texas rotation.....TEXAS!

I just hope this article puts Volquez and the "good young arms" discussion into a more proper light.

Josh Hamilton the new Roy Hobbs..... how will the Reds ever get over the loss...

Hoosier Red
03-05-2008, 01:34 PM
It is already a bad trade.

As was said in the article, Volquez wasn't even a candidate...a candidate...to make the Texas rotation.....TEXAS!

I just hope this article puts Volquez and the "good young arms" discussion into a more proper light.


To be fair, the Dallas Morning News' version of Paul Daugherty is probably not where I'm going for talent evaluation.
I understand the gnashing of teeth over the trade.
He's a huge guy to give up, but they weren't going to win with him and no pitching, so even if we lose on talent, we may very well win out.

I know no one wants anything but the best for him, but there is the good chance things won't work out just like we hope.

Phhhl
03-05-2008, 01:35 PM
Was it possible for Hamilton to be on a team without Jerry and/or Johnny Narron around? It doesn't matter how good he is if the answer to that is no.

pahster
03-05-2008, 01:44 PM
As was said in the article, Volquez wasn't even a candidate...a candidate...to make the Texas rotation.....TEXAS!


I'm pretty sure that was just hyperbole on the writer's part. If not, well... they're a bad organization for a reason.

PuffyPig
03-05-2008, 01:49 PM
It is already a bad trade.

As was said in the article, Volquez wasn't even a candidate...a candidate...to make the Texas rotation.....TEXAS!

I just hope this article puts Volquez and the "good young arms" discussion into a more proper light.

Actually that's not what was said. They said he wasn't a "serious contender", which actually means he was going to be a candidate.

And they are wrong.

Volquez would have been odds on favorite to make the Texas rotation.

WVRedsFan
03-05-2008, 01:56 PM
I'm really amazed at some of the comments here. Josh Hamilton was absolutely called the next big thing for the Reds by most everyone. We trade him away and he's an addict who may (though it's hinted that he will) relapse. He's injury prone and he's not all that. Amazing.

Truth is, the Reds didn't want to take a chance on Hamilton who they were certain would relapse into drug depandency or stay hurt all the time, but they will take a chance on a pitcher who not only not a candidate for the Rangers' rotation, but maybe wouldn't even make the club. The justification is he has great "potential." So, it's a good trade when you give up a guy who has proven he can do it all for an unknown.

Once again, amazing.

RedsManRick
03-05-2008, 02:05 PM
I'm really amazed at some of the comments here. Josh Hamilton was absolutely called the next big thing for the Reds by most everyone. We trade him away and he's an addict who may (though it's hinted that he will) relapse. He's injury prone and he's not all that. Amazing.

These aren't mutually exclusive and I don't think you'd find those sentiments made so explicitly by the same person. I don't know of anybody who thinks he's necessarily doomed to repeat his past and I don't know of anybody who thinks he's a sure thing MVP. There are chances of both.

Fact: He's an addict who may relapse
Fact: So far, he's looking like he may be injury prone
Fact: He has a world of talent and has the potential to be an MVP caliber player, even though he has gotten a late (re)start

It's not an either/or. It's just a question of valuation given those facts. So long as he was a Red, I was thrilled with fact #3, scared of fact #1, and cautious about fact #2. However, I agree that trading him was a good idea in so far as we were able to capitalize on his value by turning him in to one with lower risk, if lower reward and which more directly addressed an area of need.

I'm willing consider that the execution of the trade wasn't ideal, but the concept was solid and doesn't change my opinion of Hamilton at all.

red-in-la
03-05-2008, 02:06 PM
To be fair, the Dallas Morning News' version of Paul Daugherty is probably not where I'm going for talent evaluation.
I understand the gnashing of teeth over the trade.
He's a huge guy to give up, but they weren't going to win with him and no pitching, so even if we lose on talent, we may very well win out.

I know no one wants anything but the best for him, but there is the good chance things won't work out just like we hope.

Look, I would still trade Bruce, Hamilton and any other position player to get better in the starting pitcher department. But Volquez wasn't getting better.

Volquez was trading a stud for more of what the Reds already had a lot of.....while ignoring what they ain't got.

Dumb, bad trade.....period.

westofyou
03-05-2008, 02:12 PM
This trade is getting a Spring Training retelling in the Jack and the Beanstalk range... with Edison currently being nothing but a handful of beans.

But we all know the Reds didn't need a cow as much as something else... and that's where you have to wait to see if those beans grow or not.

That doesn't placate the instant gratification needs of the fan base, nor was it ever intended to address that need and intense want on a small deal by deal scale.

nate
03-05-2008, 02:15 PM
This trade is getting a Spring Training retelling in the Jack and the Beanstalk range... with Edison currently being nothing but a handful of beans.

But we all know the Reds didn't need a cow as much as something else... and that's where you have to wait to see if those beans grow or not.

That doesn't placate the instant gratification needs of the fan base, nor was it ever intended to address that need and intense want on a small deal by deal scale.

You ain't just whistlin' Dixie.

red-in-la
03-05-2008, 02:16 PM
These aren't mutually exclusive and I don't think you'd find those sentiments made so explicitly by the same person. I don't know of anybody who thinks he's necessarily doomed to repeat his past and I don't know of anybody who thinks he's a sure thing MVP. There are chances of both.

Fact: He's an addict who may relapse
Fact: So far, he's looking like he may be injury prone
Fact: He has a world of talent and has the potential to be an MVP caliber player, even though he has gotten a late (re)start

It's not an either/or. It's just a question of valuation given those facts. So long as he was a Red, I was thrilled with fact #3, scared of fact #1, and cautious about fact #2. However, I agree that trading him was a good idea in so far as we were able to capitalize on his value by turning him in to one with lower risk, if lower reward and which more directly addressed an area of need.

If Hamilton relapsed (which in this day and age is an awful thing to say about a person and not very PC) it cost the Reds nothing.

If he was hurt all the time, it cost them a lot less than the RF they have who is hurt all the time.

If he becomes an MVP player, the Reds lose HUGE....just HUGE!

If Volquez is the second coming of Hector Carrasco, the Reds lost.

If Volquez is Milt Pappas, the Reds may have broken even.

If Volquez is Tom Seaver, the Reds win big only if Hamilton is in rehab at the time.

You have to be very optimistic to see a win in this one.

WVRedsFan
03-05-2008, 02:16 PM
Look, I'll be the first to admit it's early, but the 1.2 innings I've seen Volquez weren't impressive--not Josh Hamilton impressive at least. Three outs and he allows 2 hits and three runs. Hamilton, otoh, is 7-11 with a double and triple and 4 RBI's.

If we had traded Josh for an established starting pitcher, not a stud, but just a guy who could start and had a track record, regardless of how good, I wouldn't be complaining so much. Instead, we traded Josh for a pitcher who has no track record at the MLB level. If that's all we could get for Josh at present, we needed to hold on him and trade when the time was right, but we didn't.

I tend to agree with RLA. Though it's early, it smells like a bad trade to me.

RedsManRick
03-05-2008, 02:22 PM
If Hamilton relapsed (which in this day and age is an awful thing to say about a person and not very PC) it cost the Reds nothing.

If he was hurt all the time, it cost them a lot less than the RF they have who is hurt all the time.

If he becomes an MVP player, the Reds lose HUGE....just HUGE!

If Volquez is the second coming of Hector Carrasco, the Reds lost.

If Volquez is Milt Pappas, the Reds may have broken even.

If Volquez is Tom Seaver, the Reds win big only if Hamilton is in rehab at the time.

You have to be very optimistic to see a win in this one.

And if Hamilton just turns out like Austin Kearns? A pretty good but not great player? You seem to be missing a whole lot of possibility between zero production and MVP.

pedro
03-05-2008, 02:25 PM
Yeah right, Volquez was so not a candidate for the Rangers rotation that they gave him six starts in september of last year. 6 Starts, I might add, that he did pretty well in.

Doesn't Hamilton at leats have to get through a full season healthy and prove he can hit LHP before some of you proclaim he's Mickey Mantle?

red-in-la
03-05-2008, 02:26 PM
And if Hamilton just turns out like Austin Kearns? A pretty good but not great player? You seem to be missing a whole lot of possibility between zero production and MVP.

So if that happens, the Reds win nothing unless Volquez does for the Reds what he has yet to show he can do.

dougdirt
03-05-2008, 02:31 PM
So if that happens, the Reds win nothing unless Volquez does for the Reds what he has yet to show he can do.

Which would be what? Volquez showed that he can get major leaguers out at an above average level last September. He showed in the minor leagues at AA and AAA last year that he can flat out dominate people.

What does he need to show that he has yet to show?

RedsManRick
03-05-2008, 02:33 PM
So if that happens, the Reds win nothing unless Volquez does for the Reds what he has yet to show he can do.

Precisely. We can debate the concept of the trade, but it's years too early to determine who won it. There's a wide range of possibilities for both guys and trying to speculate on which specfic path their respective careers will take is a waste of time and energy.

flyer85
03-05-2008, 02:48 PM
hyperbole ... especially when you consider player like IRod and JuanGone came up in their early 20's.

red-in-la
03-05-2008, 03:16 PM
Which would be what? Volquez showed that he can get major leaguers out at an above average level last September. He showed in the minor leagues at AA and AAA last year that he can flat out dominate people.

What does he need to show that he has yet to show?

He has Major League numbers and was traded away by an organization desparate for pitching.....uh, let me guess. :D

Following your argument, what is the wide world of sports does Hamilton have yet to show?

Jpup
03-05-2008, 03:21 PM
It is already a bad trade.

As was said in the article, Volquez wasn't even a candidate...a candidate...to make the Texas rotation.....TEXAS!

I just hope this article puts Volquez and the "good young arms" discussion into a more proper light.

I said that 2 guys ago and got scoffed at.

TRF
03-05-2008, 03:47 PM
He has Major League numbers and was traded away by an organization desparate for pitching.....uh, let me guess. :D

Following your argument, what is the wide world of sports does Hamilton have yet to show?

That he can hit LH pitching? cuz right now he doesn't seem to be able to.

That he can stay healthy? cuz right now he doesn't seem to be able to.

Is that enough?

dougdirt
03-05-2008, 03:52 PM
He has Major League numbers and was traded away by an organization desparate for pitching.....uh, let me guess. :D

Following your argument, what is the wide world of sports does Hamilton have yet to show?

Well just because the Rangers let him go doesn't mean there was something wrong with him. The Astros let go of Johan Santana, Aaron Harang was a throw in on a trade, the Mets let go of Kazmir for VICTOR ZAMBRANO.

As for Hamilton needing to prove....
That he can play a full season for the first time since he was in high school for starters.
That he can hit left handed pitching.
That he can continue to stay clean.

OldXOhio
03-05-2008, 03:56 PM
Look, I'll be the first to admit it's early,



I really think you should've just left it at that

Nugget
03-05-2008, 04:03 PM
I think Junior was on the field more than Hamilton was last year!!

OldXOhio
03-05-2008, 04:03 PM
To be fair, the Dallas Morning News' version of Paul Daugherty is probably not where I'm going for talent evaluation.



Some folks around here should head TX way and listen to Mr. Gallaway for a period of time before authenticating what he writes. You might say the concern over his opinion of Volquez would be diminished.

WVRedsFan
03-05-2008, 04:15 PM
I really think you should've just left it at that

But I didn't. Volquez looked better today, and if they start him in the bullpen, all the better. But, be honest. Would you rather have Ryan Freel (as it appears to be written in blood) in CF or Josh Hamilton? If Ryan drives in his usual 30 runs and scores his usual 65 (I'm guessing), how does that compare to a guy who drives in 80 and scores 70? How much pitching does it take to make up for that? In GABP?

Of course, I might be wrong and so could you.

REDREAD
03-05-2008, 04:24 PM
This trade is getting a Spring Training retelling in the Jack and the Beanstalk range... with Edison currently being nothing but a handful of beans.

But we all know the Reds didn't need a cow as much as something else... and that's where you have to wait to see if those beans grow or not.
.

