PDA

View Full Version : Would You Still Trade Volquez for Hamilton?



Degenerate39
04-28-2008, 07:32 AM
Volquez is 4-0 with 33 K's and no homer's given up.

Hamilton is batting over .300 while leading the ML with 27 RBI's. And 5 Homers.

If Texas didn't want anyone else except Hamilton would you still make this trade?

Newman4
04-28-2008, 09:00 AM
I would try to see if they would take Dunn, as mentioned by everyone else, but yeah I would trade Hamilton for Volquez.

shredda2000
04-28-2008, 10:45 AM
Both are off to good starts...hope it continues for both...

podgejeff_
04-28-2008, 10:48 AM
Yes everyday. We needed young, effective pitching more than offense at a primary position. While both were needs at the time, pitching beats offense every time. Volquez is outright dominant, possible ace potential. His question mark was control, and he seems to have answered it.

Hamilton could still relapse at any time, that's a question that won't be completely answered for a while.

justincredible
04-28-2008, 11:10 AM
Of course.

bubbachunk
04-28-2008, 11:26 AM
Yes no questions

bgwilly31
04-28-2008, 11:43 AM
Much too soon to tell so i didnt vote.

Everybody needs to slow down the train on Volquez. Lots of pitchers with decent stuff do well the first time around through teams. But once their scouted enough end up like an ARROYO.

So like i said too soon to tell. One things for sure though. Hamilton is no joke. If Volquez ends up good enough for the long haul than yes i still take the trade.

freestyle55
04-28-2008, 12:35 PM
I don't understand where this "I would see if they would have taken Dunn" comment keeps getting perpetuated from...what makes anyone think the Rangers would have given away one of their top pitching prospects for one year of Adam Dunn...? While he is a great player IMO, they get a guy who's playing for a huge contract while giving up a power pitcher who's under their control for quite a while...

Would you have traded Homer Bailey in the offseason for Pat Burrell straight up? I know I wouldn't...but that's the comparison...a power pitcher that perhaps some people in the org. have soured on but with a world of potential for a low BA, high OBP slugger who's probably a liability in the field, with a large salary and one year left on his contract...

Cicero
04-28-2008, 01:30 PM
I hated to see Hamilton go but in hindsight I would pull the trigger in a heartbeat.

muethibp
04-28-2008, 01:42 PM
Is there anyone that would really rather have Josh Hamilton than Volquez?

Jack Burton
04-28-2008, 01:44 PM
It's hard to say, it will be interesting to see how their careers progress. I'll tell you what though, Hamilton would have been one of the last guys on the Reds I would have traded. Volquez seems to be the real deal and as of right now it looks like a solid trade for both sides.

Would I still make the trade? Undecided.

BurgervilleBuck
04-28-2008, 01:56 PM
...end up like an ARROYO.
Apples & oranges. Apples & oranges.

I'd make that trade any day of the week and twice on a Saturday.

Orodle
04-28-2008, 01:57 PM
As of right now its a no brainer. Being a Cincy fan everyone should realize pitchers performing like Volquez don't come through town very often. Until Harang its hard to think back to the last time the Reds had a true ace. Some could argue Neagle, Burba, Schourek, Smiley but I'd say you have to go back to Rijo or Browning's prime.

I'm not saying Volquez is the real thing yet. God knows with the current MLB scouting capabilities some team could find a way hes tipping pitches or something similar but with his heat and Pedro like change hes very nasty. If he can get that breaking ball just somewhat consistent and not leave it up I think hes ace material. Having him, Harang, Cueto, and if Bailey can put it together the Reds could have a dominant pitching staff by late in the season or next year.

I was a huge fan of Hamilton but completely understood why he was moved. The Reds crank out outfielders from the farm like crazy and always lack in the arms. If Jay Bruce wasnt in the picture I dont think the Reds would have so easily gave up Hamilton.

***I also give props to freestyle55, he did a great job of putting it in perspective. I think too often people don't think of MLB roster movements from different angle and viewpoints and seem to think its fantasy baseball.

