PDA

View Full Version : Hamilton a .436 avg over the two month and 200 plus abs WOW



Redmachine2003
08-02-2010, 01:25 PM
I am not sure if there is a thread out there for this but the Kid has been amazing over the last two months.

RedsManRick
08-02-2010, 01:31 PM
He's definitely crushing the ball, but a .405 BABIP doesn't hurt either. At this point, the AL MVP is a pretty clear battle between him and Miggy Cabrera.

Ghosts of 1990
08-02-2010, 02:15 PM
Worst trade we've made since I've been a fan of this organization.

jojo
08-02-2010, 02:15 PM
He'd look great in left field at GABP for sure but at the time of the trade, both teams were taking some risk (though a position player is generally a less risky gamble).

OnBaseMachine
08-02-2010, 02:17 PM
He'd look great in left field at GABP for sure.

Sure it would, but it's nice having Edinson Volquez on the mound at GABP.

bucksfan2
08-02-2010, 02:17 PM
He'd look great in left field at GABP for sure.

:thumbup:

jojo
08-02-2010, 02:18 PM
Sure it would, but it's nice having Edinson Volquez on the mound at GABP.


For the purposes of the next two months, i'd rather have Hamilton. :cool:

OnBaseMachine
08-02-2010, 02:27 PM
Hamilton went on the disabled list twice with the Reds in 2007, plus he missed the final 2 1/2 weeks of that season though he didn't go on the DL. He was a huge injury risk and nobody knew if his value would ever be any higher than it was. I thought the Reds did well to acquire a young arm with top-of-rotation stuff for an injury prone corner outfielder who is/was one mistake away from being banned from baseball. I'm glad to see Josh doing well, I liked him a lot as a player but I'm a big fan of Volquez too. I think both teams did well in that trade.

TRF
08-02-2010, 02:29 PM
Another thread where we get to debate this? cool.

It was the right thing to do, the right trade for both teams and both players. Both had outstanding seasons right after the trade. Both were injured the following year. Volquez' injury means he likely isn't 100% until next year, maybe May of next year. Guys come back sooner from TJ surgery all the time, but the timetable for effectiveness is 18 month to two years. But if 2011 means a season of Volquez like 2008 was, then the Reds are winners. And that doesn't mean they win the trade, as in a winner and loser. This trade was win-win in 2008. what happens after that is health, luck and skill.

Not necessarily in that order.

BCubb2003
08-02-2010, 02:32 PM
Could Volquez strike out Hamilton?

TRF
08-02-2010, 02:42 PM
Could Volquez strike out Hamilton?

Yes.

And Hamilton could blast a 450 ft HR off him in the same game too.

Redhook
08-02-2010, 02:52 PM
I love watching Hamilton hit. One of the purest hitters I've ever seen.

HokieRed
08-02-2010, 02:56 PM
Worst trade we've made since I've been a fan of this organization.


Since I've been a fan a lot longer, I have to call it the 2nd worse--though, in fairness, I think the book's still out on that and depends almost entirely on how able Volquez is to learn to command his stuff.

westofyou
08-02-2010, 02:56 PM
Worst trade we've made since I've been a fan of this organization.

It's not even a 10th as bad as this deal

July 12, 2000: Denny Neagle traded by the Cincinnati Reds with Mike Frank to the New York Yankees for Jackson Melian (minors), Drew Henson, Brian Reith and Ed Yarnall.

RichRed
08-02-2010, 03:20 PM
It's not even a 10th as bad as this deal

July 12, 2000: Denny Neagle traded by the Cincinnati Reds with Mike Frank to the New York Yankees for Jackson Melian (minors), Drew Henson, Brian Reith and Ed Yarnall.

Should've held out for Shields.

TRF
08-02-2010, 03:22 PM
It's not even a 10th as bad as this deal

July 12, 2000: Denny Neagle traded by the Cincinnati Reds with Mike Frank to the New York Yankees for Jackson Melian (minors), Drew Henson, Brian Reith and Ed Yarnall.

But then they sent Henson back for WMP.

i heart WMP.