Actually, the Reds did need the cow (Hamilton), because I really don't believe they are loaded with OF depth. Apparently Wayne agrees with me and that's why he signed Patterson and courted Lofton all winter.

Sure, we need pitching, but it's not as if Hamilton was a Wily Mo Pena that would get limited playing time anyhow.

I hope Volquez turns out to be good, because we paid an awful lot to get him, IMO, of course.

TRF
03-05-2008, 04:36 PM
Actually, the Reds did need the cow (Hamilton), because I really don't believe they are loaded with OF depth. Apparently Wayne agrees with me and that's why he signed Patterson and courted Lofton all winter.

Sure, we need pitching, but it's not as if Hamilton was a Wily Mo Pena that would get limited playing time anyhow.

I hope Volquez turns out to be good, because we paid an awful lot to get him, IMO, of course.

WMP would have gotten limited PT based on development alone. Had he stayed though, He likely could have become the starter in RF by about June though. Hamilton's PT is dependent on health. And his health at this point seems iffy.

WebScorpion
03-05-2008, 04:40 PM
I thought this was about Josh Hamilton? How did it become another rehashing of the debatable value of a trade?

I think last year was just scratching the surface of what Josh Hamilton is capable of. He was out of basebal for so long, what we were privileged to witness last season was only the use of his God-given talent. I think this year and in years to come we'll see what he can do with that talent and some newly applied dedication. I wish him all the luck in the world and I'm glad he's happy in Texas. :thumbup:

I still think Volquez will pitch better for us than Josh ever would have. ;)

Reds1
03-05-2008, 04:45 PM
They didn't talk too highly of Volquez. What do they know :)

Unassisted
03-05-2008, 04:48 PM
They didn't talk too highly of Volquez. What do they know :)Yeah, maybe Reds fans just need to do some escalation in the bragging rights war. I'll fire the first shot...

Volquez just may be the best pitcher the Reds have ever received in a trade... ever!

:D

red-in-la
03-05-2008, 04:56 PM
Well just because the Rangers let him go doesn't mean there was something wrong with him. The Astros let go of Johan Santana, Aaron Harang was a throw in on a trade, the Mets let go of Kazmir for VICTOR ZAMBRANO.

As for Hamilton needing to prove....







That he can play a full season for the first time since he was in high school for starters.



He has nothing more to prove than 100 other major leaguers. Health issues dog lots of very fine athletes. I'll take 400 AB's a year of what Hamilton did last year, when he hadn't ever played major league baseball before.





That he can hit left handed pitching.



Again, let Dunn and JR prove the same. I'll still take his numbers over 400 AB's. There are lots of LH hitters that don't exact thump LH pitchers. Hamilton is likely to improve as he learns pitchers at the major league level.




That he can continue to stay clean.

Spoken like a person who has never known an addict. Can you imagine what he already overcame to get this far? MLB doesn't seem as concerned as this board. I will point out what someone else said before, when Hamilton was a Red, that wasn't on a list of anybody's concerns....now that you want to try to justify a really bad trade, you paint Josh as if he just walked out of his first rehab.

BRM
03-05-2008, 05:09 PM
Again, let Dunn and JR prove the same.


They already have. Dunn has a career OPS of .842 vs LHP. Junior's is .858.

VR
03-05-2008, 05:10 PM
I'm just still awed by the player I saw in person. In over 30 years of watching baseball (sheesh I'm getting old), I have never seen a player with the overall talent/ potential that Hamilton has.

BRM
03-05-2008, 05:18 PM
C. Trent on Josh Hamilton.


Nobody down here thinks about the absence of Josh Hamilton until we hear about some column from Texas from someone reading in Cincinnati. Those guys all dismiss Edinson Volquez, while those of us seeing Volquez aren't questioning the trade one bit. I think all of us here wish Hamilton the best in his career and would love to see him become a Hall of Famer or whatever. However, we've also seen that he is injury prone and has missed several games in Texas so far, as well. That's why I understand what the Reds did. If you look at Hamilton's injury history, it's long and it's not just after the drug abuse, it was before, as well.

reds44
03-05-2008, 05:18 PM
This subject just will not die. It's really not hard to understand why the Reds did the trade. If you agree with that reason or not, is all up to you. We'll see how it plays out on the field.

FYI, here is Trent's thoughts on the matter.



Doing the radio interviews daily, it only seems to stress to me some of the difference between those in Cincinnati and those of us down here in Florida.

Nobody down here thinks about the absence of Josh Hamilton until we hear about some column from Texas from someone reading in Cincinnati. Those guys all dismiss Edinson Volquez, while those of us seeing Volquez aren't questioning the trade one bit. I think all of us here wish Hamilton the best in his career and would love to see him become a Hall of Famer or whatever. However, we've also seen that he is injury prone and has missed several games in Texas so far, as well. That's why I understand what the Reds did. If you look at Hamilton's injury history, it's long and it's not just after the drug abuse, it was before, as well.

dougdirt
03-05-2008, 05:38 PM
He has nothing more to prove than 100 other major leaguers. Health issues dog lots of very fine athletes. I'll take 400 AB's a year of what Hamilton did last year, when he hadn't ever played major league baseball before.
Hamilton didn't get 300 AB's last year, so its still a big question mark.



Again, let Dunn and JR prove the same. I'll still take his numbers over 400 AB's. There are lots of LH hitters that don't exact thump LH pitchers. Hamilton is likely to improve as he learns pitchers at the major league level.
Ken Griffey Jr has a career .858 OPS against left handed pitchers. Adam Dunn has a career .842 OPS against left handed pitchers. Both are less than their numbers against right handers, but both alone would still make them above average hitters for their positions.



Spoken like a person who has never known an addict. Can you imagine what he already overcame to get this far? MLB doesn't seem as concerned as this board. I will point out what someone else said before, when Hamilton was a Red, that wasn't on a list of anybody's concerns....now that you want to try to justify a really bad trade, you paint Josh as if he just walked out of his first rehab.
I think you are picking the wrong person to make this comment with. I had an uncle that was an addict die of a drug overdose. My best friend since I was 11 has a sister that is a current crack addict, who has been up and down the road of recovery for the better part of the last two-three years who I am around almost every day.
So yeah, I know exactly what he has overcome so far, but I also know exactly how easy it is to slip right back into that lifestyle, and so does Josh. Its why he needs a babysitter. Its why he doesn't have cash on him at any moment in time.
And no, I had plenty of concerns for his drug issues when he was a Red. It has nothing to do with me attempting to justify some trade, it has everything to do with reality. I have seen people go back with my own eyes, people that I love and care about. I know now and I knew then the problems with real drug addiction. You will not find a post from me talking about his past drug history not being a problem.

TRF
03-05-2008, 05:54 PM
I'll just ditto doug on this one. For me it was my sister and mother that were/are addicts. Most of my friends as a kid between ages 12-15 were on drugs, I was a Lower Price Hill kid. Sorry, but we do know from whence we speak.

red-in-la
03-05-2008, 06:07 PM
Hamilton didn't get 300 AB's last year, so its still a big question mark.


Ken Griffey Jr has a career .858 OPS against left handed pitchers. Adam Dunn has a career .842 OPS against left handed pitchers. Both are less than their numbers against right handers, but both alone would still make them above average hitters for their positions.


I think you are picking the wrong person to make this comment with. I had an uncle that was an addict die of a drug overdose. My best friend since I was 11 has a sister that is a current crack addict, who has been up and down the road of recovery for the better part of the last two-three years who I am around almost every day.
So yeah, I know exactly what he has overcome so far, but I also know exactly how easy it is to slip right back into that lifestyle, and so does Josh. Its why he needs a babysitter. Its why he doesn't have cash on him at any moment in time.
And no, I had plenty of concerns for his drug issues when he was a Red. It has nothing to do with me attempting to justify some trade, it has everything to do with reality. I have seen people go back with my own eyes, people that I love and care about. I know now and I knew then the problems with real drug addiction. You will not find a post from me talking about his past drug history not being a problem.

I don't think you can just choose OPS.....yet another time when stats do not tell the story.....I can reel off plenty of stats showing that Dunn and JR are not choice hitters against LH pitchers.....just saying that Hamilton is a very good, existing major league player right now.

As to the AB's, are you saying that Hamilton is not capable of getting 400 major league AB's in a year? I don't see how you can predict that. I would take his production over that span anyday over ANYTHING I have seen of Volquez so far. This is just dumb to keep going over this. Volquez has AWFUL major league numbers......not just OK, but they stink!

Sorry about you experiences with druggies. My brother-in-law went the same way at 27 years old.....He went over and over through the rehab deal and never beat it....it killed him.

But that was what I was trying to say. Usually, addicts who are going to fall back, don't make it as far as Hamilton has already.

cincrazy
03-05-2008, 06:37 PM
Look, I would still trade Bruce, Hamilton and any other position player to get better in the starting pitcher department. But Volquez wasn't getting better.

Volquez was trading a stud for more of what the Reds already had a lot of.....while ignoring what they ain't got.

Dumb, bad trade.....period.

You're letting your opinion of Josh Hamilton skewer your opinion of Volquez. To say Volquez is just some average crap arm is a ridiculous statement. Have you seen him pitch in person? Have you been a Rangers coach for the past several years, watching this kid day in and day out?

I understand your support for Hamilton. I can understand your frustration in seeing him go. But i can't understand your vile towards Volquez, it borders on the absurd at times.

dougdirt
03-05-2008, 06:38 PM
I don't think you can just choose OPS.....yet another time when stats do not tell the story.....I can reel off plenty of stats showing that Dunn and JR are not choice hitters against LH pitchers.....just saying that Hamilton is a very good, existing major league player right now.
Josh has never hit lefties. Not in the minors. Not in the majors. Griffey and Dunn both have shown that they are close enough hitters against a pitcher no matter what arm they throw with. Hamilton doesn't hit for average against them. He doesn't get on base against them. He doesn't hit for power against them. Not sure what else these is.



As to the AB's, are you saying that Hamilton is not capable of getting 400 major league AB's in a year? I don't see how you can predict that.
Well, he is a guy with a huge track record of not playing a full season and a long track record of being downright awful against left handed pitching. Combine the two and its not that outrageous to think he might struggle to get 400 AB's consistently.


I would take his production over that span anyday over ANYTHING I have seen of Volquez so far. This is just dumb to keep going over this. Volquez has AWFUL major league numbers......not just OK, but they stink!
His numbers last year weren't bad. What he did prior to that should mean nothing. I also doubt you have seen Volquez throw more than 20 pitches in your life, so what you would take of someone over what you have seen of Volquez doesn't mean a whole lot.

Raisor
03-05-2008, 06:44 PM
I don't think you can just choose OPS.....yet another time when stats do not tell the story.....I can reel off plenty of stats showing that Dunn and JR are not choice hitters against LH pitchers......

so why didn't you?

Let's see those stats you want to use.

cincrazy
03-05-2008, 06:47 PM
I don't think you can just choose OPS.....yet another time when stats do not tell the story.....I can reel off plenty of stats showing that Dunn and JR are not choice hitters against LH pitchers.....just saying that Hamilton is a very good, existing major league player right now.

As to the AB's, are you saying that Hamilton is not capable of getting 400 major league AB's in a year? I don't see how you can predict that. I would take his production over that span anyday over ANYTHING I have seen of Volquez so far. This is just dumb to keep going over this. Volquez has AWFUL major league numbers......not just OK, but they stink!

Sorry about you experiences with druggies. My brother-in-law went the same way at 27 years old.....He went over and over through the rehab deal and never beat it....it killed him.

But that was what I was trying to say. Usually, addicts who are going to fall back, don't make it as far as Hamilton has already.

You can't judge Volquez on 80 innings in the big leagues. Lets use Greg Maddux for example. Over his first two years in the league, he pitched over 180 innings. He allowed over 220 hits, 131 runs, an earned run average near 5.60 and a whip over 1.7.

Pretty Haynesesque, numbers, no? Pitchers are going to get beat up early. The great one's learn from it and get better. There's no reason Volquez can't fall into that category at some point. I'm not predicting he'll have a Maddux like career, that'd be insane, but he can still be a very, very good pitcher in this league.

