PDA

View Full Version : Hamilton for Volquez - then & now



Brutus
09-29-2010, 05:04 PM
What did you make of the Josh Hamilton-for-Edinson Volquez trade then and how do you feel about it now?

Both players are giving their teams what they hoped to accomplish out of them, while both continue to have their flaws pop up now and again (Hamilton's health and Volquez' command).

Side note: how scary is it that Hamilton has accumulated 8.0 WAR, per Fangraphs, while only having played 130 games thus far. Amazing, really. (BTW, I am not trying to influence the vote, I'm just blown away by that).

So be heard. I've made an option to cover almost every stance.

Phhhl
09-29-2010, 05:19 PM
Hamilton is an incredibly gifted hitter and I wold still love to have him. But, I don't think we are talking about revisitng Frank Robinson here. Volquez has clearly shown that he can be a top of the rotation starter for extended periods of time, even as he fights through injuries, and those guys are worth their weight in gold. I have no regrets. If the Reds were to go far in the postseason, it is hard to imagine it without Volquez playing a major role.

Brutus
09-29-2010, 05:25 PM
Hamilton is an incredibly gifted hitter and I wold still love to have him. But, I don't think we are talking about revisitng Frank Robinson here. Volquez has clearly shown that he can be a top of the rotation starter for extended periods of time, even as he fights through injuries, and those guys are worth their weight in gold. I have no regrets. If the Reds were to go far in the postseason, it is hard to imagine it without Volquez playing a major role.

I completely agree that Volquez is the guy more than any in the Reds' rotation that can carry this team through the playoffs. He's the guy capable of going toe-to-toe with a Roy Halladay and matching him tit-for-tat. I guess the obvious question is can he (will he) do it consistently enough? The Reds cannot afford a 4-inning disaster.

Seeing Hamilton doing what he's doing is disappointing, but I don't regret the trade. If anything, his injury problems reinforce why it may have been worth doing. Heck, Hamilton is questionable for the playoffs for Texas and even if he plays, it won't be at 100%.

edabbs44
09-29-2010, 05:26 PM
I liked the trade at the time but am indifferent on it now.

dougdirt
09-29-2010, 05:27 PM
I loved it then and I still love it now. I just can't trust drug addicts.

Homer Bailey
09-29-2010, 05:28 PM
Using hindsight, I think you'd have a hard time convincing me that the Reds have gotten more out of Volquez than the Rangers have gotten out of Hamilton. Going forward, I'm still undecided, but from the time the trade up until now, it's not even close: the Rangers won the trade.

And I was in total support of the trade when it happened. I didn't think Hamilton was THIS good.

bucksfan2
09-29-2010, 05:30 PM
Didn't like the trade then and really don't care for it now.

The Reds have a major issue out there in LF while they are deep at the SP position. I just don't know if Volquez will ever take that next step into a TOR starter. If you would ask me right now would I trade Volquez for the American League MVP I would do it.

reds44
09-29-2010, 05:32 PM
I don't know how you can go back and say it was a bad trade. Before Volquez blew his arm out, he was a dominant starter. For an entire season, he showed the potential he had. Then he blew his arm out and missed a year. He started slow (as should have been expected), but he's really come on lately and could be an X factor to our playoff run.

As Homer said, you can't really argue that the Rangers have gotten more out of Hamilton then we have Volquez, but it was a good trade. It was a high risk bat for a high risk arm, both who have showed their potential.

Tom Servo
09-29-2010, 05:34 PM
At the moment I'm pretty damn indifferent to it. That could change if Volquez continues to get back to a good level though.

RedsBaron
09-29-2010, 05:37 PM
Ask me in five years. Ask me again in ten years. Right now the Rangers got the better of the deal, but that may not be the case by the time their respective careers are over.

Brutus
09-29-2010, 05:38 PM
I don't know how you can go back and say it was a bad trade. Before Volquez blew his arm out, he was a dominant starter. For an entire season, he showed the potential he had. Then he blew his arm out and missed a year. He started slow (as should have been expected), but he's really come on lately and could be an X factor to our playoff run.