HokieRed
08-02-2010, 03:24 PM
Denny Neagle had about an average 6 ERA after we got rid of him, and, as I remember it, for mucho bucks. Looks to me like it was a pretty good deal.

oneupper
08-02-2010, 03:24 PM
In hindsight, that trade (Volquez/JH) has a Robinson for Pappas feel to it, unfortunately :(

As for its place in history, I don't think its fair to compare deadline deals to offseason deals and probably not to pre-FA deals. The money component complicates everything.

FWIW, the Reds gave value and got value in return. Just not the same amount. It happens.

RBA
08-02-2010, 03:41 PM
Good riddance.

Ghosts of 1990
08-02-2010, 04:05 PM
Sure it would, but it's nice having Edinson Volquez on the mound at GABP.

Hasn't even been close in terms of production; even with Hamilton's DL stints last season.

TRF
08-02-2010, 04:07 PM
Hasn't even been close in terms of production; even with Hamilton's DL stints last season.

No it hasn't.

I make that trade every single time though. And I never think twice about it.

Redmachine2003
08-02-2010, 04:08 PM
I think the only problem keeping Hamilton is he had to close of ties to the Boone family and that worried the Reds when they fired Bob Boone.

nate
08-02-2010, 04:09 PM
I think the only problem keeping Hamilton is he had to close of ties to the Boone family and that worried the Reds when they fired Bob Boone.

Do you mean Jerry Narron?

jojo
08-02-2010, 04:10 PM
Hasn't even been close in terms of production; even with Hamilton's DL stints last season.

In terms of production, it hasn't even been close.

But the proper calculus needs to focus mostly on the decisions and facts at the time of the trade.

Ghosts of 1990
08-02-2010, 04:10 PM
Hamilton is a Hall of Fame talent. A diamond.

Volquez is an All-Star player, of which there are a handful of around the league at the very least.

You don't trade guys like Josh Hamilton. I didn't understand the move then and I don't understand it now.

westofyou
08-02-2010, 04:10 PM
I think the only problem keeping Hamilton is he had to close of ties to the Boone family and that worried the Reds when they fired Bob Boone.

Narron.

And the fact is the Reds needed pitching and always have, they've had hitting forever.

Calculated gamble that has yet to proven to be that bad of a deal, other than a few Win Shares here and there

osuceltic
08-02-2010, 04:11 PM
It's strictly hindsight, of course, but the more interesting argument isn't Hamilton-Volquez, but Hamilton-Bruce. As I remember it, Texas was insisting on one or the other for Volquez. The Reds, understandably, refused to part with Bruce. But what if they had? What if we had Hamilton patrolling right field now instead of Bruce?

I don't think anyone was in favor of trading Bruce at the time, but I do remember making a devil's advocate argument for trading Bruce and keeping Hamilton. That argument, basically, went something like this: As good as we thought Bruce was going to be, we didn't really know. With Hamilton, we knew he could excel at the big-league level. Bruce was younger, but that almost could be considered a negative. We were going to have to wait through his growing pains while he was cheap, and when he entered the prime of his career, he would be ready to cash in with a big free agent deal--probably too rich for the Reds. Hamilton, on the other hand, would enjoy the prime of his career, age-wise, under cost control. Hamilton could play CF, Bruce couldn't (other than in a pinch).

Now, the arguments the other way are well known and legitimate. I'm just throwing this out there for conversation.

What if we had Volquez AND Hamilton, but no Jay Bruce? You have to admit ... Votto-Rolen-Hamilton would be an unbelievable 3-4-5 (or 2-3-4). How much of a difference would it make in this season's standings?

I have to admit ... if I could go back and do it again, I'd keep Hamilton and send them Bruce. I may live to regret it later ... but maybe not.

kbrake
08-02-2010, 04:12 PM
I think the only problem keeping Hamilton is he had to close of ties to the Boone family and that worried the Reds when they fired Bob Boone.

Boone was fired in 2003. I think you meant Narron and yeah he was attatched to the family.