Ltlabner
03-05-2008, 06:48 PM
He's injury prone and he's not all that.

So the 3 trips to the DL last year, and the several days off in spring training due to "soreness" are what?

redsmetz
03-05-2008, 06:50 PM
If Hamilton relapsed (which in this day and age is an awful thing to say about a person and not very PC) it cost the Reds nothing.

If he was hurt all the time, it cost them a lot less than the RF they have who is hurt all the time.

If he becomes an MVP player, the Reds lose HUGE....just HUGE!

If Volquez is the second coming of Hector Carrasco, the Reds lost.

If Volquez is Milt Pappas, the Reds may have broken even.

If Volquez is Tom Seaver, the Reds win big only if Hamilton is in rehab at the time.

You have to be very optimistic to see a win in this one.

What an incredible world of absolutes you choose to occupy. Life is rarely so black and white, even laying out so many different scenarios. I think I'll agree with WOY that time will tell if this was a good trade for everybody.

In the mean time, I wish Josh Hamilton nothing but the best and to stay out of trouble and ask Edson Volquez to give us his best.

I'm liking how our team is shaping up. Lets get training over with and play some real games!

Ltlabner
03-05-2008, 06:50 PM
If he becomes an MVP player, the Reds lose HUGE....just HUGE!

Well sure they do...because a bunch of home runs and RBI's is what has been standing between this team and sucess the past 8 years.

Always Red
03-05-2008, 06:54 PM
If Volquez is Milt Pappas, the Reds may have broken even.



If Volquez is Milt Pappas, the Reds lose only if Josh Hamilton turns into Frank Robinson, and time is wastin' for that to happen.

http://www.baseball-reference.com/p/pappami01.shtml

Milt Pappas pitched for 17 years, started 465 games, had a record of 209-164, an ERA of 3.40, and a career WHIP of 1.22.

Milt Pappas was a hell of a pitcher. His only problem in Reds lore is that he was dealt for a legend who had some of his best years ahead of him.

C Trent has it right. So does woy. This team needs pitching. If KGJ were not in RF, and Jay Bruce not waiting in the wings, Hammy is most likely still here. Hammy is a fragile guy, in many ways. Volquez may not pan out. I wish Josh Hamilton nothing but success, and hope, like Frank Robinson 40-some years ago, that he wins the Triple Crown in the AL.

Ltlabner
03-05-2008, 06:55 PM
now that you want to try to justify a really bad trade, you paint Josh as if he just walked out of his first rehab.

Actually, as been pointed out to you several times now, a number of people have commented on his shakey sobriety through out 2007.

And before you experts pounce, I say shakey because 1 year of sobriety in the face of what...5 year of hard core abuse (coupled with years of recreational use I'm guessing) doesn't suddenly make you rock solid. Talk to me when he's been clean for 10 or 15 years and then you can say his sobriety is in a good place.

Ltlabner
03-05-2008, 06:58 PM
But that was what I was trying to say. Usually, addicts who are going to fall back, don't make it as far as Hamilton has already.

Popycock.

Plenty of addicts achieve total sobriety for years only to fall apart somewhere down the road.

fearofpopvol1
03-05-2008, 07:24 PM
He has nothing more to prove than 100 other major leaguers. Health issues dog lots of very fine athletes. I'll take 400 AB's a year of what Hamilton did last year, when he hadn't ever played major league baseball before.


He didn't hit 400 ABs last year and he's a big question mark to hit 400ABs this year. Until he successfully reaches that threshold, the argument doesn't have any real merit.

VR
03-05-2008, 07:28 PM
He didn't hit 400 ABs last year and he's a big question mark to hit 400ABs this year. Until he successfully reaches that threshold, the argument doesn't have any real merit.

That's good, cause I was starting to think his 70 ab's against lefties was a solid case for not being able to hit them.

fearofpopvol1
03-05-2008, 07:34 PM
That's good, cause I was starting to think his 70 ab's against lefties was a solid case for not being able to hit them.

He may be able to hit lefties, that wasn't part of my argument. My big qualm with him (even more than the potential of a relapse) is his durability and until he proves he can remain healthy for a season, he's still a question mark.

red-in-la
03-05-2008, 08:11 PM
Popycock.

Plenty of addicts achieve total sobriety for years only to fall apart somewhere down the road.

While I am looking up popycock, why don't you go look up USUALLY.

IslandRed
03-05-2008, 08:12 PM
As for me, I don't really see any big shift in attitude towards Hamilton. While he was with the Reds, the amazing talent and wonderful story were the things to talk about. But the other things were always there lurking in the background, and we talked about them when the discussion turned from the present to the future. Because it's the future where the debate really lies, because the question that had to be answered was this -- could Josh Hamilton be counted on for the future? Were they confident enough in his health and his... health... to make him a centerpiece, to plan future personnel moves around his presence? Could they have traded a Jay Bruce or let an Adam Dunn walk because his spot was assumed to be rock-solid? When we talked about the future outfield, Hamilton's spot came with a virtual asterisk. I'm pretty sure there's a post out there where I advocated using Dunn's money for pitching in 2009+ because Hamilton and Bruce could play the corners, but that doesn't mean I wasn't concerned at all.

The Reds had a front-row seat to all his God-given ability; they also had an everyday look at everything that came with it. When push came to shove, it appears they just didn't feel they could count on him as a cornerstone, and took the opportunity to trade him for a pitcher they really liked, needing pitchers and all. It is quite possible history will conclude they overplayed the risks. But they're the ones who got the close-up look. Maybe they were wrong but I have nowhere near enough information to second-guess it.

My guess is, if he stays clean, he has a similar career to J.D. Drew (someone beat me to the comparison earlier in one of these threads) -- amazing natural ability to play baseball, but undermined by a body that got several of its parts from the factory-seconds bin.

pedro
03-05-2008, 08:20 PM
That's good, cause I was starting to think his 70 ab's against lefties was a solid case for not being able to hit them.

well his .588 OPS against LHP sure isn't a solid case that he can.

red-in-la
03-05-2008, 08:31 PM
He didn't hit 400 ABs last year and he's a big question mark to hit 400ABs this year. Until he successfully reaches that threshold, the argument doesn't have any real merit.

His manager didn't play him regularly until later on last year. His health would have allowed for 400 AB's.

This is really tiresome.....a few on this board tearing down a guy after one of the most heroic examples (you are going to see) of overcoming one of the worst problems a young person can try to live through in our upside-down society.

I just find it uncontionable to use his addition against him at this point.

OK, maybe he cannot hit LH pitchers....have that opinion if you want, but we have no right whatsoever to project assumtpions about what the guy is going through or his prognosis.

VR
03-05-2008, 08:34 PM
well his .588 OPS against LHP sure isn't a solid case that he can.

No doubting that Pedro. After 5 years away from the bigs and never playing at that level....I'd hold off judgement of what he can't do for a few hundred ab's. Great players adjust, that's what makes them great. If he adapts, he becomes a true 5 tool player.

If not, he'll have a very good career, potential injuries and relapses aside.

I dont' think anyone is going to be proven right or wrong on this for a long time....unless Hamilton or Volquez fall apart dramatically for each of their particular reasons....until then, well, we can all spat back and forth. /shrug

pedro
03-05-2008, 08:38 PM
No doubting that Pedro. After 5 years away from the bigs and never playing at that level....I'd hold off judgement of what he can't do for a few hundred ab's. Great players adjust, that's what makes them great. If he adapts, he becomes a true 5 tool player.

If not, he'll have a very good career, potential injuries and relapses aside.

I dont' think anyone is going to be proven right or wrong on this for a long time....unless Hamilton or Volquez fall apart dramatically for each of their particular reasons....until then, well, we can all spat back and forth. /shrug

I'm just challenging those who seem to have already cast Hamilton's plaque for cooperstown without accepting that there is a big risk he won't ever be anything more than an injury prone platoon player. And that's without even taking his past drug problems, which he hopefully has overcome, into account.

VR
03-05-2008, 08:42 PM
I'm just challenging those who seem to have already cast Hamilton's plaque for cooperstown without accepting that there is a big risk he won't ever be anything more than an injury prone platoon player. And that's without even taking his past drug problems, which he hopefully has overcome, into account.

Agreed.

I just see his ridiculous ceiling, that, if Volquez flames....will make it look like Hamilton was the goose that lays the golden eggs, acquired by the Reds for a few magic beans....then traded for more magic beans after enjoying golden eggs for a year.

There's a reason I don't write children's books, as you can see.

pedro
03-05-2008, 08:43 PM
While I am looking up popycock, why don't you go look up USUALLY.

USUALLY, someone of your advanced age knows what POPPYCOCK means.

GAC
03-05-2008, 08:43 PM
It is already a bad trade.

As was said in the article, Volquez wasn't even a candidate...a candidate...to make the Texas rotation.....TEXAS!

It was also a Texas news publication. And looking at the rotations Texas has assembled over the last several years, they should be considered a sound and accurate source of evaluating pitchers? ;)


I just hope this article puts Volquez and the "good young arms" discussion into a more proper light.

No one has said that Volquez is going to be the next Pedro Martinez. Only that he is a talented, young "near ready" prospect.

Both teams took risks IMO. I wish Josh all the success in the world; but that article really builds this kid up when, at age 26 when one isn't really considered a prospect, there are still "ifs" concerning this kid.

We, like a majority of teams in MLB, needed pitching.

It simply amazes me how so many Red fans realize this, yet.....

We, like most teams, weren't going to be able to afford what was even available in the FA market. The pickins' were thin.

We screamed bloody murder during the off-season that we had better not trade ANY of our top prospects for it.

And we're still griping about trading a guy who was a rule 5 draftee a year earlier and has been out of baseball for the last several years due to personal problems.

I guess they expected WK to bend over and pull one out of his (you know what). And they'd probably still complain because it wasn't a southpaw! :lol:

With me, it's just not an issue of whether Josh can stay clean and sober, or that he has a huge upside. WE NEEDED PITCHING. And we took a "trading chip" that was available, and which another team had an interest, while possessing something we needed in return, and took a shot.

RedFanAlways1966
03-05-2008, 08:44 PM
Outfielders... a dime a dozen. Pitchers... good ones are not a dime a dozen. Amazing that REDS loyalists are not willing to take chances with an outfielder (not named Dunn) for a pitcher. Pitching needed in Cincinnati? I understand the "feel good story" and was totally into it myself. But I also feel good that the story helped bring a young arm that might pan out.

Non-Harang & Non-Arroyo starts (2006 & 2007)
* 186 starts, 1018.1 IP, 1204 H, 323 BB, 631 K.
>> 5.59 ERA, 1.50 WHIP.

Will Volquez make those stats better? I don't know, but I am willing to take a chance on it while losing Josh. I have suffered through too many of those non-Harang & non-Arroyo starts to not take that chance. I like the feel good thing that Josh brought in 2007, but winning in the future with decent pitching might also make this REDS fan feel good.

red-in-la
03-05-2008, 08:56 PM
USUALLY, someone of your advanced age knows what POPPYCOCK means.

:D :bash:

pedro
03-05-2008, 08:59 PM
:D :bash:

sorry. couldn't help it. I was just going for the 10 point word score.

traderumor
03-05-2008, 09:25 PM
When does he stop being a prospect? He's 26 years old.

And I think Narron is just reflecting the mantra of recovery. No one is ever over an addiction.Bologna. Two packs of cigs a day, haven't smoked in over 15 years, and do not even consider it. People overcome addictions all the time...for life.

Falls City Beer
03-05-2008, 09:27 PM
Bologna. Two packs of cigs a day, haven't smoked in over 15 years, and do not even consider it. People overcome addictions all the time...for life.

Seven years a non-smoker myself.

But I think it's fair to say that there's a bit of a lifestyle difference between cigarette smoking and heroin abuse.

gonelong
03-05-2008, 09:35 PM
I will point out what someone else said before, when Hamilton was a Red, that wasn't on a list of anybody's concerns....