As Homer said, you can't really argue that the Rangers have gotten more out of Hamilton then we have Volquez, but it was a good trade. It was a high risk bat for a high risk arm, both who have showed their potential.

As a preface to my comments, I was in favor of the trade then, and am no worse than indifferent on it now. So I want you to know where I stand on that.

But I don't think it's accurate to call Volquez a "dominant" starter before his injury.

His career numbers in 388 innings:

4.38 ERA
1.48 WHIP
8.7 K/9 but 4.7 BB/9
4.31 FIP

Nothing about those numbers suggest he's been a dominant starter. Good starter, yes, absolutely. But he's been far from dominant thus far. He definitely shows the ability to be dominant. If he keeps improving his command, he will be a dominant starter. But to this point, even prior to the injury, I don't see it with him. Actually his overall FIP this year is better than his numbers prior to the injury.

UKFlounder
09-29-2010, 05:39 PM
I think Gomes in LF has been as good as the back end of our supposed deep rotation. Volquez, Bailey, Harang & others at the back end of the rotation have had some very good games & shown promise, but have had quite a few miserable outings as well, much like Gomes has been inconsistent in the outfield. If you count Leake as being a 4th or 5th starter, he too had ups and downs.

Arroyo & Cueto have been the only 2 reliable starters this year, with the Reds riding hot streaks and surviving cold spells from the others, including Volquez. I just am not sure that our starting pitching, especially after Arroyo & Cueto, has been that much better than what Gomes has provided in LF

Granted, guys like Volquez, Baily, Leake & Wood have much better potential than Gomes, but not necessarily production, from what I've seen.

I guess the other question is what was your answer in mid-season 2008? Would you have traded a NY Cy Young contender for Hamilton at that time? Neither has been healthy or reliable, and while Hamilton has had a remarkable year, will he repeat it? Will Volquez repeat 2008?

It's a tough question. Hamilton is awfully good right now, when he plays, and Volquez is inconsistent. I'd love to have Josh right now, but maybe a year from now I'll be thrilled with Edinson.




Didn't like the trade then and really don't care for it now.

The Reds have a major issue out there in LF while they are deep at the SP position. I just don't know if Volquez will ever take that next step into a TOR starter. If you would ask me right now would I trade Volquez for the American League MVP I would do it.

dougdirt
09-29-2010, 05:44 PM
As a preface to my comments, I was in favor of the trade then, and am no worse than indifferent on it now. So I want you to know where I stand on that.

But I don't think it's accurate to call Volquez a "dominant" starter before his injury.

His career numbers in 388 innings:

4.38 ERA
1.48 WHIP
8.7 K/9 but 4.7 BB/9
4.31 FIP

Nothing about those numbers suggest he's been a dominant starter. Good starter, yes, absolutely. But he's been far from dominant thus far. He definitely shows the ability to be dominant. If he keeps improving his command, he will be a dominant starter. But to this point, even prior to the injury, I don't see it with him. Actually his overall FIP this year is better than his numbers prior to the injury.

What he did as a Ranger means nothing though. As a Red, Volquez has a 3.62 ERA (120 ERA+), 308.1ip, 320K, 160BB and 26HR allowed. That is a #2 starter.

Now, numbers wise, the Rangers have gotten the better end so far (5.6 wins for Volquez, 13.4 for Hamilton). Still, all Hamilton has to do is fail one test, just one bad night and he is out of baseball forever. You can't place a value on that, but even with how it is now, I wouldn't trade Volquez for Hamilton today if the Rangers called about it.

Sea Ray
09-29-2010, 05:44 PM
The issue with Hamilton is could he stay healthy? That's still a question. How disappointing would it be if he can't contribute during the playoffs?

At the time the thinking was a stud starting pitcher was more valuable than a stud outfielder with the idea that it's a pitching dominated game.

That said I'd just as soon have kept Hamilton but it wasn't a bad trade.

bucksfan2
09-29-2010, 05:44 PM
As a preface to my comments, I was in favor of the trade then, and am no worse than indifferent on it now. So I want you to know where I stand on that.

But I don't think it's accurate to call Volquez a "dominant" starter before his injury.

