PDA

View Full Version : The Hamilton Deal



Benihana
05-17-2009, 12:43 PM
Knowing everything we now know about how it played out, would you still make the Hamilton for Volquez/Herrera deal or would you rather have Josh Hamilton if you're the Reds? Also assume the Reds current roster would remain unchanged (ie we would still have Taveras). I guess another way of phrasing this question would be, if you could trade Volquez and Herrera back to Texas for Hamilton today, would you do it?

OnBaseMachine
05-17-2009, 01:01 PM
I would still make the trade 100 times out of 100.

RedFanAlways1966
05-17-2009, 01:08 PM
I would still make the trade 100 times out of 100.

I'll 2nd that. As a matter of fact I'll say 101 times out of 101.

Good pitching over good hitting. Everytime. REDS fans know all about good hitting, but not too much about good pitching. And see where that good hitting (not pitching) has taken our fav team since 1995.

dougdirt
05-17-2009, 01:09 PM
I don't trust drug addicts. Give me the pitchers.

edabbs44
05-17-2009, 01:18 PM
easily. did you know that Hamilton had a sub .800 ops last year on the road?

Team Clark
05-17-2009, 01:37 PM
The Reds came out on top of this deal. Now if there was just a way to get Hamilton back.....

PuffyPig
05-17-2009, 01:42 PM
Does this question have to be asked every few months?

redsmetz
05-17-2009, 02:05 PM
I'm answering yes in spite of the caveat about Hamilton's health. It was a win-win trade for both clubs, the classic giving up quality for quality and it has positioned the Reds to have a tremendous staff. I'd do that trade every day of the week.

redsmetz
05-17-2009, 02:06 PM
Does this question have to be asked every few months?

Start your own poll! :D

jojo
05-17-2009, 02:28 PM
I didn't think this was a no brainer trade at the time and hindsight doesn't change my opinion. I thought it was a calculated risk by both clubs who entered into it with different philosophies. So far, both sides have to be pleased as punch.

Right now: Rangers: 4.6 WAR; Reds: 4.7 WAR.


I think patience is the keyword. At 24, Volquez is pretty much what we all hope Bailey won't be in three years- a "high ceiling" arm still struggling to develop major league command. He's goy a very high ceiling but it's not likely he'll reach it (and hence why he was expendable). That said, there is nothing saying he can't reach it and he's in the right league to give him the best shot. Volquez is pretty similar to another guy that I've suggested the Reds target-Edwin Jackson. Volquez has plus velocity but doesn't command his fastball. His change up is really good but he's going to struggle at times when he's not commanding his heat because it will make his change less effective.

I like the addition. Volquez is an instant upgrade over the Reds back end 4/5 of '07 (maybe as much as a 2 win impact if he can manage to log enough innings) and it's a move that looks toward the future. For what it's worth Marcels is the only projection system i've seen for Volquez. It projects him to log 78 IP with an ERA of 5.02. He'll undoubtedly get more innings as a Red but the ERA of 5.00 seems reasonable though the league change should give him a boost. Expecting league average is probably too optimistic but hey, it's the time of year where hope springs eternal. His addition allows the Reds to break Cueto in as a high leverage bullpen arm-a role I think Cueto could really help the Reds in next season.

The Reds assume more risk though compared to Hamilton but honestly while his '07 validated the scouts we still have no idea what Hamilton's true performance level is or whether he'll be able to play a full season. Unfortunately this may make an extension for Dunn more likely.




I tend to agree with your assessment of their outfield. OF is only a strength for the Reds in '08 and then mostly because of the number of bodies they have (assuming Jr can stay healthy enough to play and his offensive decline continues to be gradual rather than cliff-like). The OF defense in '08 is locked in at the "it stinks" level now. For '08, they probably just traded their best option for RF (though there is no way Hamilton beats out Jr-it just wasn't going to happen even if Jr went 0 for ST). As a plus though, it opens an every day spot for Bruce in '08.