Spoken like a person who has never known an addict. Can you imagine what he already overcame to get this far? MLB doesn't seem as concerned as this board. I will point out what someone else said before, when Hamilton was a Red, that wasn't on a list of anybody's concerns....

There are few (if any) conversations about Josh Hamilton on this board that did not include a comment about a relapse or a hope that he can stay clean.

A search of "Hamilton relapse" turns up 33 posts, many with Hamilton in the headline. A browse of a handful of those posts turns up these:

http://www.redszone.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1511658&postcount=19
http://www.redszone.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1277104&postcount=45
http://www.redszone.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1263691&postcount=6
http://www.redszone.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1310983&postcount=38
http://www.redszone.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1396666&postcount=12
http://www.redszone.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1396092&postcount=7
http://www.redszone.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1243265&postcount=74
http://www.redszone.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1243268&postcount=76

I know many others have expressed the same concerns which can be easily found via the sites search tool.

GL

gonelong
03-05-2008, 09:38 PM
Bologna. Two packs of cigs a day, haven't smoked in over 15 years, and do not even consider it. People overcome addictions all the time...for life.

Kicked a two-pack a day habit I picked up in college myself.

I also know people that haven't smoked in 20 years that pick it right back up. One of my good friends kicked his smoking habit for nearly 4 years. The last time I saw him he was buying cigs. :(

You can't be sure you have anything kicked for life until your dead.

GL

traderumor
03-05-2008, 10:06 PM
Kicked a two-pack a day habit I picked up in college myself.

I also know people that haven't smoked in 20 years that pick it right back up. One of my good friends kicked his smoking habit for nearly 4 years. The last time I saw him he was buying cigs. :(

You can't be sure you have anything kicked for life until your dead.

GLEven so, that doesn't mean they have a disposition to that addiction. They are choosing the action, esp. after that length of time. Folks cry out "free will, free will" but then want to dismiss it with addiction. Then, suddenly, it isn't a choice, but an involuntary action they have no control over.

fearofpopvol1
03-05-2008, 10:37 PM
His manager didn't play him regularly until later on last year. His health would have allowed for 400 AB's.

This is really tiresome.....a few on this board tearing down a guy after one of the most heroic examples (you are going to see) of overcoming one of the worst problems a young person can try to live through in our upside-down society.

I just find it uncontionable to use his addition against him at this point.

OK, maybe he cannot hit LH pitchers....have that opinion if you want, but we have no right whatsoever to project assumtpions about what the guy is going through or his prognosis.

A lot of the manager not playing him had to do with nagging injuries and durability questions. There's no guarantees he would've hit 400 ABs. It's possible, but it still was a question mark and if he played through some of those nagging injuries, they may have gotten worse further negating this argument.

It's completely fair to project assumptions about a guy with a troubled past when it pertains to making baseball decisions. That is exactly what the Reds did when they traded Hamilton and I think it was a smart idea.

Roy Tucker
03-05-2008, 11:01 PM
I think if Jay Bruce hadn't been in the pipeline, this trade may not have been made.

KoryMac5
03-05-2008, 11:11 PM
Seven years a non-smoker myself.

But I think it's fair to say that there's a bit of a lifestyle difference between cigarette smoking and heroin abuse.

Falls City is right about this, as someone who has worked with hardcore addicts in the past once they cross that line from recreational use to shooting heroin daily there is no return. It is almost like the brain is rewired by the drug in a process called neuroadaptation. The brain cells begin to reshape themselves, dopamine levels are increased and the high intensifies. After a period of time the effects of the drug limits the production of dopamine meaning the user continues to look for that high that they once experienced. It is a viscous cycle that ruins lives, careers, and marriages. All they care about is the next fix, and even after treatment that feeling never goes away.

Spitball
03-05-2008, 11:11 PM
It is already a bad trade.

As was said in the article, Volquez wasn't even a candidate...a candidate...to make the Texas rotation.....TEXAS!

I just hope this article puts Volquez and the "good young arms" discussion into a more proper light.

Volquez wasn't even a candidate??? Actually, this puts the whole article in a "more proper light." Volquez had absolutely been projected as a starter in the Rangers' rotation. Hamilton has great potential, but this article is just a fluffy promo for the casual Ranger fan.

traderumor
03-05-2008, 11:26 PM
Falls City is right about this, as someone who has worked with hardcore addicts in the past once they cross that line from recreational use to shooting heroin daily there is no return. It is almost like the brain is rewired by the drug in a process called neuroadaptation. The brain cells begin to reshape themselves, dopamine levels are increased and the high intensifies. After a period of time the effects of the drug limits the production of dopamine meaning the user continues to look for that high that they once experienced. It is a viscous cycle that ruins lives, careers, and marriages. All they care about is the next fix, and even after treatment that feeling never goes away.Yes, sure there is a difference, but the post I responded to said addiction is for life, without qualification. And heroin, crack, crystal meth, and all form of addicts do get clean, stay clean, and die clean. One can tell these folks that they are lifetime addicts, and they can believe it, tell us all about the psychological and physiological cravings, but it is still going to be very hard to prove scientifically that this is indeed involuntary behavior. It is crazy the way no one wants to believe in such fatalism in the human race except with the subject of addiction.

westofyou
03-06-2008, 12:04 AM
Seven years a non-smoker myself.

But I think it's fair to say that there's a bit of a lifestyle difference between cigarette smoking and heroin abuse.

20 years myself... but want is a heavy foe in the world of opiates.

IslandRed
03-06-2008, 12:04 AM
Yes, sure there is a difference, but the post I responded to said addiction is for life, without qualification. And heroin, crack, crystal meth, and all form of addicts do get clean, stay clean, and die clean. One can tell these folks that they are lifetime addicts, and they can believe it, tell us all about the psychological and physiological cravings, but it is still going to be very hard to prove scientifically that this is indeed involuntary behavior. It is crazy the way no one wants to believe in such fatalism in the human race except with the subject of addiction.

It's not about "involuntary." I don't believe there's any addict that can't beat addiction. Many do. I sure hope Hamilton does. But that doesn't mean there's no degree of difficulty involved, and some people are messed up to the point where the odds are very long.

Where Hamilton is concerned, nothing he or anyone else has said indicates he's on the easy track. The very fact the Rangers felt compelled to hire the Narrons shows that no one believes it's wise to let the guard down yet. Paradoxically, that makes it more likely he'll stay clean, and hallelujah if he does.

But the specific question at hand isn't about whether someone can beat an addiction; it's about how sure a third party can be that it's licked for good. The Reds weren't just in the position of rooting for Hamilton's continued sobriety; they had to decide how much to stake on it. Not a call I would have wanted to make.

KoryMac5
03-06-2008, 01:20 AM
It's not about "involuntary." I don't believe there's any addict that can't beat addiction. Many do. I sure hope Hamilton does. But that doesn't mean there's no degree of difficulty involved, and some people are messed up to the point where the odds are very long.

Where Hamilton is concerned, nothing he or anyone else has said indicates he's on the easy track. The very fact the Rangers felt compelled to hire the Narrons shows that no one believes it's wise to let the guard down yet. Paradoxically, that makes it more likely he'll stay clean, and hallelujah if he does.

But the specific question at hand isn't about whether someone can beat an addiction; it's about how sure a third party can be that it's licked for good. The Reds weren't just in the position of rooting for Hamilton's continued sobriety; they had to decide how much to stake on it. Not a call I would have wanted to make.

I think these are valid points. However, most of the addicts who can't beat addiction wind up dead or on the streets. A majority of the ones who do beat it have done so with years of treatment that involve many different skills that allow addicts to cope with their cravings. Recovery involves years of consistent healthy practices. Having a personal coach (sponsor) in Narron shows that the Reds and the Rangers aren't sold on Hamilton's ability to stay clean. I also feel that Brantley was correct on the Hot Stove League tonight when he stated that Josh's body is closer to 35 than 27, the wear and tear of addiction will age you. If I had my choice I would have loved Josh in a Reds uniform this year. I hope that Josh stays clean and his days of relapsing are behind him. It will be an uphill battle but I am sure with the supports he has in place it is a battle he can eventually win

klw
03-06-2008, 06:12 AM
Doesn't the author remember David Clyde?

traderumor
03-06-2008, 06:49 AM
I think these are valid points. However, most of the addicts who can't beat addiction wind up dead or on the streets. A majority of the ones who do beat it have done so with years of treatment that involve many different skills that allow addicts to cope with their cravings. Recovery involves years of consistent healthy practices. Having a personal coach (sponsor) in Narron shows that the Reds and the Rangers aren't sold on Hamilton's ability to stay clean. I also feel that Brantley was correct on the Hot Stove League tonight when he stated that Josh's body is closer to 35 than 27, the wear and tear of addiction will age you. If I had my choice I would have loved Josh in a Reds uniform this year. I hope that Josh stays clean and his days of relapsing are behind him. It will be an uphill battle but I am sure with the supports he has in place it is a battle he can eventually winMy contention is against the absolute nature of views on addiction spouted so freely as if its a big "well, of course." I agree with the hedge the Reds made, I just do not like to see folks telling people who are making decisions to change that "well, you know this is a lifelong battle." It is one thing to be cautious and realistic, it is another to tell someone an addiction is akin to unchangeable physical attributes.

OldXOhio
03-06-2008, 08:15 AM
But I didn't. Volquez looked better today, and if they start him in the bullpen, all the better. But, be honest. Would you rather have Ryan Freel (as it appears to be written in blood) in CF or Josh Hamilton? If Ryan drives in his usual 30 runs and scores his usual 65 (I'm guessing), how does that compare to a guy who drives in 80 and scores 70? How much pitching does it take to make up for that? In GABP?

Of course, I might be wrong and so could you.

True - and by no means am I saying I wouldn't still like to have JH in CF. My point was it's early March of the trade's first season so let's give it a little time before we proclaim it to be a disaster.

Roy Tucker
03-06-2008, 08:34 AM
I find the whole discussion of we win the trade if Hamilton falls back into addiction a little disquieting. We're not talking success or failure based on skill level, we're talking about someone's life.

REDREAD
03-06-2008, 10:10 AM
WMP would have gotten limited PT based on development alone. Had he stayed though, He likely could have become the starter in RF by about June though. Hamilton's PT is dependent on health. And his health at this point seems iffy.

But Wayne seemed to correctly evaluate Wily Mo for what he is.. a guy that just wasn't going to put it together anytime soon.
I hope Wily Mo finds himself in Washington, but the Reds held on to Wily Mo too long in my opinion. A team like Washington can run him out there for an entire year and hope something clicks (as opposed to the Reds that were using him as a 4th/5th OF).

I think Hamilton's health worries are overblown, but maybe I'm wrong.. In any event, it's kind of pointless to argue over the health risk, as it can't be quantified.

REDREAD
03-06-2008, 10:20 AM
So the 3 trips to the DL last year, and the several days off in spring training due to "soreness" are what?


By the same criteria, isn't Homer injury prone?
I read through a roto news site, and it seems that Homer was on the Major and Minor league DL three times as well.

Isn't Gonzo injury prone?

Hamilton might be injury prone. He probably wasn't in the best of shape last year, as he had other stuff going on his life the past 3-4 years and was getting back into playing shape. Maybe it's permanent.. It's hard to say.. Sure, it's a risk, but that alone isn't worth trading him.

The only reason to make this trade is if you very confident Volquez is going to be an above average starting pitcher. Any other reason is foolhardy. I hope Wayne was right. We'll see.

REDREAD
03-06-2008, 10:26 AM
Outfielders... a dime a dozen. Pitchers... good ones are not a dime a dozen. .

IMO, neither are a dime a dozen. Reds fans have been blessed to have three quality starting OF most of the time in recent history.

Other teams aren't so lucky. In fact, next year, if Jr is gone, we may find out how difficult it is to get a quality OF.

dfs
03-06-2008, 10:43 AM
Doesn't the author remember David Clyde?
Quite possibly the answer to that question is no.