I still think the Reds made the right move. Pitching is tough to come by and I think next season Volquez will take a giant step in the right direction. I was never a fan of having a player that required a full time babysitter. Good luck to Hamilton I enjoy seeing him do well but I'm glad to have Volquez.

HokieRed
08-02-2010, 04:20 PM
In terms of production, it hasn't even been close.

But the proper calculus needs to focus mostly on the decisions and facts at the time of the trade.

Agree with both points, and while I thought it a bad trade at the time, I think it was certainly a defensible one on both teams' parts. My greatest reservations about it at the time had to do with A. the greater risk of injury to a starting pitcher than to a position player, and B. Volquez's lack of command. Josh's history, admittedly, made the injury calculus somewhat different than in most cases--though still, as it has turned out, he has been available much more than Volquez. The second issue with Volquez remains and I think those who enthusiastically would "make the trade again" wilfully overlook it: he's got a 4.7 W/9 lifetime and his record shows very little, if any progress, toward lowering that number. He has terrific stuff; the question is whether he'll learn to command it. So, in that regard, the verdict on the trade's result is still to be determined, though I think the process was probably pretty sound on both sides.

TRF
08-02-2010, 04:20 PM
Hamilton is a Hall of Fame talent. A diamond.

Volquez is an All-Star player, of which there are a handful of around the league at the very least.

You don't trade guys like Josh Hamilton. I didn't understand the move then and I don't understand it now.

because talent plus a history of HEAVY drug use is no guarantee of anything. Playing in Cincinnati was right for Hamilton to re-ignite his career. playing elsewhere was probably right in helping sustain it.

And the Reds needed pitching in the worst way.

Unassisted
08-02-2010, 05:19 PM
I think the only problem keeping Hamilton is he had to close of ties to the Boone family and that worried the Reds when they fired Bob Boone.There were also rumored to be jealousy and clubhouse-chemistry issues because of the assigned coach (Johnny Narron) and the kid-gloves treatment (to prevent a relapse) that was given to Hamilton. We haven't heard any rumbles about the Reds clubhouse chemistry this year, so this trade may have worked out in the Reds favor from that standpoint.

Don't let the numbers overshadow the personality issues.

Redmachine2003
08-02-2010, 05:44 PM
Yea it was Narron sorry brain fart.

Chip R
08-02-2010, 05:47 PM
I think the only problem keeping Hamilton is he had to close of ties to the Boone family and that worried the Reds when they fired Bob Boone.

I blame Bob Boone.

Blitz Dorsey
08-02-2010, 07:15 PM
All it takes is one weak night and we'll be saying "I'm glad we have Edinson instead of a crackhead."

;-)

RFS62
08-02-2010, 09:07 PM
I'd do it again in a heartbeat.

Remember the circumstances when the trade went down.

The best trades are the ones which benefit both teams. You don't have to rip the other team off for it to be a good trade.

11larkin11
08-02-2010, 10:40 PM
Worst trade we've made since I've been a fan of this organization.

This has definitely sealed your fate as the biggest overexaggerator on this board.

Not only was this not the worst trade of any fanhood, it wasn't even a bad trade. It was and always will be a good trade, no matter what the two do.

REDREAD
08-03-2010, 12:50 PM
Hamilton is a Hall of Fame talent. A diamond.

Volquez is an All-Star player, of which there are a handful of around the league at the very least.

You don't trade guys like Josh Hamilton. I didn't understand the move then and I don't understand it now.

That was my thought at the time of the trade too. An MVP bat that can play CF is more rare than an above average starting pitcher.

In terms of injury risk, a pitcher is always going to be a bigger injury risk over their careers.

Volquez ended up performing much better than expected when he arrived.

Volquez having roid issues makes the trade smell even worse.

It's not the worst trade the Reds did by any means, but IMO it shows a shortcoming of Wayne (trading him). Wayne did not understand that if you field a bunch of Pattersons and Bakos, you will not crack 500, regardless of how good your pitching is.

pedro
08-03-2010, 12:55 PM
I'd do it again in a heartbeat.

Remember the circumstances when the trade went down.

The best trades are the ones which benefit both teams. You don't have to rip the other team off for it to be a good trade.