This move really weakens their OF in '09 when the Reds could potentially be shopping for both corners at a time when there will be several competent arms on the market (basically signing Dunn for an extension is still shopping-they'd be spending significant money on their OF). Lets not forget that we shouldn't be assuming that extending Dunn is just a matter of the Reds deciding they want to (I think most seem to feel Dunn isn't interested in testing the market). Also, imagine this hypothetical-the Reds could switch Dunn for Vlad by simply letting Dunn walk and then signing Vlad (probably for a similar contract as Dunn is goiing to require). The Reds could shave 30 runs against by switching (LF-Dunn, CF-Bruce, RF-Jr) for (LF-Hamilton, CF-Bruce, RF-Vlad). Just to equal the defensive upgrade, Volquez would have to be a 3 wins above replacement pitcher (ERA=4.00) so in other words, keeping Hamilton and switching Dunn for Vlad could be like adding an Arroyo and that's before considering the offensive impact.

So there is definitely risk and opportunity cost associated with adding Volquez. Of course keeping Hamilton was associated with risk as well.

Mario-Rijo
05-17-2009, 05:19 PM
Does this question have to be asked every few months?

I think now is actually an excellent time for this question. I think Volquez is showing more and more often now why he was available to begin with. The more of that I see the more I wonder how wise it was for us. I just wish there was another option to the poll because I can't honestly choose either option. I still lean to the pitching but wonder how long before Volquez turns into the Dominican version of pre St. Louis Kyle Lohse full time. It's not a given that injuries or addiction will derail Hamilton's career. So put me somewhere in the middle of those 2 but still leaning towards having done the deal.

CTA513
05-17-2009, 05:24 PM
He left todays game after making a catch off the wall in center.

SirFelixCat
05-17-2009, 05:34 PM
How is there even a question here? It should be a no brainer...absolutely you make the trade again.

mth123
05-17-2009, 05:36 PM
I don't trust drug addicts. Give me the pitchers.

Agree, He's not out of the woods yet as far as relapse goes. He may just be entering the danger zone as time makes him less vigilant and the money starts to really flow in.

I'd also rather have the pitchers.;)

Hoosier Red
05-17-2009, 05:37 PM
I think now is actually an excellent time for this question. I think Volquez is showing more and more often now why he was available to begin with. The more of that I see the more I wonder how wise it was for us. I just wish there was another option to the poll because I can't honestly choose either option. I still lean to the pitching but wonder how long before Volquez turns into the Dominican version of pre St. Louis Kyle Lohse full time. It's not a given that injuries or addiction will derail Hamilton's career. So put me somewhere in the middle of those 2 but still leaning towards having done the deal.

If you go by that measure, its still a good trade for the Reds. Hamilton has a .296 OBP and a .761 OPS this season. Kyle Lohse would be worth more than a guy who makes an out more than 7 times out of 10.

Unassisted
05-17-2009, 06:51 PM
How is there even a question here? It should be a no brainer...absolutely you make the trade again.
The curious thing is that Rangers fans might answer this question the same way.

Degenerate39
05-17-2009, 07:26 PM
Either way I'd be happy

BearcatShane
05-17-2009, 08:54 PM
I think the Reds have a better chance to win more games with Volquez pitching 35 times a year than Josh Hamilton playing 130 games a year.

KronoRed
05-17-2009, 09:18 PM
Great deal then great deal now.

remdog
05-17-2009, 10:00 PM
I like that short little lefty guy that tagged along. :) (So far anyway. :lol:)

Rem

Razor Shines
05-17-2009, 10:45 PM
He left todays game after making a catch off the wall in center.

It was just a precaution. That was a game saving catch too.

Even though Josh is one of my favorite players in the game, I'd still do the trade.

GAC
05-18-2009, 07:47 AM
Does this question have to be asked every few months?

I agree. Especially when it's phrased "Knowing everything we know now". What do we know NOW that should somehow make anyone question this trade? Both players had phenom years last year, and so far this year have struggled out of the gate, with Josh spending some time on the DL.

If Josh was still on this team, and seeing his DL stint and struggles, we'd be seeing threads on here on "What is wrong with Josh?" or "Why We Should Have Pulled The Trigger When We Had The Chance And Traded Josh" ;)

Volquez has had his struggles to be sure; but is 4-2 with a 4.25 ERA, 1.29 Whip. Not a meltdown or disaster.

Come back and ask this question in 2-3 years when either of these guys has really established (proven) themselves.