His career numbers in 388 innings:

4.38 ERA
1.48 WHIP
8.7 K/9 but 4.7 BB/9
4.31 FIP

Nothing about those numbers suggest he's been a dominant starter. Good starter, yes, absolutely. But he's been far from dominant thus far. He definitely shows the ability to be dominant. If he keeps improving his command, he will be a dominant starter. But to this point, even prior to the injury, I don't see it with him. Actually his overall FIP this year is better than his numbers prior to the injury.

Volquez was a dominant starter in the first half of 2008. Ever since the All-Star break that year he has leveled off, had TJ surgery, suspended for 50 games, and had an up and down last 10 starts.

Brutus
09-29-2010, 05:48 PM
What he did as a Ranger means nothing though. As a Red, Volquez has a 3.62 ERA (120 ERA+), 308.1ip, 320K, 160BB and 26HR allowed. That is a #2 starter.

Now, numbers wise, the Rangers have gotten the better end so far (5.6 wins for Volquez, 13.4 for Hamilton). Still, all Hamilton has to do is fail one test, just one bad night and he is out of baseball forever. You can't place a value on that, but even with how it is now, I wouldn't trade Volquez for Hamilton today if the Rangers called about it.

Why shouldn't those innings count? It's cherry-picking to remove them. Especially since we're discussing what Volquez is/was and particularly in responding to 44's assertion he was a dominant starter prior to the injury... the numbers don't support that.

Even the numbers you cite as a Red do not, in my opinion, scream "dominant."

REDREAD
09-29-2010, 05:48 PM
The issue with Hamilton is could he stay healthy? That's still a question. How disappointing would it be if he can't contribute during the playoffs?
.

The same question applies to Volquez. He's already had TJ.
He's been pretty inconsistent since. He also has the steriod issue hanging over his head.
I hope he comes back, but he's far from a slam dunk to be an ace pitcher going forward.

Unassisted
09-29-2010, 05:54 PM
If baseball were played in a vacuum, I wouldn't like the trade so much. Hamilton's a better hitter than Volquez is a pitcher, but we shouldn't forget that there were off-the-field circumstances that made this deal useful. The kid-gloves treatment that Hamilton received as a Red created chemistry issues in the Reds clubhouse. Hamilton's handling rubbed Griffey and Dunn the wrong way and it might well have rubbed Rolen the wrong way if he were still a Red. This clubhouse works and that seems to have translated to success on the field.

Sea Ray
09-29-2010, 05:57 PM
The same question applies to Volquez. He's already had TJ.
He's been pretty inconsistent since. He also has the steriod issue hanging over his head.
I hope he comes back, but he's far from a slam dunk to be an ace pitcher going forward.

I don't expect the Reds to foresee his TJ surgery so it's not fair to work that into evaluating the trade. The Reds did have concern at the time of the trade of Hamilton's ability to stay healthy

OnBaseMachine
09-29-2010, 05:59 PM
I liked the trade then and I still like it. When healthy, Volquez has been a dominant starter with the Reds. I think he's going to be an ace caliber starter over the next few years assuming he stays healthy.

CTA513
09-29-2010, 05:59 PM
If people think how Votto acts is weird imagine how weird it would be to have a star player skip the team celebration after clinching a playoff spot.

RedsManRick
09-29-2010, 06:00 PM
I'm more ambivalent than indifferent. Was then and still am. Hamilton clearly had a ton of talent and I wasn't a big fan of moving him. Nor was I huge fan of getting a guy who was a supposed head case with great stuff but no command.

That said, Hamilton was clearly an ongoing injury concern and, not taking anything away from his wonderful comeback, carried a permanent risk of relapse in to major substance abuse. And regardless of what you or I think about it, his situation was apparently a distraction in the clubhouse as well. This fan-base didn't exactly handle Votto's issues well. I can't imagine how hot/cold they'd blow with Hamilton. His situation would be a constant distraction.

It's one thing to take on high risk guys as part of a playoff push. It's quite another to build a team around them -- and the Reds were in the process of building a core that could last. Hamilton was simply too high risk. And even if none of that were the case, the Reds were in desperate need of high ceiling starting pitching and had OF to spare.