Redeye fly
04-28-2008, 02:02 PM
Much too soon to tell so i didnt vote.

Everybody needs to slow down the train on Volquez. Lots of pitchers with decent stuff do well the first time around through teams. But once their scouted enough end up like an ARROYO.

So like i said too soon to tell. One things for sure though. Hamilton is no joke. If Volquez ends up good enough for the long haul than yes i still take the trade.
I would say Volquez's stuff is a little better than "decent'.

laxtonto
04-28-2008, 02:12 PM
Truthfully, i think im in the category of wait and see still. I love EV's early domiance, buti must temper myself with the fact that 2 where against Pit and SF and the LAD where in a prolonged slump at the plate when they faced Volquez.

On the flip side, im not entirely sure Hamilton can continue playing everyday. Texas has the added luxuryto DH him or move him to LF/RFthroughout the season to lessen the wear and tear on his body that the Reds didnt have.

I really honestly believe that this will be a time will tell argument. What whill happen to EV when teams have a better scouting report on him? What will happen to Hamilton as teams learn his tendencies? Its all aboout adjustments at this point.

So far, i would do the trade and so would Texas. Its been a win win all the way around.

My biggest personal concerns are can EV maintian his ERA once he gives up the long ball and will his high BB rate eventually catch up with him?

AmarilloRed
04-28-2008, 02:48 PM
A good question. Hamilton is clearly an above average starting outfielder, and will be cheap for some time. I don't expect Hamilton to have 27 rbis every month however, or EV to have 4 wins every month. Hamilton is doing great in Texas, but the Rangers are 9-17 because they have no starting pitching. We miss Hamilton in our lineup because he served as our lead-off hitter, but the one thing the Reds farm system can do is crank out outfielders. I expect our hitters will come around, and Bruce coming up will help to off-set the trade of Hamilton somewhat. Don't forget about Danny Ray Herrera. He is still in AAA and doing well. We miss Hamilton,but I would still make the trade for Volquez.

laxtonto
04-28-2008, 03:21 PM
A good question. Hamilton is clearly an above average starting outfielder, and will be cheap for some time. I don't expect Hamilton to have 27 rbis every month however, or EV to have 4 wins every month. Hamilton is doing great in Texas, but the Rangers are 9-17 because they have no starting pitching. We miss Hamilton in our lineup because he served as our lead-off hitter, but the one thing the Reds farm system can do is crank out outfielders. I expect our hitters will come around, and Bruce coming up will help to off-set the trade of Hamilton somewhat. Don't forget about Danny Ray Herrera. He is still in AAA and doing well. We miss Hamilton,but I would still make the trade for Volquez.

Before the Boston Series was 3rd in the AL in starters ERA.,.Since then, they have lost Gabbard and Mendoza a rookie got shelled because he didnt tell the trainers that his shoulder was bothering him and got shelled.

Milwood, 6 starts 1-2 with a 3.32
Padilla, 6 starts 3-2 with a 3.79
Gababrd 4 starts 1-0 with a 2.18

The worse starting pitcher on Texas staff is Jennings or Mendoza. Both got rocked because of injury. The true problem with Texas is a horrible bullpen ERA, which was thought to be a strength of that team.

On the other hand, Hamilton has more RBI's at 27, than the next 2 palyers(Kinsler and Murphy at 12) combined. As much as people want to make fun of Texas for trading EV, think about how bad that lineup would be without Hamilton. He is by far the best offensive player on the team. Hamilton leads the Rangers in TB, Hits, Rbi, and Hrs and tied for 1st in Triples. Hes second in BB and Doubles. Thats amazing, regardless what team he plays for.

Still its to early to really make a concrete decison on the trade, but i can understand the rational in both why Texas was willing to move EV and why the Reds where willing to move Hamilton.

On a side note, after looking at the stats, i never would have expected how much Hamilton means to Texas right now offensively. Texas would have an offsence on par with SF with out Hamilton.