Jpup
05-18-2009, 07:52 AM
I hated it then and I hate it now. I like Volquez, but Josh Hamilton is much more valuable IMO.

Sea Ray
05-18-2009, 05:36 PM
This is a tough question and I'm a little surprised that the poll results don't reflect that.

The thing is we don't know if Volquez will stay healthy either. Hard throwing young pitchers can blow out as quickly as drug addicts.

I have a friend who follows AL West baseball closely and he rails on me for trading Josh. He says we traded Mickey Mantle and you don't do that for any pitcher. He dreads everytime Josh comes to the plate.

I'm torn. I think pitching is more valuable than hitting but CFs with 5 tools is pretty nice to have too.

Ultimately I think this trade will hinge on which one breaks down first, but it's a great topic for sports boards like this one

fearofpopvol1
05-18-2009, 05:46 PM
This is a tough question and I'm a little surprised that the poll results don't reflect that.

The thing is we don't know if Volquez will stay healthy either. Hard throwing young pitchers can blow out as quickly as drug addicts.

I have a friend who follows AL West baseball closely and he rails on me for trading Josh. He says we traded Mickey Mantle and you don't do that for any pitcher. He dreads everytime Josh comes to the plate.

I'm torn. I think pitching is more valuable than hitting but CFs with 5 tools is pretty nice to have too.

Ultimately I think this trade will hinge on which one breaks down first, but it's a great topic for sports boards like this one

Though obviously not the centerpiece, you have to consider DRH as well. He's done well so far and while relievers aren't THAT big of a deal, if he winds up being a good one, you have to factor that into the overall picture.

Benihana
05-18-2009, 05:56 PM
I agree. Especially when it's phrased "Knowing everything we know now". What do we know NOW that should somehow make anyone question this trade? Both players had phenom years last year, and so far this year have struggled out of the gate, with Josh spending some time on the DL.

If Josh was still on this team, and seeing his DL stint and struggles, we'd be seeing threads on here on "What is wrong with Josh?" or "Why We Should Have Pulled The Trigger When We Had The Chance And Traded Josh" ;)

Volquez has had his struggles to be sure; but is 4-2 with a 4.25 ERA, 1.29 Whip. Not a meltdown or disaster.

Come back and ask this question in 2-3 years when either of these guys has really established (proven) themselves.

Both players had phenomenal years. The Reds now have stacked pitching and a big hole in the offense, particularly in the OF. Yet Hamilton's hit the DL already, and has not gotten off to a great start. I'd say we know a fair amount.

This is exactly why this question is an interesting one now. Of course, 2-3 years from now we will know for sure who won this trade. People sometimes forget that this is a messageboard. I think discussions and polls like this one are perfectly fitting for the context, and apparently several posters on this thread agree.

remdog
05-18-2009, 06:00 PM
I have a friend who follows AL West baseball closely and he rails on me for trading Josh. He says we traded Mickey Mantle and you don't do that for any pitcher.

Well, would he have traded Mickey Mantle for Jaun Marichal? If these two players turn out to be those comps then I'd take pitching over hitting every time if you want to win a pennant. If you want an entertaining team, then hitting is a better bet for the average fan. (How's that worked out lately, Reds fans?)

Plus you have to take into consideration what each team needs. At the time of the trade, both teams needed pitching. Simple as that. Rangers gave it up, Reds didn't.

I still think it was a good trade for both clubs and no one should get railed upon for the deal.

Rem

jojo
05-18-2009, 06:01 PM
Both players had phenomenal years. The Reds now have stacked pitching and a big hole in the offense, particularly in the OF. Yet Hamilton's hit the DL already, and has not gotten off to a great start. I'd say we know a fair amount.

Even though Hamilton has gotten off to a slow start, his WAR is twice that of Volquez' thus far in '09.

MikeS21
05-18-2009, 06:54 PM
The thing I struggle with is the nagging feeling that Krivsky could have snagged Volquez for lesser return than Hamilton.

The Rangers knew that Volquez had a boatload of talent, but quite frankly, he was so inconsistent that they didn't know what to do with him. While I'm positive the Rangers marketed Volquez as an "uber-talented," "cornerstone of our franchise" talent, he was not a lock to make the Rangers' starting rotation.