I would love to have Hamilton on this team and in this organization - I'd trade Volquez back to the Rangers for him in a heartbeat (I'm lower on Volquez than most -- he will never be an elite pitcher with his walk rates). But given the circumstances, I think the trade was a shrewd move and the right move at the time.

dougdirt
09-29-2010, 06:03 PM
Why shouldn't those innings count? It's cherry-picking to remove them. Especially since we're discussing what Volquez is/was and particularly in responding to 44's assertion he was a dominant starter prior to the injury... the numbers don't support that.

Even the numbers you cite as a Red do not, in my opinion, scream "dominant."

Those innings shouldn't count because the question is about the trade, not before the trade. Volquez as a Red has been a #2 starter, if not a low end #1. Not an ACE, but pretty darn good.

TRF
09-29-2010, 06:07 PM
All Volquez has to do is fail one drug test and he is done for a year minimum. Lets not overlook that when talking about Hamilton's past history.

I thought another failed test would be strike 2. that's 100 games not a full year right?

fearofpopvol1
09-29-2010, 06:08 PM
Too early to say in my opinion.

I think most would agree that having Hamilton for this postseason would be more valuable to the Reds than Volquez would be. But moving forward? I'm not sure about that. I think Hamilton, even more than the possible drug relapse, is always going to be 1 step away from another injury.

We'll have to wait and see. I'd really like to see how Volquez pitches post-TJ surgery.

RedsManRick
09-29-2010, 06:10 PM
Volquez's explanation of the positive drug test:
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/dailypitch/post/2010/04/reds-pitcher-edinson-volquez-suspended-for-violating-drug-policy/1

"Prior to the conclusion of last season, my wife and I sought medical advice in Cincinnati with the hope of starting a family. As part of my consultation with the physician, I received certain prescribed medications to treat my condition."

edabbs44
09-29-2010, 06:11 PM
Those innings shouldn't count because the question is about the trade, not before the trade. Volquez as a Red has been a #2 starter, if not a low end #1. Not an ACE, but pretty darn good.

When Volquez is at full strength next year and beyond, do you expect him to be more 1st half of 2008 than 2nd half 2008/pre injury 2009? Or a hybrid of the two?

dougdirt
09-29-2010, 06:12 PM
When Volquez is at full strength next year and beyond, do you expect him to be more 1st half of 2008 than 2nd half 2008/pre injury 2009? Or a hybrid of the two?

I expect a low HR rate, 9.5 K/9 and somewhere around 4 BB/9.

Brutus
09-29-2010, 06:13 PM
Those innings shouldn't count because the question is about the trade, not before the trade. Volquez as a Red has been a #2 starter, if not a low end #1. Not an ACE, but pretty darn good.

But shouldn't what happened before the trade play into discussing the merits of the trade? I mean, people will mention what Hamilton did in Cincinnati before being traded. I think it's only fair what Volquez did in his years with Texas should at least be counted. Especially since Volquez has been up in the Majors in five different seasons, even excluding his 12 innings in 2005, and other than the first half of the year in 2008, he really hasn't done much.

Now, make no mistake, the first 3-4 months of 2008, he was pretty electrifying. But he's also not done much outside of that timeframe. This month is encouraging, because he's been consistent since being recalled from Dayton. But he's been all over the map thus far in his career.

reds1869
09-29-2010, 06:15 PM
I have always felt the trade was a bit of a wash. I'm not going to rehash the numbers as they've already been brought up above. Each team has seemed to have the upper hand at times. In the end, though, this isn't fantasy baseball. Both teams filled a need and filled it well. I think we will truly understand how this trade worked out for both sides in a few years. For now, it looks like both teams benefitted exactly as they hoped to.

dougdirt
09-29-2010, 06:16 PM
But shouldn't what happened before the trade play into discussing the merits of the trade? I mean, people will mention what Hamilton did in Cincinnati before being traded. I think it's only fair what Volquez did in his years with Texas should at least be counted. Especially since Volquez has been up in the Majors in five different seasons, even excluding his 12 innings in 2005, and other than the first half of the year in 2008, he really hasn't done much.