I know that seems inexcusable, but Clyde last pitched in 79. I'm sure there is a whole generation of ballplayers who don't know the story. It's not a stretch to go from ballplayers who don't know the story to beat writers. Just for contrast, I doubt C. Trent could tell you many stories about the 79 reds.

nate
03-06-2008, 11:21 AM
By the same criteria, isn't Homer injury prone?
I read through a roto news site, and it seems that Homer was on the Major and Minor league DL three times as well.

I don't think that's correct. There's another thread going on talking about Homer and how he never actually saw the Major league DL last year.


The only reason to make this trade is if you very confident Volquez is going to be an above average starting pitcher. Any other reason is foolhardy. I hope Wayne was right. We'll see.

I think the reason you make any trade is to shore up a team or organizational weakness. It doesn't really matter how good the players involved end up being as long as they provide improvement that causes the team to win more games.

princeton
03-06-2008, 11:26 AM
I think the reason you make any trade is to shore up a team or organizational weakness. It doesn't really matter how good the players involved end up being as long as they provide improvement that causes the team to win more games.

certainly this is the approach that Krivsky has taken.

some would argue that if you trade all of the talent away to fill all of the holes, you're left with nothing to trade later (when you'll have even more holes to fill)

Wayne is trusting the farm system to continue to provide new talent, and for existing players to develop the talent that they have.

TRF
03-06-2008, 11:27 AM
I think Hamilton's health worries are overblown, but maybe I'm wrong.. In any event, it's kind of pointless to argue over the health risk, as it can't be quantified.

Of course it can. Even taking the addiction out of the equation, the car accident damaged his back. Since he first stepped on to the field as a Red he had a number of different issues, some freak, and some that lead you to believe he may be injury prone. His legs, more than once failed him. His wrist. A bout with Gastroenteritis. I think he even had pneumonia, but I could be wrong on that one. Now factor in what the abuse did. His immune system is likely weakened. He'll take longer to heal than other players, and it will be harder to fight off infections.

IF Hamilton stays clean, and if by doing so his body over time heals itself, he'll still never be the player he COULD have been. That thought is depressing but likely true.

dougdirt
03-06-2008, 11:46 AM
By the same criteria, isn't Homer injury prone?
I read through a roto news site, and it seems that Homer was on the Major and Minor league DL three times as well.


Homer spent two trips on the dl last year. One of which was 7 days long. The other time was much longer.

However a season of injuries isn't really what, at least I am talking about when saying he has an injury history. The last time Josh Hamilton played a full season was his senior season in high school. Even with the missed time for the drugs, that is 4 seasons he couldn't make it through.

redsrule2500
03-06-2008, 12:25 PM
I have a feeling this will be THE Krivsky trade...and not in a good way. I easily see Hamilton on the allstar team, a fan favorite....and volquez struggling his way down to AAA.

WVRedsFan
03-06-2008, 01:06 PM
I have a feeling this will be THE Krivsky trade...and not in a good way. I easily see Hamilton on the allstar team, a fan favorite....and volquez struggling his way down to AAA.

It appears two or three of us agree and we're in the minority. But...I pray that I'm wrong and that everything works out for the Reds. I just think we didn't get enough for Josh. And I'll leave it at that.

As for another angle (one I hadn't thought of until this afternoon), maybe they wanted a clean break with the Narron family? Maybe Johnny had to be there for Josh and with Jerry getting fired it was an uncomfortable situation?

Nah.

KoryMac5
03-06-2008, 01:32 PM
I have a feeling this will be THE Krivsky trade...and not in a good way. I easily see Hamilton on the allstar team, a fan favorite....and volquez struggling his way down to AAA.

Short term you may be right, but in the long term I'd rather have Volquez. I do see him in the pen to start the year, that fastball and change up seem suited to help liven up some of the dead arms in this pen.

REDREAD
03-06-2008, 01:36 PM
I don't think that's correct. There's another thread going on talking about Homer and how he never actually saw the Major league DL last year.

I just looked up on a rotonews site, becuase they are usually really good at reporting injuries.. According to them, Homer was injured three times. Maybe the late season groin injury wasn't technically a DL trip though. And of course, maybe the website is not accurate.
The point is that many players can have a season where they are on the DL three times, but that doesn't necessarily make them injury prone.






I think the reason you make any trade is to shore up a team or organizational weakness. It doesn't really matter how good the players involved end up being as long as they provide improvement that causes the team to win more games.

I actually agree with that to a point. However, you have to look at what you give up and consider if you sold too low. For example, if Volquez gives us 4 years with a 4.70 ERA, that will be useful, but if Josh becomes a superstar, then it really wasn't worth the price. Likewise, if Josh only helps Texas for two years and drops off the face earth, while Volquez becomes a dominate pitcher for 5, then they clearly lose, even if they legitimately didn't consider Volquez a rotation option (which I doubt as well).

KoryMac5
03-06-2008, 01:40 PM
If the Reds don't sign Adam Dunn long term than it becomes a terrible trade.

REDREAD
03-06-2008, 01:59 PM
Of course it can. Even taking the addiction out of the equation, the car accident damaged his back..

You make some good points, although I'm not as worried about the gastro and pneumonia.. the legs and car accident are risk factors.

I guess all players have some of that risk to some extent.
Mercker has had his arm operated on many times, yet he always seems to bounce back, for example.
Jr hasn't been so lucky, but he seems to finally be ok. Or at least I feel better about his odds of making it through the season. Maybe I'm delusional though.

I have no idea if the car wreck or leg injuries had long term consequences or not. The four years of drugs didn't really seem to affect his talent last year though. I'm not sure I buy the argument about him being an old 26 either. Again, he sure didn't look like a 35 year old last year.

nate
03-06-2008, 02:36 PM
I actually agree with that to a point. However, you have to look at what you give up and consider if you sold too low. For example, if Volquez gives us 4 years with a 4.70 ERA, that will be useful, but if Josh becomes a superstar, then it really wasn't worth the price. Likewise, if Josh only helps Texas for two years and drops off the face earth, while Volquez becomes a dominate pitcher for 5, then they clearly lose, even if they legitimately didn't consider Volquez a rotation option (which I doubt as well).

I'm simply not convinced that Josh's performance with his new team has anything to do with the trade being good or bad for the Reds. It doesn't matter if he becomes a superstar as long as Volquez improves the Reds' pitching staff. Because the Reds pitching has been so bad, the odds of Volquez making it better is far greater than Josh becoming a superstar.

It's entirely possible that a trade works for both teams.

Matt700wlw
03-06-2008, 03:18 PM
Volquez better pan out and he better be damn good....

princeton
03-06-2008, 03:28 PM
I'm simply not convinced that Josh's performance with his new team has anything to do with the trade being good or bad for the Reds.

if Josh has a great career and Edinson stinks, you'll be convinced.

nate
03-06-2008, 03:59 PM
if Josh has a great career and Edinson stinks, you'll be convinced.

Maybe. Again, I'm not pitting Josh vs. Edison in a "stats cage match"...I'm waiting to see how well they help their new teams.

Hoosier Red
03-06-2008, 04:29 PM
Of course everyone brings up the Frank Robinson comparisons.

It should be pointed out that the trade of Frank Robinson for Milt Pappas was so disasterous, and so crippled the franchise, that they were in the World Series 2 years later and were starting the best 10 year run any team outside of the Yankees has ever enjoyed.

TRF
03-06-2008, 04:32 PM
You make some good points, although I'm not as worried about the gastro and pneumonia.. the legs and car accident are risk factors.

I guess all players have some of that risk to some extent.
Mercker has had his arm operated on many times, yet he always seems to bounce back, for example.
Jr hasn't been so lucky, but he seems to finally be ok. Or at least I feel better about his odds of making it through the season. Maybe I'm delusional though.

I have no idea if the car wreck or leg injuries had long term consequences or not. The four years of drugs didn't really seem to affect his talent last year though. I'm not sure I buy the argument about him being an old 26 either. Again, he sure didn't look like a 35 year old last year.

They matter because the drugs may have damaged his immune system. His talent has never been in question, like the talent of a great pianist with Parkinson's. The talent is there, but the body is not willing. And for Josh, we have already seen him miss time in ST. His health is a known risk. period.

Falls City Beer
03-06-2008, 04:41 PM
The Reds already have a LF and a RF (Bruce) who are better than Hamilton, and Hamilton is not a CF, so it makes sense that he's the one that goes.

That's before we get into the health discussion.

princeton
03-06-2008, 04:42 PM
It should be pointed out that the trade of Frank Robinson for Milt Pappas was so disasterous, and so crippled the franchise, that they were in the World Series 2 years later.


probably cost 'em two World Championships

princeton
03-06-2008, 04:43 PM
Maybe.:rolleyes:

traderumor
03-06-2008, 04:44 PM
probably cost 'em two World Championships"if ifs and buts were candy and nuts..."

Spitball
03-06-2008, 07:53 PM
...and so crippled the franchise, that they were in the World Series 2 years later and were starting the best 10 year run any team outside of the Yankees has ever enjoyed.

Let's see, the trade was December 9, 1965. The Reds would not make the World Series until October 1970. I think two years is a bit of a stretch.

George Anderson
03-06-2008, 11:02 PM
probably cost 'em two World Championships

Nah

Robinson hit .273 with 2 HR's in the 70' series. Hardly a difference maker in a Series the O's won 4-1.

By 1972 Frank was pretty much on his way out the door. He wouldnt of made that big of a difference on the 72' Reds.

dfs
03-06-2008, 11:28 PM
Nah

Robinson hit .273 with 2 HR's in the 70' series. Hardly a difference maker in a Series the O's won 4-1.

By 1972 Frank was pretty much on his way out the door. He wouldnt of made that big of a difference on the 72' Reds.
What's more, the second order guys, the guys the reds traded Pappas and the other guys for where a big part of the 70's team's pitching staff. McGlothlin, Carrol and a couple of others.

You look at the array of hitting talent the reds had in the pipeline and you make the Robinson deal every time. That team didn't lose because they needed another bat in the outfield. If they had taken McNally or Palmer instead of Pappas the deal would have worked out even better.

George Anderson
03-06-2008, 11:34 PM
What's more, the second order guys, the guys the reds traded Pappas and the other guys for where a big part of the 70's team's pitching staff. McGlothlin, Carrol and a couple of others.

You look at the array of hitting talent the reds had in the pipeline and you make the Robinson deal every time. That team didn't lose because they needed another bat in the outfield. If they had taken McNally or Palmer instead of Pappas the deal would have worked out even better.

I don't think playing at Riverfront would have helped Franks game either.

WVRedsFan
03-07-2008, 12:58 AM
What's more, the second order guys, the guys the reds traded Pappas and the other guys for where a big part of the 70's team's pitching staff. McGlothlin, Carrol and a couple of others.

You look at the array of hitting talent the reds had in the pipeline and you make the Robinson deal every time. That team didn't lose because they needed another bat in the outfield. If they had taken McNally or Palmer instead of Pappas the deal would have worked out even better.

History tells us you don't make the Robinson trade every time. In fact, it set the Reds back.

In 1965, the Reds were 93-69, scored 825 runs and the pitching staff had a sterling 3.88 ERA. Then Robinson, an "old 30" is traded for Milton Pappas so the Reds could have some pitching. Never mind that the Reds already had 20-game winners Sammy Ellis and Jim Maloney on the staff, but Joey Jay was only 29 and Jim O'Toole was 28. They brought in Pappas who had never won more than 16 games (four others on the current staff had won more than that over the time Pappas had pitched). The year 1966 saw the Reds go 76-84, score 133 lerss runs (Robinson scored 122 for Baltimore and drove in another 122) Milton was 26 years old and he bombed. His records were 12-11, 16-13, and 2-5 in a short 1968 before he was traded. Mercy.

In the meantime, Robinson was hitting home runs, driving in runs and making Baltimore a World Champion.

The lengths we go to justify a trade that was a total disaster. As a 15-year old in 1965, I was devastated at the trade and for the next three years, i grieved that we had Milton Pappas and not Frank Robinson and saw the Reds go from contending to near the basement. Yeah, you do it every time. Yes.