I'm with you.

Dom Heffner
08-03-2010, 12:58 PM
This has definitely sealed your fate as the biggest overexaggerator on this board.

Not only was this not the worst trade of any fanhood, it wasn't even a bad trade. It was and always will be a good trade, no matter what the two do.

Well count me in with him.

It turned out being a pretty bad one.

I would rather have had Hamilton then and now.

Hamilton wasn't a risk, because we got him for nothing. Nada.

There was never any risk with Hamilton because his price was zero.

OnBaseMachine
08-03-2010, 01:01 PM
Volquez having roid issues makes the trade smell even worse.


Hamilton had even worse issues.

Again, let's consider the circumstances at the time of the trade. Hamilton battled drug abuse for years and was banned from baseball. He also battled injury problems. Hamilton impressed with the Reds in 2007 but he also made two trips to the DL in addition to missing the final 2 1/2 weeks of the 2007 season. On one hand you have an extremely gifted outfielder, on the other hand you have a guy who is a huge injury risk and has the possibility of being banned from baseball for life if he had a slip up. God forbid that ever happening but the possibility is/was always there. There was a strong chance that Hamilton's value would never be any higher than it was at the time of the trade. As I said earlier, I thought the Reds did well to acquire a young arm with top-of-rotation stuff in return for Hamilton.

REDREAD
08-03-2010, 01:49 PM
Hamilton had even worse issues.

Again, let's consider the circumstances at the time of the trade. Hamilton battled drug abuse for years and was banned from baseball. He also battled injury problems. Hamilton impressed with the Reds in 2007 but he also made two trips to the DL in addition to missing the final 2 1/2 weeks of the 2007 season. On one hand you have an extremely gifted outfielder, on the other hand you have a guy who is a huge injury risk and has the possibility of being banned from baseball for life if he had a slip up. God forbid that ever happening but the possibility is/was always there. There was a strong chance that Hamilton's value would never be any higher than it was at the time of the trade. As I said earlier, I thought the Reds did well to acquire a young arm with top-of-rotation stuff in return for Hamilton.


I guess I saw a huge risk that Volquez would never even be an average starting pitcher. Sure, he had the tools, but so has Homer and a host of other prospects. Now we have the risk that Volquez's one great year might've been roid aided.

Sure, there's always the risk that Josh might relapse, but at the time of the trade, he was already an impact player. At the time of the trade, Volquez was a potential impact player. Since money was not an issue at the time, I say Josh was more of a "bird in the hand".

As it stands now, Volquez is showing flashes of brilliance and erraticness.
Hard to say how he will turn out. Of course, I hope he makes a full recovery.

I guess we are in contention without a contribution from either of them (Volquez's contribution this year hasn't really been significant).. I just think Hamilton has provided more production, and will continue to. I think if someone posts the Win shares from each player, it's not even close.
I expected this at the time of the trade, even if Volquez stayed healthy.

Volquez is a good pitcher when healthy and on. Hamilton was a potiential MVP in a key position. I just would never trade a guy like Hamilton.. I'd rather build around him.

And at the time, I would've prefered to give up Bruce too. I remember that discussion. My rationale is that it was highly unlikely that Bruce would become as good as Hamilton already was. Not a slam on Bruce, but Hamilton was that good. Again, it's the "Bird in the Hand" school of thought.

OnBaseMachine
08-03-2010, 01:54 PM
I guess I saw a huge risk that Volquez would never even be an average starting pitcher. Sure, he had the tools, but so has Homer and a host of other prospects. Now we have the risk that Volquez's one great year might've been roid aided.


Really? So how come Volquez didn't fail a test in 2008? Or in 2007 when he was with the Rangers? Come on.

NJReds
08-03-2010, 01:54 PM
Hamilton is amazing. At the beginning of his hot streak, they showed on MLB network how coaches made an adjustment to his swing that helped with is timing.

Unfortuntely for the Rangers, he's banged up again:


OF Josh Hamilton received a cortisone injection Sunday, his second of the season. It’s unclear if he will be able to return to the lineup for the start of the series with Seattle or not. Hamilton, who has been bothered by tendinitis in his knee, left Friday’s game early, did not play Saturday and was limited to pinch-hitting duty Sunday.