Now, make no mistake, the first 3-4 months of 2008, he was pretty electrifying. But he's also not done much outside of that timeframe. This month is encouraging, because he's been consistent since being recalled from Dayton. But he's been all over the map thus far in his career.

I will lean on the eyes test.... he passes it with flying colors. I just have more faith in him than I do in a drug addict. Maybe its my life in dealing with such people and a lack of any type of trust of them, but for me, its always going to be the first thing about him that I think about.

MWM
09-29-2010, 06:18 PM
I don't think there's a team in baseball that would take Volquez over Hamilton given the choice. That's not a knock on Edinson, it's just Hamilton is that good.

Brutus
09-29-2010, 06:22 PM
I will lean on the eyes test.... he passes it with flying colors. I just have more faith in him than I do in a drug addict. Maybe its my life in dealing with such people and a lack of any type of trust of them, but for me, its always going to be the first thing about him that I think about.

I'm not saying I disagree about whether or not the Reds should have done the trade. I'm just specifically saying I don't agree with the assertion that Volquez, overall, has been dominant. There are a lot of good reasons to justify the trade--the personal history of Hamilton being one of them (though I think it's unfair to call him a drug addict as it seems he has put those demons behind him to this point). But that doesn't necessarily mean Volquez has, on the field, yet fully lived up to the production one would expect of him in such a trade.

reds44
09-29-2010, 06:36 PM
As a preface to my comments, I was in favor of the trade then, and am no worse than indifferent on it now. So I want you to know where I stand on that.

But I don't think it's accurate to call Volquez a "dominant" starter before his injury.

His career numbers in 388 innings:

4.38 ERA
1.48 WHIP
8.7 K/9 but 4.7 BB/9
4.31 FIP

Nothing about those numbers suggest he's been a dominant starter. Good starter, yes, absolutely. But he's been far from dominant thus far. He definitely shows the ability to be dominant. If he keeps improving his command, he will be a dominant starter. But to this point, even prior to the injury, I don't see it with him. Actually his overall FIP this year is better than his numbers prior to the injury.
I was not talking about his career with the Rangers, I was talking about his time with the Reds. He was a dominant starter, after the trade, before his arm fell off.

mdccclxix
09-29-2010, 06:44 PM
I think the term 'one in the hand is worth two in the bush' helps with my appreciation of the trade. To hold an ace quality starter in hand has allowed the Reds to shape their rotation throughout the time Volquez has been here. It's made the decline of Harang more manageable, the urgency of Bailey's career lesser (he doesn't need to be the future ace), likewise with Cueto. Let's not forget how those two are buds, either. Volquez really fits into the fabric of this team. Despite old reports from Texas, I think he has a great attitude nowadays and a strong work ethic.

That said, Hamilton is an awesome talent. He's more gifted than about anyone else in baseball. Given all the question marks he had which Doug brings up, add the development of Bruce coming on at the time, and we still had Dunn perhaps resigning if needed and Griff was healthy and happy, it was the right time to make a move for pitching. Think of what we paid for Hamilton, nothing. He wasn't a top draft pick who had been coached in our system or anything. Poof, now we have an awesome TOR pitcher.

That's why I don't dwell on it, it was a great trade.

Brutus
09-29-2010, 06:44 PM
I was not talking about his career with the Rangers, I was talking about his time with the Reds. He was a dominant starter, after the trade, before his arm fell off.

That's really not accurate though.

Look at 2008:

April: 1.23 ERA
May: 1.63 ERA
June: 3.45 ERA
July: 4.54 ERA
Aug: 4.50 ERA
Sep: 4.09 ERA

Then in 2009 prior to the injury:

4.35 ERA

So if you want to say he was dominant in his first two months as a starter for the Reds, OK fine. But since then... where are you seeing this dominance? For the last 4 months of 2008 and then in the first two months of 2009... there was no dominance to be found.