Jpup
03-07-2008, 01:47 AM
The Reds already have a LF and a RF (Bruce) who are better than Hamilton, and Hamilton is not a CF, so it makes sense that he's the one that goes.

That's before we get into the health discussion.

Not after '08.

dougdirt
03-07-2008, 02:07 AM
History tells us you don't make the Robinson trade every time. In fact, it set the Reds back.

In 1965, the Reds were 93-69, scored 825 runs and the pitching staff had a sterling 3.88 ERA. Then Robinson, an "old 30" is traded for Milton Pappas so the Reds could have some pitching. Never mind that the Reds already had 20-game winners Sammy Ellis and Jim Maloney on the staff, but Joey Jay was only 29 and Jim O'Toole was 28. They brought in Pappas who had never won more than 16 games (four others on the current staff had won more than that over the time Pappas had pitched). The year 1966 saw the Reds go 76-84, score 133 lerss runs (Robinson scored 122 for Baltimore and drove in another 122) Milton was 26 years old and he bombed. His records were 12-11, 16-13, and 2-5 in a short 1968 before he was traded. Mercy.

In the meantime, Robinson was hitting home runs, driving in runs and making Baltimore a World Champion.

The lengths we go to justify a trade that was a total disaster. As a 15-year old in 1965, I was devastated at the trade and for the next three years, i grieved that we had Milton Pappas and not Frank Robinson and saw the Reds go from contending to near the basement. Yeah, you do it every time. Yes.

Outside of losing Frank Robinson, the big drop off from 65 to 66 was thanks to nearly every starter having big dropoffs offensively.
Johnny Edwards went from an OPS+ of 125 to 48.
Tony Perez went from an OPS+ of 111 to 82.
Pete Rose went from an OPS+ of 127 to 115.
Deron Johnson went from an OPS+ of 131 to 103.
Leo Cardenas went from an OPS+ of 115 to a 93.
Tommy Harper went from an OPS+ of 101 to a 91.
Vada Pinson went from an OPS+ of 127 to 103.

Losing Robinson hurt, but not nearly as bad as everyone else having a BIG dropoff. The team as a whole went from a 122 OPS+ in 65 to a 95 OPS+ in 66 and it wasn't because Frank Robinson was traded.

princeton
03-07-2008, 07:54 AM
You look at the array of hitting talent the reds had in the pipeline and you make the Robinson deal every time.

get help ;)

late '60's Reds were a pretty good team, and that Robinson fellow instead led another pretty good team to three pennants and two WS titles including one over the good guys (which had to have felt excellent). There's nobody that would ever have done that deal again

an interesting thread idea: poll of what one Reds things you could change by going back in the wayback machine. (Christy Mathewson trade, Robby trade, Perez trade, promotion of Dick Wagner, Wetteland trade, Trevor Hoffman unprotected, not signing Miguel Cabrera, trading for Jr, etc.) Archive and keep it, and see if a contemporary deal ever makes the list in a few years. Hamilton deal has a pretty good chance but you never know what it'll be. I REALLY hated protecting Sabo over Hoffman, but had no idea that it would be a historical blunder.

GAC
03-07-2008, 09:41 AM
I haven't read this entire thread; but have some suggested the Hamilton trade is (or could be) similar to the Robinson one? What made the Robinson trade one of the worst ever? Was it because Frank had potential (as some say of Hamilton)? No. Frank was already an established star ballplayer. Can that be said of Josh Hamilton?

princeton
03-07-2008, 09:45 AM
I haven't read this entire thread; but have some suggested the Hamilton trade is (or could be) similar to the Robinson one? What made the Robinson trade one of the worst ever? Was it because Frank had potential (as some say of Hamilton)? No. Frank was already an established star ballplayer. Can that be said of Josh Hamilton?

some interesting parallels: great power, great talent, "old body" and "clubhouse problem" arguments, discarding talent for pitching need (a long Reds tradition there)

but I don't see Hamilton as the key to Ranger world championships.

RedsManRick
03-07-2008, 10:07 AM
By the time Frank Robinson was Josh Hamilton's age, he was already a 5 time all-star and MVP and was half way to 500 homers. Outside perhaps of some raw talent basis, any comparison is laughable.

Always Red
03-07-2008, 10:18 AM
some interesting parallels: great power, great talent, "old body" arguments, discarding talent for pitching need (a long Reds tradition there)

but I don't see Hamilton as the key to Ranger world championships.

Me neither.

Frank Robby was rookie of the year in 1956 (at age 20), finished in the top 20 of the NL MVP vote 9 out of 10 years with the Reds, and was a 6 time NL All Star with Cincinnati. Arguably, Robby is one of the greatest Reds ever to wear the uniform.


Josh Hamilton, at age 26, had a very nice year for the Reds. He had 298 AB's, showed excellent power, but was hampered by injuries. He did not receive a single vote, either 1st, 2nd or 3rd place, for NL RoY.

There are some interesting parallels, for sure, but I think the argument is relatively weak.

Yes, this one could backfire on WK, no question. But this team was a continued loser with Hammy on it, and the Reds were dealing from a position of relative strength. And this team needs the arms!

If anything, dealing Hammy away was a sign to me that they plan to keep Dunn and attempt to sign him to a LTC. Griffey will be gone after this year, and Bruce and Hammy both project to be RFers.

I think it was a choice, for the Reds, between trading either Hammy or Bruce to get an arm. I think the Reds chose Bruce to keep, for all the reasons stated by many above.

princeton
03-07-2008, 10:46 AM
By the time Frank Robinson was Josh Hamilton's age, he was already a 5 time all-star and MVP and was half way to 500 homers.

I think that's the right argument. Robbie's a hard guy to comp.

as is Hamilton.

westofyou
03-07-2008, 10:47 AM
By the time Frank Robinson was Josh Hamilton's age, he was already a 5 time all-star and MVP and was half way to 500 homers. Outside perhaps of some raw talent basis, any comparison is laughable.

Shhhh... you'll throw a wet blanket on that fire.

The Robby Trade had a lot to do with Dewitt's personal feelings about Robby, and his adherence to what was then kind of a Saberific approach to the game that he learned from Rickey.

But he also thought he was getting more than Pappas.

He thought the other two guys would help greatly



Simpson had been a part of the package that Reds GM Bill DeWitt had received for Frank Robinson in the big trade that has defined his tenure as the Reds owner in the 60’s. Simpson had led the Pacific Coast League in batting average in 1965 (.301 - remember it was the 60’s) and had 12 triples. Though he never worked out as a Reds his promise was later used to finagle the infamous Alex Johnson in a trade later that decade. One of the reasons that Robinson had been traded was that DeWitt felt that Deron Johnson’s 1965 RBI total (130) was something that could be replicated. That season the Reds had four players with 97 or more runs scored. The leader of the team and the league was Tommy Harper with 126, which is the 4th best total in Reds team history in the modern era. Deron Johnson never topped 95 RBI’s again and Harper topped 100 runs scored only once more in his career.

Anyway, back to that Robby deal, Simpson was one of three players obtained in that trade, a deal that is often reduced in history to nothing more than Milt Pappas for Frank Robinson. When in fact it was three players coming from Baltimore who comprised the package that replaced the future Hall of Fame player on the Reds squad.

It is with the third player that we can find a even more apt correlation with the 2006 season, for the third player was a right handed middle reliever who was neither famous nor a dog, Jack Baldschun. Baldschun was a 28-year-old middle reliever who had logged four 100-inning seasons and one 99-inning season for the Phillies. He was traded to the Orioles on 12-6-66 and 3 days later he was traded to the Reds, his role was to solidify a bullpen that had received average to sub average innings from Roger Craig, Bobby Locke, Don Zanni and Jim Duffalo.


ERA DIFF PLAYER LEAGUE
Bobby Locke -2.28 5.82 3.54
Roger Craig -.12 3.66 3.54
Jim Duffalo 0.09 3.45 3.54
Dom Zanni 2.16 1.38 3.54


In fact Duffalo and Don Zanni were acquired to do what Craig was doing and their future on the team was eclipsed by the acquisition of Baldschum. The Reds were confident that Baldschun’s screwball/fastball approach to pitching would translate into success at Crosley and around the league. Instead the Reds received the worst of Jack Baldschum, the Reds received a 5.53 era vs. the league average of 3.60. His first three appearances as a Red were horrendous and soon confidence in his work was obviously being questioned by the Reds, he never found a groove and spent the next two years mostly in the minors.

His performance was so poor that the Reds picked up Ted Abernathy of the waiver wire the following winter to try and stop the bleeding from the relievers on the team (Which worked out well, Abernathy led the Reds in Win Shares the following year, since then the only reliever to accomplish that feat was Jeff Shaw has led the team in Win Shares in 1997.

Baldschum never found his game again, his early workload was Scott Sullivanesque and he like Simpson ended up playing out his career on an expansion team (the Padres).

dfs
03-07-2008, 10:48 AM
About the Robinson trade...

get help ;)

heh. I understand the objections. I really do. But on that team and in that farm system you had all kinds of hitting talent and nobody to throw the ball. They HAD to make if not that exchange something very much like it.

Trading Robinson produced....

Papas that became Cloninger, Carroll and Woodward
Dick Simpson that became Alex Johnson that became Pedro Borbon and McGlothlin
and Jack Baldschun who became an earlier version of Bill Bray that never panned out.

That's two of the starting pitcher for the 70's team and a ton of bullpen innings out of Borbon and Carroll.

I'm not suggesting it was a GOOD trade, but in retrospect, looking at what the team needed, it was a trade that they had to make and one that didn't work out as poorly as it is remembered.

The Wetteland deal is another one where you look at the shape of the roster, and you have to make that deal. Sure in retrospect it looks foolish to give that up for Willie Greene, but at the time of the trade, Greene was a hot property and the reds had such a deep bullpen that there was no way they would miss another arm. ....in retrospect, you go Oops, but if you're sitting in the gm chair you make that deal 9 times out of 10.

(By contrast Lou Pinella running O'neil out of town in a challenge trade was just pretty darn dumb. )

RedsManRick
03-07-2008, 10:55 AM
I think that's the right argument. Robbie's a hard guy to comp.

as is Hamilton.

I'll agree with you there. There's no good comp for Hamilton. That uncertainty is one of the primary arguments for trading him away.

princeton
03-07-2008, 11:07 AM
About the Robinson trade...

heh. I understand the objections. I really do. But on that team and in that farm system you had all kinds of hitting talent and nobody to throw the ball. They HAD to make if not that exchange something very much like it.


I like the "something very much like it" idea. for weeks I have advocated "something very much like it" instead of the Hamilton deal itself

The 1965 logic was fine. But ultimately, you are defined by the players that you actually trade and acquire as much as the logic behind the trades. The Reds screwed up in 1965 as many knew at the time of the trade. Robbie was a presence. A different deal should have been made instead.

I like the logic of the current FO. Also, they've done a good job of dealing the the right players, and often the correct players have been acquired. So their BA is good. And having tested their hitting for a year, they decided to really go for the fences here.

but if Hamilton continues to rise, and Volquez flames out, then logical or not, it's a bad deal and we'll wish for "something very much like it"

lollipopcurve
03-07-2008, 11:08 AM
Don Zanni

Believe it was the immortalesque Dom Zanni.

lollipopcurve
03-07-2008, 11:09 AM
But ultimately, you are defined by the players that you actually trade and acquire as much as the logic behind the trades.

Amen. I'd say the players make or break the trade, no matter the logic.

princeton
03-07-2008, 11:09 AM
That uncertainty is one of the primary arguments for trading him away.

and for keeping him. I don't like to give up what I don't fully understand. And when something is going up up up, I like to know where it stops before I feel like I understand it.

Reds gambled that Volquez is also going up up up. Maybe they're right.

princeton
03-07-2008, 11:12 AM
Amen. I'd say the players make or break the trade, no matter the logic.

logic's important, too.

lollipopcurve
03-07-2008, 11:28 AM
logic's important, too.

sure -- good logic gives a trade a better chance of working out -- but it doesn't make for a good trade

Hoosier Red
03-07-2008, 11:57 AM
Of course everyone brings up the Frank Robinson comparisons.