Patrick Bateman
08-03-2010, 01:58 PM
Hamilton is a Hall of Fame talent. A diamond.

Volquez is an All-Star player, of which there are a handful of around the league at the very least.

You don't trade guys like Josh Hamilton. I didn't understand the move then and I don't understand it now.

Look, there are 2 reasonable sides to this argument, and I have always been on the side that would have gambled on Hamilton, as I even suggested the Reds take him in the Rule V draft.

However, you have failed to include the most important fact in this discussion.

As such, it's prettay difficult to take your opinion seriously on the matter.

11larkin11
08-03-2010, 01:58 PM
Hamilton had even worse issues.

Again, let's consider the circumstances at the time of the trade. Hamilton battled drug abuse for years and was banned from baseball. He also battled injury problems. Hamilton impressed with the Reds in 2007 but he also made two trips to the DL in addition to missing the final 2 1/2 weeks of the 2007 season. On one hand you have an extremely gifted outfielder, on the other hand you have a guy who is a huge injury risk and has the possibility of being banned from baseball for life if he had a slip up. God forbid that ever happening but the possibility is/was always there. There was a strong chance that Hamilton's value would never be any higher than it was at the time of the trade. As I said earlier, I thought the Reds did well to acquire a young arm with top-of-rotation stuff in return for Hamilton.

OBM I have been disagreeing with you much more recently, but you hit the nail on the head. It was a good trade and hindsight is 20/20.


And even those looking at hindsight, it's STILL too early to judge this trade in that sense. Their OPS+ and ERA+ were very similar their first two seasons after the trade

kaldaniels
08-03-2010, 02:00 PM
To me in simpler terms it came down to this...did you want to parlay this reclamation project or did you want to let it ride. No right or wrong answer...I liked the trade, but as we sit today, the results have favored the Rangers...no lost sleep from me over it though.

Razor Shines
08-03-2010, 02:47 PM
Good riddance.

At the time I thought it was the right move and I am still leaning that way, but I wouldn't exactly say "good riddance".

bucksfan2
08-03-2010, 03:13 PM
At the time I hated the trade. No way would I have given up on the talent of a Josh Hamilton. Right now I wouldn't do the trade and still don't think the Reds will ever receive the true value of Hamilton in Volquez. To me Volquez even when healthy is too much of a question mark.

Mario-Rijo
08-03-2010, 03:37 PM
At the time I hated the trade. After watching what Volquez was/is capable of I was encouraged and content, especially given Hammy's constant injury issues. But I'll tell you watching a guy play everyday who is that special is tough to ween yourself away from. I don't get that way too often only Larkin was as impressive to me as Hamilton is/was. I'd literally pay good money to watch him play well, regardless of the outcome of the game. How many guys can you say that about?

REDREAD
08-04-2010, 11:50 AM
Really? So how come Volquez didn't fail a test in 2008? Or in 2007 when he was with the Rangers? Come on.

I'm just saying it's an unknown.. Manny and Ortiz and others were somehow able to dodge getting caught for roids too. I hope Volquez's performance hasn't been roids aided, but given that he's been caught, one has to be suspicious. It's really hard for me to believe that he started taking roids to get over Tommy John, when they have the rehab regime for that injury locked down pretty good. It's certainly possible though that he didn't start taking them until the injury.

BuckeyeRedleg
08-04-2010, 12:03 PM
At the time, I liked the trade even though I knew nothing about Volquez except for his scouting reports.

Now, I would not make the trade or I would have traded Bruce. Just being honest. I'm not going to sit here and say I'd still do the trade. Watching Volquez the past couple years stuggle with his command has been painful. Hopefully he can come back from his latest injury and get back to 2008 form, but I just don't see him ever being able to get to the 6th inning without throwing 100+ pitches.

Maybe his future is the pen. Closer, maybe? Dunno, but in hindsight, I would not make this trade again. Fire away.