I think Krivsky was so desperate to appease the "bring up Jay Bruce" crowd, and to bring in young starting pitching, that he saw a deal to kill two birds with one stone, and he didn't make the best deal.

I truly think that Krivsky could have packaged Drew Stubbs and Homer Bailey, and it would probably have gotten the deal done without losing any major chips. The Texas connections alone may have intrigued the Rangers in to making the deal. And if needed, he could have thrown in a guy like Sam LeCure to sweeten the pot.

The Reds could have lived with an OF of Dunn, Hamilton, and Griffey for half a season in 2008 until the trades of Dunn and Junior were made. It certainly would have made Corey Patterson more scarce. And an OF of Hamilton, Tavares, and Bruce for this year would certainly be a major upgrade defensively. At it most certainly would be better offensively than what they're running out there right now.

Don't get me wrong. I like Edison Volquez. I'm happy he is here. I'm just not convinced that Krivsky couldn't have landed Volquez without giving up Hamilton, Cueto, Votto, or Bruce.

westofyou
05-18-2009, 06:59 PM
Hamilton is just another hitter, this team has been churning those out for 50 years, it's a nice trait but as we've seen it's tilted and the Reds needed to make a leveraged bet, they made two great ones by getting him and the trading him at his absolute height of worth, he now is anchored with a contract, and expectations.

A great baseball move in theory and so far it's worked out great.

OnBaseMachine
05-18-2009, 07:01 PM
It's not like the Rangers were dangling Edinson Volquez. They were looking for a big outfield bat, and Josh Hamilton just happened to fit that description. Krivsky demanded Edinson Volquez in return. I remember him saying that it was either Volquez or no deal. The Rangers wouldn't have settled for Drew Stubbs and Homer Bailey because that's not what they were looking for.

By the way, Josh Hamilton is not a center fielder. He was rated as one of the worst defensive CFers in the game last season. His UZR was -13.2 and his UZR/150 was -17.7. He may play center field, but he's not very good out there. He's a very good hitter, but he's injury prone and as someone else pointed out, his OPS was only .779 away from the hitter friendly Ballpark in Arlington last year. I'm thrilled that the Reds were able to land a young top-of-rotation starter like Volquez for Hamilton.

Sea Ray
05-18-2009, 09:24 PM
Though obviously not the centerpiece, you have to consider DRH as well. He's done well so far and while relievers aren't THAT big of a deal, if he winds up being a good one, you have to factor that into the overall picture.



Very good point. If he ends up being no more than an innings eater out of the bullpen then he would be a very valuable piece to this trade

Sea Ray
05-18-2009, 09:29 PM
The thing I struggle with is the nagging feeling that Krivsky could have snagged Volquez for lesser return than Hamilton.

Don't get me wrong. I like Edison Volquez. I'm happy he is here. I'm just not convinced that Krivsky couldn't have landed Volquez without giving up Hamilton, Cueto, Votto, or Bruce.


Krivsky has given us every indication that he tried but the Rangers insisted on Hamilton.

REDREAD
05-18-2009, 09:57 PM
Everyone knows that I'm not Wayne's biggest fan :), but I don't think he had the option to pawn off someone else on the Rangers. In fact, my guess is that the Rangers wanted Hamilton really really bad. The Rangers did not want to trade Volquez, they only did it because it was the only way to get Hamilton.

I'd rather have Hamilton, just because he's exactly what this team has needed the last two years.. an impact bat that can play CF (or LF) and bat cleanup. We can talk in generalities that pitching is better than hitting (not sure I agree).. however the Reds would be better off with a better balanced team. Hamilton helps Harang, Arroyo, etc win more games.

Now, back when the Reds' best pitcher was Jimmy Haynes, and they were loaded with offense, a trade like this made more sense.

I also agree that investing in young pitching is a risky venture (more risky than hitting).

That said, even though I'd rather have Hamilton, I don't feel as though the Reds really lost this trade. So far, it seems close to a push.

RFS62
05-18-2009, 10:36 PM
We got Volquez for $50,000. That's what Josh cost us in the Rule 5 draft.

It was the deal of a lifetime, both ends. I'm very happy for Josh to have landed in Texas. I'm even happier for us.

Pitching rules.

I'd do that trade all day long.