It should be pointed out that the trade of Frank Robinson for Milt Pappas was so disasterous, and so crippled the franchise, that they were in the World Series 2 years later and were starting the best 10 year run any team outside of the Yankees has ever enjoyed.


Of course this is what happens when going on my memory for things that happened before I was born.
I thought he was traded after the 67 season.

redsrule2500
03-07-2008, 12:39 PM
sure -- good logic gives a trade a better chance of working out -- but it doesn't make for a good trade

Exactly. Logically, the Kearns trade was good because they both became terrible once leaving Cincinnati...however I still feel the Reds could have gotten a lot more for Kearns and lopez then they did!

Ltlabner
03-07-2008, 01:05 PM
By the same criteria, isn't Homer injury prone?.

Did he miss a number of years in MLB due to hard core drug abuse (and the corresponding damage it causes to ones body)?

Did he miss a number of years of time building up a level of conditioning?

Did he miss time for both identifiable injuries and phantom "soreness"?

All players face injuries. Homer might prove out to be injury prone too.

But you can't uncouple the abuse, time off and frequency of injury portions of the Hamilton equation.

princeton
03-07-2008, 01:10 PM
wonder if Hamilton will face more periods of unavailability because he'd resist taking painkillers and amphetamines. :dunno:

westofyou
03-20-2008, 10:31 AM
http://www.usatoday.com/sports/baseball/al/rangers/2008-03-18-rangers-preview_N.htm


Rangers' Hamilton labeled 'a freak — a phenom'
By Seth Livingstone, USA TODAY
SURPRISE, Ariz. — A year ago, Josh Hamilton was more curiosity than catalyst — a former first overall draft pick whose life had been nearly ruined by substance abuse. He'd missed three full seasons of baseball before playing 15 games in Class A in 2006. The Cincinnati Reds were taking a flyer simply bringing him in as a Rule 5 draftee.

This spring, through his first 12 games, Hamilton is hitting .594 with 12 RBI, showing why the Texas Rangers were willing to part with top pitching prospect Edinson Volquez to make him the centerpiece of their revamped outfield.

"He wasn't the first pick in the draft for no reason," says veteran Kevin Mench, one of a multitude of outfielders looking to make an impact with Texas this season.

ASK THE MANAGER: Five questions with Ron Washington

This season, the American League could see the full spectrum of his skills.

"Last year was different because I had to get into playing shape. I had to fight for a spot on the team," said heavily-tattooed Hamilton, who was on his way to 2007 NL Rookie of the Year contention until health issues interrupted his comeback. "This year, I've pretty much got the spot, and now I've got to get ready to go."

Despite being limited to 90 games by a gastrointestinal infection, sprained wrist and strained hamstring, Hamilton batted .292 with 19 homers. His .554 slugging percentage was second only to Ryan Braun among NL rookies and higher than any Ranger.

"Man, what a story," said reliever Eddie Guardado, a Reds teammate last season. "He had some trouble back then, but he's a good person. What a treat to have him here."

"Josh is a freak — a phenom. He's going to do some wonderful things," said outfielder Marlon Byrd, who hit .307 in 109 games for the Rangers last year. "If he gets in 150 games, I think he's going to hit 40 home runs."

While Cincinnati was the right place at the right time last year, Hamilton says he's happy to be part of the Rangers' redesign.

"I was excited to come somewhere where I felt like I was needed and wanted at the same time," he said.

One thing Hamilton, 26, brought with him from Cincinnati was a security blanket in Johnny Narron, who the Rangers hired as a special assignment coach. The brother of former Rangers and Reds manager Jerry Narron has been like a brother to Hamilton, helping to keep him focused on of baseball.

Hamilton isn't the only new Rangers outfielder trying to overcome injuries and non-baseball issues. Milton Bradley has been on the DL 12 times since 2002 and has struggled with anger management.

His most recent stint came after he tore his right ACL last September as he was being restrained by Padres manager Bud Black during an argument with umpire Mike Winters, who ultimately was reprimanded by MLB. In 2004 Bradley was suspended for the final five games of the season after slamming down a water bottle near fans.

"Both Josh and Milton, their personalities are what I expect," said second-year manager Ron Washington, who coached Bradley in Oakland in 2006. "They're gamers. They want to win. That's all I've heard every single day."

Bradley, a .273 career hitter, is with his sixth team in his nine-year career. He's managed to play more than 100 games just twice.

Last year he batted .306 in 61 games for the A's and Padres, showing the Rangers enough to guarantee him $5.25 million plus up to $2.75 million in incentives. This spring, still nursing the surgically repaired knee, he's been limited primarily to DH duty against minor-league competition, putting his opening day status in question.

If Bradley can't play the field, veteran Frank Catalonotto will get plenty of playing time; the Rangers also want to find at-bats for Byrd, Mench and David Murphy, who hit .340 in 103 at-bats last season and .417 in his first 15 Cactus League games.

But what they really need are health and production from Bradley and Hamilton.

"Milton is going to do what he does every year — hit .300 and bring some fire to this team," Byrd said.

Attitude hasn't been a problem for Bradley, who teammates say has fit in nicely in the clubhouse.

"Everyone's got their own demons," Hamilton said. "Ours are a little different, but we can relate to each other."

cincinnati chili
03-21-2008, 03:39 AM
I think I was occupied the last time this lengthy thread made the rounds.

One could make a case that Travis Hafner was Texas' best prospect of the last 10 or 20 years, and John Hart foolishly traded him away for a journeyman catcher.

I know Hamilton was a high draft pick, but Hafner was absolutely killing minor league pitching in a way that Hamilton never did.

RedlegJake
03-21-2008, 08:08 AM
Sometimes deals are made that are huge gambles on a talent like Volquez. Texas took a gamble, too, but its a different sort of gamble on Josh altogether - you know the talent and production are there if he stays clean and healthy. The parallel to Baltimore is the main pitcher Roby went for, Pappas was a veteran, "proven" arm. The Reds passed on McNally or Palmer, both of whom were on the cusp of greatness but weren't yet "proven". The Reds chose the safer bet and lost. Had they acquired Palmer, the outlook on the trade would be much different. Now Krivsky faces a similar indictment -if Volquez pans out then he traded a great hiter for a great pitcher. If Josh gets hurt or relapses he dodged a bullet AND acquired a top arm. But if Josh tears it up and Volquez flops then he gets hammered for a horrible trade. This is a gutsy deal on WK's part - the odds of looking bad are long, the odds it gets a nod as helping both teams are pretty fair - the odds he wins the trade flat out are lousy. If he really wanted to protect his job or just cover himself he'd never make the deal. He went for the team and swung for the fences. I'll never blame him for that. I admire it. But I sure as the devil hope he was right.

Screwball
03-21-2008, 04:37 PM
Sometimes deals are made that are huge gambles on a talent like Volquez. Texas took a gamble, too, but its a different sort of gamble on Josh altogether - you know the talent and production are there if he stays clean and healthy. The parallel to Baltimore is the main pitcher Roby went for, Pappas was a veteran, "proven" arm. The Reds passed on McNally or Palmer, both of whom were on the cusp of greatness but weren't yet "proven". The Reds chose the safer bet and lost. Had they acquired Palmer, the outlook on the trade would be much different. Now Krivsky faces a similar indictment -if Volquez pans out then he traded a great hiter for a great pitcher. If Josh gets hurt or relapses he dodged a bullet AND acquired a top arm. But if Josh tears it up and Volquez flops then he gets hammered for a horrible trade. This is a gutsy deal on WK's part - the odds of looking bad are long, the odds it gets a nod as helping both teams are pretty fair - the odds he wins the trade flat out are lousy. If he really wanted to protect his job or just cover himself he'd never make the deal. He went for the team and swung for the fences. I'll never blame him for that. I admire it. But I sure as the devil hope he was right.

Great post. I agree on all accounts.

nate
03-21-2008, 05:46 PM
Sometimes deals are made that are huge gambles on a talent like Volquez. Texas took a gamble, too, but its a different sort of gamble on Josh altogether - you know the talent and production are there if he stays clean and healthy. The parallel to Baltimore is the main pitcher Roby went for, Pappas was a veteran, "proven" arm. The Reds passed on McNally or Palmer, both of whom were on the cusp of greatness but weren't yet "proven". The Reds chose the safer bet and lost. Had they acquired Palmer, the outlook on the trade would be much different. Now Krivsky faces a similar indictment -if Volquez pans out then he traded a great hiter for a great pitcher. If Josh gets hurt or relapses he dodged a bullet AND acquired a top arm. But if Josh tears it up and Volquez flops then he gets hammered for a horrible trade. This is a gutsy deal on WK's part - the odds of looking bad are long, the odds it gets a nod as helping both teams are pretty fair - the odds he wins the trade flat out are lousy. If he really wanted to protect his job or just cover himself he'd never make the deal. He went for the team and swung for the fences. I'll never blame him for that. I admire it. But I sure as the devil hope he was right.

Right on, Jake. :thumbup:

Dom Heffner
03-22-2008, 02:40 AM
The Reds could have gotten Volquez without trading away Hamilton. It was an awful deal in the sense that Hamilton has the better upside, and you are seeing the big gaping hole it's left the team in with Corey Patterson batting leadoff.

Would someone tell me how in the world a dude with a .305 OBP hits leadoff? In what world is that sane?

This franchise is lost.

You ready for some Scott "GABP saved my career" Hatteberg? You ready for the out machine Patterson?

Meanwhile, back at the ranch, Josh Hamilton is pounding out 40 homeruns.

Awful, awful, awful.

GAC
03-22-2008, 04:09 AM
The Reds could have gotten Volquez without trading away Hamilton. It was an awful deal in the sense that Hamilton has the better upside, and you are seeing the big gaping hole it's left the team in with Corey Patterson batting leadoff.

Would someone tell me how in the world a dude with a .305 OBP hits leadoff? In what world is that sane?

You need to ask "In Dusty We Trusty". That's his decision, not WK's. :D

But Patterson has had a pretty solid ST. We'll see though.


This franchise is lost.

You ready for some Scott "GABP saved my career" Hatteberg? You ready for the out machine Patterson?

Meanwhile, back at the ranch, Josh Hamilton is pounding out 40 homeruns.

Awful, awful, awful.

Tell us how you really feel Dom. :D

How do you know we could have gotten Volquez without sacrificing Hamilton?

And I don't know if Hamilton having the better upside really matters, if it's even true.

We, like a majority of teams, needed pitching in a market that really wasn't offering up much at all. I can remember some of the suggestions and ideas bantered about on here, like resigning Lohse or taking a shot at Tomko.

We went out and got a young arm that has had a solid spring, and will most likely be a part of the rotation to start the season. From there we don't know.

But trading away a Hamilton, where there is also uncertainty involved, does not IMHO mean this franchise is lost.

Screwball
03-22-2008, 04:41 AM
Well, without the trade of Hamilton, the OD rotation probably looks like this:

Harang
Arroyo
Cueto
Affeldt
Fogg

Belisle's gone down to injury, and Bailey has made it painfully obvious he's not ready, which leaves a gaping hole in the rotation. Moving Affeldt from the pen to the rotation doesn't strengthen either, and probably only hurts the team overall.

However, Volquez has filled said glaring void in the rotation (quite nicely, IMO). I now think the role Volquez plays to the pitching staff is greater than what Hamilton would potentially play to the offense (and outfield) - and that's even assuming JH will remain moderately healthy.

Good luck to Josh. God knows he'll always have the support of Reds fans everywhere. Still, I'll always want Volquez to do a little bit better.

cincinnati chili
03-22-2008, 05:01 AM
The Reds could have gotten Volquez without trading away Hamilton.

Do you know that for a fact?

I don't dispute that there is a huge amount of risk involved in this trade. It could totally blow up in our face. For the record, the same could have happened with the Pena/Arroyo trade, although I admit Pena's never had a year like Hamilton had last year.