MWM
08-04-2010, 01:31 PM
I didn't hate the trade when it happened and understood the reasoning behind it. It's tough to be too criticial of it when you look at in the context of timing. And in normal circumstances I would have been all for it. But in this case I didn't like it even at the time.

But this the reason you don't trade freaks. Josh Hamilton isn't just a good hitter, he's a freak of nature putting him into a category with few other members. I wouldn't have said the same about many players, but Hamilton was different. If we had a guy like Jay Bruce was right before he came up tearing through the minors, I wouldn't have objected. But I wanted to hold onto Hamilton.

I think it was someone else at the time on here that said it, but I thought it was dead on. The moral - don't trade freaks.

kaldaniels
08-04-2010, 01:35 PM
I didn't hate the trade when it happened and understood the reasoning behind it. It's tough to be too criticial of it when you look at in the context of timing. And in normal circumstances I would have been all for it. But in this case I didn't like it even at the time.

But this the reason you don't trade freaks. Josh Hamilton isn't just a good hitter, he's a freak of nature putting him into a category with few other members. I wouldn't have said the same about many players, but Hamilton was different. If we had a guy like Jay Bruce was right before he came up tearing through the minors, I wouldn't have objected. But I wanted to hold onto Hamilton.

I think it was someone else at the time on here that said it, but I thought it was dead on. The moral - don't trade freaks.

I'm NOT arguing with you, cause I get what you are saying...but am just hunting for your defintion of a "freak". Cause to me, Wily Mo was a freak.

bucksfan2
08-04-2010, 01:49 PM
I'm NOT arguing with you, cause I get what you are saying...but am just hunting for your defintion of a "freak". Cause to me, Wily Mo was a freak.

I would describe Wily Mo as toolsy and raw. Anyone who can put up a .922 OPS while not playing for years is a freak.

MWM
08-04-2010, 01:51 PM
I thought about WMP, as I thought he was a freak, too. But WMP was a freak just as far as a physical specimen. His baseball IQ was always very low. Hamilton was a freak of a different nature. His skills were freakish unlike WMPs, IMO. It's obviously very subjective and I don't claim any special discernment. I just looked at Hamilton and thought I was watching something unlike you see very often.

nemesis
08-04-2010, 03:34 PM
Since Texas may not be able to afford him going forward, would they be open to trade him at his peak value?

Say Bruce, Alonso and Joesph for him? Replaces Smoak, Replaces Hamilton, improves their bullpen.

HokieRed
08-04-2010, 03:47 PM
Since Texas may not be able to afford him going forward, would they be open to trade him at his peak value?

Say Bruce, Alonso and Joesph for him? Replaces Smoak, Replaces Hamilton, improves their bullpen.

Bruce replaces Hamilton?

TRF
08-04-2010, 03:51 PM
Since Texas may not be able to afford him going forward, would they be open to trade him at his peak value?

Say Bruce, Alonso and Joesph for him? Replaces Smoak, Replaces Hamilton, improves their bullpen.

no chance.

I was in Dallas this weekend. Billboards all over Arlington with his face on it. Hamilton jerseys everywhere. And if Cuban does win the bid, he'll be keeping Hamilton.

put it out of your mind... it ain't happening.

Dom Heffner
08-04-2010, 04:03 PM
If it was such a great deal, maybe Texas will take Volquez for him.

TRF
08-04-2010, 04:50 PM
If it was such a great deal, maybe Texas will take Volquez for him.

Well that's as shortsighted a POV as I've seen in a while.

It was a great deal, one the fit the needs of both teams at the time. Texas was pretty starved for OF offense. The Reds needed pitching.

And for all the "risk" surrounding Volquez, can we all remember that Hamilton is a drug addict. Not a recovering addict or former addict, he's an addict. And he'd be the first to say that. The day he stops being an addict is the day he draws his last breath. There was plenty of risk all around Hamilton. And what those drugs did to his body is not really known. He's been easy to get banged up, and most of his injuries are strains, not him slamming into a wall. It may very well be that his drug use has affected him in a way that has made his muscles more prone to pulls. Who knows? He really is uncharted territory.