I think the sheer awesome start in 2008 has jaded people into revisionist history thinking that he carried over that performance into 2009, or even later in 2008. That really didn't happen.

reds44
09-29-2010, 07:16 PM
That's really not accurate though.

Look at 2008:

April: 1.23 ERA
May: 1.63 ERA
June: 3.45 ERA
July: 4.54 ERA
Aug: 4.50 ERA
Sep: 4.09 ERA

Then in 2009 prior to the injury:

4.35 ERA

So if you want to say he was dominant in his first two months as a starter for the Reds, OK fine. But since then... where are you seeing this dominance? For the last 4 months of 2008 and then in the first two months of 2009... there was no dominance to be found.

I think the sheer awesome start in 2008 has jaded people into revisionist history thinking that he carried over that performance into 2009, or even later in 2008. That really didn't happen.
You're cherry picking stats right now.

Volquez had a 3.21 ERA and 204 strikesout 196 innings in 2008. He was also probably the best pitcher in baseball during the first half of the season. His 2008 season was dominant.

Razor Shines
09-29-2010, 07:50 PM
As I've said for the rest of this one season I'd rather have Hamilton, but for the future I'd probably t!me Volquez.

paintmered
09-29-2010, 07:52 PM
It was a win-win then, and it's a win-win now.

kaldaniels
09-29-2010, 07:56 PM
I like/liked the deal and the final results are yet to be gathered, but man I wish the Reds had Hamilton going into this postseason rather than Volquez.

Brutus
09-29-2010, 08:00 PM
You're cherry picking stats right now.

Volquez had a 3.21 ERA and 204 strikesout 196 innings in 2008. He was also probably the best pitcher in baseball during the first half of the season. His 2008 season was dominant.

I'm not cherry-picking anything. You said he was dominant before the injury. But he played 8 months as a Reds' starter and he was only "dominant" for two of them. To me, you're exaggerating more than I'm cherry-picking.

I think he's been a good starter for the Reds. But I don't see how someone can be dominant when they were only even much above average in 2-3 of the 8 months they played.

That's like saying Chris Heisey has been a dominant outfielder for the Reds because he tore it up in May & June.

mth123
09-29-2010, 10:16 PM
I loved it then and I still love it now. I just can't trust drug addicts.

My thoughts exactly.

Redhook
09-29-2010, 10:29 PM
As I've said for the rest of this one season I'd rather have Hamilton, but for the future I'd probably t!me Volquez.

This about sums it up. Does anyone think the Reds would've traded Hamilton if he never had any drug problems? Obviously, he probably would've still been with the Rays, but I don't think he would've been traded if there wasn't the drug risk.

I still remember watching Hamilton on tv during Spring Training that first year with the Reds. I was shocked at what I saw. I remember telling my friend that if you didn't know better and you were watching the Reds for the first time you would've thought Hamilton was the best hitter on the team. By far. I miss watching him play for the Reds.

HokieRed
09-29-2010, 10:37 PM
I like having Volquez a great deal, but I'd rather have Hamilton. That was true when we made the trade, is true today, and will be, I suspect, true in future. Two things could change that evaluation, one I hope does not happen, one I hope does. What I hope doesn't happen is that Josh has a relapse, what I do hope happens is that Volquez significantly reduces his walks per nine. If he can do that, I might change my evaluation of the trade.

VR
09-30-2010, 01:08 AM
I don't think there's a team in baseball that would take Volquez over Hamilton given the choice. That's not a knock on Edinson, it's just Hamilton is that good.

We have a winner.


I hated it at the time, and am indifferent now, knowing the team has been shaped for two years. It's not as simple as Hamilton replacing Gomes and Volquez replacing Texas' 5th starter.

thatcoolguy_22
09-30-2010, 01:53 AM
I was very much for the trade when it occurred. Trading stud OF prospect for stud SP project. I will almost always take the pitching blue chip.

However now seeing just how good Hamilton has been it makes me wonder what this season would have looked like with Votto/Hamilton/Rolen/Bruce in the heart of the order. LF defense the equivalent of what the Reds have in center/right plus another .200+ in OPS over the incumbents. The rah rah spirit of Gomes would have been as a RH masher off the bench and we would probably have not seen Heisey yet. This lineup could have been murderous.