44Magnum
04-28-2008, 03:26 PM
It's all about pitching!

AmarilloRed
04-28-2008, 03:53 PM
Before the Boston Series was 3rd in the AL in starters ERA.,.Since then, they have lost Gabbard and Mendoza a rookie got shelled because he didnt tell the trainers that his shoulder was bothering him and got shelled.

Milwood, 6 starts 1-2 with a 3.32
Padilla, 6 starts 3-2 with a 3.79
Gababrd 4 starts 1-0 with a 2.18

The worse starting pitcher on Texas staff is Jennings or Mendoza. Both got rocked because of injury. The true problem with Texas is a horrible bullpen ERA, which was thought to be a strength of that team.

On the other hand, Hamilton has more RBI's at 27, than the next 2 palyers(Kinsler and Murphy at 12) combined. As much as people want to make fun of Texas for trading EV, think about how bad that lineup would be without Hamilton. He is by far the best offensive player on the team. Hamilton leads the Rangers in TB, Hits, Rbi, and Hrs and tied for 1st in Triples. Hes second in BB and Doubles. Thats amazing, regardless what team he plays for.

Still its to early to really make a concrete decison on the trade, but i can understand the rational in both why Texas was willing to move EV and why the Reds where willing to move Hamilton.

On a side note, after looking at the stats, i never would have expected how much Hamilton means to Texas right now offensively. Texas would have an offence on par with SF with out Hamilton.

Good point. I saw that Texas was last in the AL with a 5.74 ERA, and falsely assumed their starting pitching was to blame. They traditionally have had as much trouble developing starting pitching as we have, so it was a reasonable assumption. I will remember to double-check the information before I make a post like that again. I am a Rangers fan as well as a Reds fan, so I am glad to hear this news.

bounty37h
04-28-2008, 04:08 PM
Yes everyday. We needed young, effective pitching more than offense at a primary position. While both were needs at the time, pitching beats offense every time. Volquez is outright dominant, possible ace potential. His question mark was control, and he seems to have answered it.

Hamilton could still relapse at any time, that's a question that won't be completely answered for a while.

My record so far this year says a different thing.
Sincerely,
Aaron Harang

PS Bronson says hi!

bounty37h
04-28-2008, 04:10 PM
Yes everyday. We needed young, effective pitching more than offense at a primary position. While both were needs at the time, pitching beats offense every time. Volquez is outright dominant, possible ace potential. His question mark was control, and he seems to have answered it.

Hamilton could still relapse at any time, that's a question that won't be completely answered for a while.

Podge, I know this is going to look like I am picking on you, I promise I am not :) How is Vols question answered after 4 games, but Josh's isnt after a couple years now? I know different scenarios/beasts, but think neither are set in stone answered, nor do either appear to be legit concerns at this point.

AmarilloRed
04-28-2008, 04:27 PM
You need both offense and starting pitching to build a contender. Hamilton clearly looks like he is going to be a very good starting outfielder, and Volquez seems like he will be a quality starting pitcher for the Reds. We really needed starting pitching, so we traded Hamilton. We have missed him so far in our lineup, but I believe the trade will be good for both teams in the long run.

Va Red Fan
04-28-2008, 04:39 PM
I don't think Hamilton will relapse. I believe that he is now a born-again Christian as he states in the new Sports Spectrum. I still believe that the potential, doesn't have to be proven but only potential, of a strong, young pitcher will always trump a potentially strong offensive player, especially an outfielder. I will follow Hamilton for the rest of his career, but I would have pulled the trigger before and I would easily make the trade again today. Volquez was a tremendous need while Hamilton was a luxury with young outfielders coming up in the ranks.

bubbachunk
04-28-2008, 04:42 PM
Much too soon to tell so i didnt vote.

Everybody needs to slow down the train on Volquez. Lots of pitchers with decent stuff do well the first time around through teams. But once their scouted enough end up like an ARROYO.