The variable that everyone forgets about is that Hamilton is an addict. I don't know HIM, but if I look at the situation purely from a cold-hearted risk-management perspective, Hamilton is just as likely to be shooting up behind a 7-11 at the first sign of adversity as he is likely to be a perennial all-star.

I would have preferred that we received a more proven commodity, but we weren't exactly trading away a choirboy.

Dom Heffner
03-22-2008, 09:42 AM
But Patterson has had a pretty solid ST. We'll see though.


This explains why the organization is lost, right there. You take your 200 million dollar business and you make decisions based on 30 plate appearances in spring training, when Patterson's entire history suggests he gets on base at a 30 percent clip.

This having a good spring stuff is why you have Hatteberg starting over Votto, ladies and gentlemen.


And I don't know if Hamilton having the better upside really matters, if it's even true.

My friend, if this doesn't matter, then why trade anybody?


We, like a majority of teams, needed pitching in a market that really wasn't offering up much at all. I can remember some of the suggestions and ideas bantered about on here, like resigning Lohse or taking a shot at Tomko.


Another reason the organization is lost: We need pitching= we must do something. That sort of thinking only leads one place and it isn't up.


How do you know we could have gotten Volquez without sacrificing Hamilton?


Because Volquez isn't the type of player that the Rangers can demand what they want for him. I'm sure there was some combination of players the Reds could have given up to get him.


Well, without the trade of Hamilton, the OD rotation probably looks like this:

And with the trade of Hamilton, you have Cory Patterson patrolling center field along with injury prone Griffey. What part of .304 OBP doesn't anybody understand? What lead is Volquez going to protect when nobody will be on base?


However, Volquez has filled said glaring void in the rotation (quite nicely, IMO).

In a 13 inning sample size in spring training.


I now think the role Volquez plays to the pitching staff is greater than what Hamilton would potentially play to the offense (and outfield)

You like him based on a 13 inning sample size. I'm sure Steve Traschel has 13 innings pitched somewhere we would all like to have. Even if Volquez turns out to be decent, I like an everyday player who helps me both in the field and at the plate. Volquez sits on the bench 130 games a year.


The variable that everyone forgets about is that Hamilton is an addict.

Yeah, an addict the Reds got for nothing. Nothing. That's zero, nada, nil, not a thing.

How much is at stake when you have nothing in something? What big pot of investment were w going to lose by giving him a chance?

westofyou
03-22-2008, 10:08 AM
Bernie Carbo had a better first season than Hamilton, had more upside and was also the property of the Reds.

They survived his exit... I'm certain they'll make it through Hamilton's as well.

Dom Heffner
03-22-2008, 10:36 AM
They survived his exit... I'm certain they'll make it through Hamilton's as well.


The Yankees did okay after Mantle retired. The Reds won a world championship without Bench, Rose, Morgan, and Perez.

That doesn't mean they should make boneheaded move after move.

westofyou
03-22-2008, 10:42 AM
The Yankees did okay after Mantle retired. The Reds won a world championship without Bench, Rose, Morgan, and Perez.

That doesn't mean they should make boneheaded move after move.

Reds fans love hitting and stick their nose up at pitching.

That approach is exemplified in the record of the team in the 21st century.

Time to try something else, what they've been doing is not working at all.

westofyou
03-22-2008, 10:42 AM
The Yankees did okay after Mantle retired.

No they didn't they they continued with their worst run in 50 years.

RedFanAlways1966
03-22-2008, 10:43 AM
Bernie Carbo had a better first season than Hamilton, had more upside and was also the property of the Reds.

They survived his exit... I'm certain they'll make it through Hamilton's as well.

Had he stayed a REDS player I would not be able to say... didn't the below-mentioned HR bring back the Red Sox from certain defeat and cause the REDS to lose the 1975 World Series when Fisk hit that famous HR?!?

In Game 6 of the 1975 World Series, with two outs and two strikes in the 8th inning, Bernie Carbo's pinch 3-run home run tied the score at 6-all, paving the way for Carlton Fisk's legendary game-winning homer in the bottom of the twelfth for a 7-6 Red Sox victory.

Or has ESPN caused me to believe that something different happened at the finish of that 1975 season? ;)

BTW... great analogy!

Dom Heffner
03-22-2008, 11:03 AM
No they didn't they they continued with their worst run in 50 years.


The Yanks have won several world titles since Mantle left. They have indeed survived.

And the Reds didn't win another title for 14 years after the BRM was dismantled. And they continue to suvive.

You said the Reds will "survive," and all I'm sort of saying is, well yeah, short of the franchise being dissolved they'll be around.

But it's sort of an odd way to look at a trade- they'll get by without him- to dismiss what was a pretty dumb move IMHO.

The Reds could survive trading Adam Dunn for Juan Pierre. I don't think that's in their best interests, though.

westofyou
03-22-2008, 11:22 AM
But it's sort of an odd way to look at a trade- they'll get by without him- to dismiss what was a pretty dumb move IMHO.

A team in an offensive era that is undergoing the teams worst pitching in over 120 years has little choice but to pursue pitching at the expense of offense.

As for Josh's spring good for him, many a spring in Arizona is good for the hitters, but the Reds have always had hitters

It's a gamble sure, but it's not a piece of crap that the Reds received like you're painting.


So compare an contrast, knowing that Reds scored a mess of runs and still lost over the past 4 seasons.

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/spring2008/columns/story?columnist=stark_jayson&id=3304727


Josh Hamilton, CF, Rangers

SPRING STAT LINE: .556 AVG., .600 OBP, .972 SLG, 5 DOUBLES, 2 TRIPLES, 2 HR, 13 RBIS
We didn't think it would be possible for Hamilton to pop more eyeballs this spring than last spring, when he came back from nearly four years out of baseball to just about leap off the field at us. But he's pulled that off, one spring after his stunning trade from Cincinnati to Texas in December.

Josh Hamilton has been the best player in Arizona. When he hits the ball, it has a completely different sound than just about any player out there. ... In that park in Texas, he could hit 50 [home runs]. He's that good.

--A scout


So how could the Reds have ever traded this guy? Read on.

Edinson Volquez, RHP, Reds

SPRING STAT LINE: 1-0, 3.00 ERA, 15 IP, 21 K
A scout we know announced to a large delegation of onlookers the other day: "The best trade this winter was Edinson Volquez for Josh Hamilton."

And after that Josh Hamilton riff a few paragraphs to the north, you would probably agree -- except that this scout meant it the other way around. That's how dazzling Volquez has been this spring.

That news might shock people who saw Volquez go 3-11, with a 7.20 ERA, in three different passes through Texas. But this spring, at age 25, he has totally clicked it into gear. In fact, he's tied with the Mets' duo of Johan Santana and John Maine for the lead in the whole sport in strikeouts.

But it isn't the number of whiffs that has stood out. It's how this guy has piled them up.

His first three March outings, in order, went: four punchouts in 2 1/3 innings against the Red Sox, eight K's in four innings against the Yankees and six strikeouts in five innings against the Phillies. And that's three of the four best lineups in baseball we're talking about.

"Unbelievable movement," said a coach of one of those teams. ... "Electric stuff," gushed one scout. ... "His changeup is really, really, really dirty," said Bako.

Patrick Bateman
03-22-2008, 11:36 AM
How much is at stake when you have nothing in something? What big pot of investment were w going to lose by giving him a chance?

That was the reason he was brought in.... because it was riskless.

But the opportunity costs change. By holding on to him now, you risk the opportunity cost you could have had by moving him. And that opportunity cost makes Hamilton a risky proposition at this point. You risk a Volquez calibre player by throwing the dice with Hamilton.

I know where you're coming from with Hamilton, but I think your underestimating Volquez big time.

I don't think he's a Red without moving Hamilton... or an equally impressive group of players. Perhaps the 13 innings of sample is little to think about, but his past season was a terrific forward indicator. He had a very promising year and seems primed for breakout. I think it's a move of 2 very good players.

nate
03-22-2008, 12:31 PM
I know where you're coming from with Hamilton, but I think your underestimating Volquez big time.

Agree. I might add that I think what's also being underestimated is the Reds' need for pitching, the current cost of pitching in today's market and the currency the Reds had to get said pitching.

Matt700wlw
03-23-2008, 11:13 AM
http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/baseball/2008/03/23/2008-03-23_dusty_baker_returns_with_upstart_reds.html

Bill Madden NY Daily News

But according to team sources, Hamilton, for all his recovered abilities, was not a popular player in the Reds' clubhouse. His teammates resented the fact that he had to have Narron's brother as a constant chaperone and they also felt he too often begged out of the lineup for minor ailments. In any case, Baker, from what he's seen of Volquez so far, is delighted with the trade.

VR
03-23-2008, 12:48 PM
http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/baseball/2008/03/23/2008-03-23_dusty_baker_returns_with_upstart_reds.html

Bill Madden NY Daily News

But according to team sources, Hamilton, for all his recovered abilities, was not a popular player in the Reds' clubhouse. His teammates resented the fact that he had to have Narron's brother as a constant chaperone and they also felt he too often begged out of the lineup for minor ailments. In any case, Baker, from what he's seen of Volquez so far, is delighted with the trade.



"He is the nicest, most polite, most unassuming kid you will ever meet," he said."The fans will love him because he's such a friendly young man. The media will love him because you won't ever see an attitude with him. His teammates here, from what I hear, already love him, and that was also the case immediately in Cincinnati."



If those 'unnamed sources' are true, I think the NY quote says more about any teammates with resentment than it does about Hamilton.

Chip R
03-23-2008, 01:02 PM
If those 'unnamed sources' are true, I think the NY quote says more about any teammates with resentment than it does about Hamilton.


Yeah. I'm guessing Josh wasn't "one of the boys" like Bruce and Votto are but that's not a good enough reason to trade him nor do I think that's the reason Wayne did trade him.

klw
03-23-2008, 01:36 PM
http://www.redszone.com/forums/showthread.php?t=59946&highlight=phillips+narron+griffey+hamilton+winning

Brandon Phillips re Narron from last July

"But we had new guys come to the scene this year. He tried to adjust with the new guys this year, but it’s all about certain players. Ken Griffey and his home run chase, Josh Hamilton and his comeback season, everybody got caught up in that instead of winning.

"We’re happy for Josh, but we want to win. And the next thing you know, Homer Bailey’s up here. We’re a team, and everybody’s worried about three guys.”

- per John Fay in the Cincinnati Enquirer

RedlegJake
03-23-2008, 02:19 PM
Dom, all I can say is that sometimes two people have opinions so far apart there's no sense in pursuing it further. That's us on the Hamilton-Volquez trade. I think it was smart and I toally disagree that we could have gotten Volquez for less. On this one we just completely disagree but that's what makes RedsZone interesting. There is always someone who's 180 degrees apart.

fearofpopvol1
03-23-2008, 02:42 PM
Don't take the NY Daily News too seriously.

REDREAD
03-24-2008, 05:43 PM
http://www.redszone.com/forums/showthread.php?t=59946&highlight=phillips+narron+griffey+hamilton+winning

Brandon Phillips re Narron from last July

Phillips seems a bit jealous that he didn't get a bunch of ink for his great season. The guy has been known to be a complainer (that's why Cleveland traded him). Hopefully, the contract extension given to him makes him happy and keeps him productive. Because he seemed to show in Cleveland that if he wasn't happy, he was less productive.

reds44
03-24-2008, 05:47 PM
Phillips seems a bit jealous that he didn't get a bunch of ink for his great season. The guy has been known to be a complainer (that's why Cleveland traded him). Hopefully, the contract extension given to him makes him happy and keeps him productive. Because he seemed to show in Cleveland that if he wasn't happy, he was less productive.
Yeah....that really showed last year?

WVRedsFan
03-24-2008, 06:01 PM
Yeah....that really showed last year?
I really doubt we'll ever see another year like 2007 from Brandon, but we will see a good year. And the reports were that he was a complainer about everything in Cleveland and one of the reasons he came so cheap. By the way, he was happy last year as far as I can tell.

The true test when be when the going gets tough, he gets in a prolonged slump, or wants a contract re-negotiation (or something like that). Hopefully, he'll keep the smile on his face and be very productive.