Looking ahead I think the trade is more equal after EV completely recovers from his surgery, but who knows how big our playoff window really is?

Roy Tucker
09-30-2010, 09:20 AM
The thought of Hamilton, Bruce, and Stubbs in the same OF makes me drool. Particularly after suffering with Gomes for the better part of 2010.

But we've done the Reds version of the Bash Brothers and have a lost decade to show for it. Pitching and defense is where its at.

I can't remember a time when the Reds' pitching was so promising and Volquez is a centerpiece to that promise. I'll take where the Reds are now over seeing a lot of HRs and bad fielding and dumpster-retrieved pitchers.

bucksfan2
09-30-2010, 09:36 AM
Hamilton was a serious drug addict. Volquez claims he didn't even take anything. If you can't see the difference there, then I don't know what to tell you.

Liars will lie. Palmerio was adamant that he never took steriods. The same can be said about Bonds, Clemens, ARod, etc. Im not saying that Volquez isn't telling the truth but he is being treated with kid gloves because he is a Reds fan. Had this been Chris Carpenter everyone would have been up in arms about him. Instead they are buying what he says hook, line, and sinker.

You were never building a team around Hamilton. You were using his pre free agency years to your advantage. You had control over him for 6 seasons and then you could trade him or allow him to enter FA if you wish. This isn't about offering him a life time contract.

To be honest Volquez has contributed very little to this team this season. They have been good despite the little production he has given. Hamilton would have made this team an absolute offensive monster. You can continually bring up the "drug addict" line but every in major league baseball is one freak play from ending their career.

Sea Ray
09-30-2010, 10:15 AM
I wonder if folks' minds will change if he's the winning pitcher in a playoff game vs the Phillies?

REDREAD
09-30-2010, 01:19 PM
I don't expect the Reds to foresee his TJ surgery so it's not fair to work that into evaluating the trade. The Reds did have concern at the time of the trade of Hamilton's ability to stay healthy

That's true, but pitchers are much more likely to get a career threatening injury than position players. When the Reds traded Hamilton, they were not trading out of surplus, they were trading to shift talent into a different position.

I guess I don't know enough to say if one can watch a pitcher's motion, examine him, etc and place a probablity on the pitcher getting injured. I know some claim that there's tools to do that, but I am not sure if it is proven or not. (Just a side note, not using it in the debate).

IMO, Volquez exceeded expectations when he first arrived. He was pretty much a best case scenerio until he got TJ surgery.. Hamilton, despite having some injuries and personal problem has still clearly outperformed him to this point.

Would people trade Joey Votto for another Volquez? I'm guessing not many people on this board would. IMO, Hamilton > Votto just because of defense (their bats are silmiliar).. Although I could accept the arguement that Josh's drug history makes Joey more desirable. In any event, they are comparable talents. But my point is.. Would you trade Joey Votto for a pitcher like Volquez? I'm guessing that not many people would.

REDREAD
09-30-2010, 01:20 PM
Hamilton was a serious drug addict. Volquez claims he didn't even take anything. If you can't see the difference there, then I don't know what to tell you.

Manny Rameriz, Palmero, etc also claimed they never took anything.
Volquez failed the test, it doesn't get any more cut and dry than that.
At least Hamilton is honest about his problem.

dougdirt
09-30-2010, 01:26 PM
Manny Rameriz, Palmero, etc also claimed they never took anything.
Volquez failed the test, it doesn't get any more cut and dry than that.
At least Hamilton is honest about his problem.

Well, lets make two points here.... You are assuming Volquez lied. Maybe he isn't (granted, maybe he is). The difference is, Volquez has a story that he can back up, now whether that is why he had a positive, we will never truly know, but his story about the drugs he got, is legit.

And at the end of the day, steroids/hgh/whatever other PEDs aren't the same as crack. They just aren't. If you have never dealt with someone who was a serious drug addict, I can understand you not getting that point. As someone who has dealt with multiple in my life, let me just assure you, its real. Its scary. And the threat of going back for them is incredible.