So like i said too soon to tell. One things for sure though. Hamilton is no joke. If Volquez ends up good enough for the long haul than yes i still take the trade.

Bronson was never this good when he first came over

NDReds9
05-03-2008, 03:28 AM
If you look on MLB.com, they have a section in the middle of the page with League Leaders.
The default ones are the MLB leaders for RBI and Strikeouts.
Josh Hamilton's and Edinson Volquez's pictures are side by side as the leaders of those categories.

Pretty ironic.

Caveman Techie
05-03-2008, 08:29 AM
That is great! Thanks for the heads up on that NDReds9. Another thing that put a smile on my face is the fact that right after Edinson on that list was Harang! The Reds have got the pitching they just need the offense to come around now!

Lockdwn11
05-03-2008, 02:17 PM
Originally Posted by bgwilly31
Much too soon to tell so i didnt vote.

Everybody needs to slow down the train on Volquez. Lots of pitchers with decent stuff do well the first time around through teams. But once their scouted enough end up like an ARROYO.

So like i said too soon to tell. One things for sure though. Hamilton is no joke. If Volquez ends up good enough for the long haul than yes i still take the trade



Hell, sign me up for this way of thinking if it works out in the Reds favor I like the trade. If not I wouldn't have done it.

This trade had to be made.You are now seeing why the Reds make this trade. This is what they saw in Volquez when they made the trade and he has proved them right sofar if he falls on his face later well you cant go back and say well that was a bad trade because you was trading for Volquez and his potential the potential he has shown up until this point.

By the way, I know you wasn't compairing Volquez's stuff to Arroyo's are you?

Hondo
05-03-2008, 02:27 PM
I will admit to this.

I hated this trade when it went down. Hate. Yes, thats the word.

I am starting to become a Believer now. Everytime Volquez pitches Im am excited now... Hopefully he can keep it going.

I do however dislike Josh Hamiltons name at the top of all the AL Stats though...

But thats the way it goes...

Dracodave
05-03-2008, 09:59 PM
Much too soon to tell so i didnt vote.

Everybody needs to slow down the train on Volquez. Lots of pitchers with decent stuff do well the first time around through teams. But once their scouted enough end up like an ARROYO.

So like i said too soon to tell. One things for sure though. Hamilton is no joke. If Volquez ends up good enough for the long haul than yes i still take the trade.


Arroyo is a weak tossing pitcher, another story entirely. Arroyo was a great pick up from a player like Wily Mo. However, Voltron throws mid-ninties and high ninties, with a devasting change up. Thats a combination that even scouting can't beat. Arroyo throws what? 88. 90 now tops, with 80ish change up? Thats why Arroyo gets beat around.

jnwohio
05-04-2008, 10:58 AM
If one checks the standings this morning, the Rangers record is one game better than the Reds. Both teams are in last place; the Rangers are 1.5 games closer to their 1st place than the Reds are. Hamilton was AL player of the Month. Volguez was right up there. All this might suggest that in the larger scheme of things, the trade was totally irrelevant to each team's bottom line, at least as far as immediate impact.

I won't say Krivsky overvalued Volquez because he has a really high ceiling. I will say he undervalued the importance of Hamilton to the Reds offense (and dare I say defense too after watching watching Freel and Patterson butcher plays and not being able to throw people out in routine looking situations).

If Krivsky was dead set on getting Volquez and couldn't get the Rangers to part with Volquez for some alternate package that did not include Hamilton, then he should have immediately started looking for a legitimate CF/ lead off man as soon as he got off the phone from dealing Hamilton. Take that back, actually he should have had one premliniarily lined up before he picked up the phone to give the final thumbs up on the Volquez deal.

Big Hurt
05-04-2008, 11:13 AM
Yes. Pitching and defense wins titles. It has mostly been that way throughout history and will continue. Teams wothout good arms really don't have much of a chance.

demas863
05-04-2008, 11:18 AM
Of course! How else could Dusty have added Patterson?