Rojo
09-30-2010, 01:43 PM
I don't think there's a team in baseball that would take Volquez over Hamilton given the choice.

I'm going to keep rolling the dice on dominating pitching again and again.

Hamilton's an oft-injured corner OF who's got sporting.400 BABIP this year.

MWM
09-30-2010, 01:45 PM
I'm going to keep rolling the dice on dominating pitching again and again.

Hamilton's an oft-injured corner OF who's got sporting.400 BABIP this year.

I don't disagree with the philosophy, I just don't see Volquez as dominant. I've seen glimpses of it, and I have no doubt the skill is there, but he's too inconsistent. Volquez doesn't have the baseball IQ that most of the consistetnly great pitchers have had.

westofyou
09-30-2010, 01:49 PM
In 1970 a mess of folks were cursing that Tommy Harper trade AND that Alex Johnson trade, and still the Reds were in the playoffs.

SMcGavin
09-30-2010, 01:57 PM
Liked the trade then, still like it now. Hamilton has given the Rangers about 2 1/3 seasons worth of .917 OPS outfield. Volquez has given the Reds about 1 1/2 seasons worth of 3.62 ERA starting. Both pretty good players, but I don't think Hamilton's the player his 2010 stats would lead you to believe.

I think the talent / production has been similar. So, going forward, I'd choose the guy who didn't spend years of his life doing coke.

Ghosts of 1990
09-30-2010, 03:08 PM
Hamilton is Hall of Fame talent. He's a guy who comes along once every few decades. Where his career numbers end up is anyone's guess. But I have seen few guys in this game strike a baseball like he can.

The thought of him and Bruce in the outfield together (and now with Stubbs out there) would be enough to make us a contender more often than not even with Jimmy Haynes and Jeff Austin still making occasional starts, even without Edinson.

That said, who knows if Hamilton would end up too expensive for us to keep.

westofyou
09-30-2010, 03:18 PM
Hamilton is Hall of Fame talent. He's a guy who comes along once every few decades.
he's this

.312/.372/.544 in 2000 trips to the plate, he's good but hardly a once a generation player.

Rojo
09-30-2010, 03:30 PM
I just don't see Volquez as dominant. I've seen glimpses of it, and I have no doubt the skill is there, but he's too inconsistent.

And I'm not ready to crown Hamilton as the next Ted Williams just yet. He can't stay on the field. He's at a peak year (29), plays in a hitters park and has .396 babip.

REDREAD
09-30-2010, 03:42 PM
Well, lets make two points here.... You are assuming Volquez lied. Maybe he isn't (granted, maybe he is). The difference is, Volquez has a story that he can back up, now whether that is why he had a positive, we will never truly know, but his story about the drugs he got, is legit.


And Manny Ramerez also claimed to be doing fertility treatements.
Bonds claimed he didn't know that he was rubbing steriod cream on him.
Other players claim they were just taking vitamins a buddy gave them.
Do you believe they are all telling the truth too?
Let's don't make the fact that we are Reds fans cause us to be so naive.
The players have been eductated umpteen times to get advice before putting anything in their bodies.. Volquez knew exactly what he was doing. He got busted, and lied.





And at the end of the day, steroids/hgh/whatever other PEDs aren't the same as crack. They just aren't. If you have never dealt with someone who was a serious drug addict, I can understand you not getting that point. As someone who has dealt with multiple in my life, let me just assure you, its real. Its scary. And the threat of going back for them is incredible.

It's a different problem, but a problem nonetheless.. Without PEDs, Volquez might never perform at the first half 2008 level again. He might still take them and get suspended or banned from the game. In contrast, past precendent has shown that recreational drug users will get a lot more chances. How many chances did Steve Howe get? A lot. As long as he was still able to throw a baseball, he had a job.

Edit... Hamilton not participating in the celebration because of alchohol is a plus in my book, The guy has incredible self discipline and is trying to avoid temptation..

OnBaseMachine
09-30-2010, 03:56 PM
It's a different problem, but a problem nonetheless.. Without PEDs, Volquez might never perform at the first half 2008 level again.

Oh please. MLB had drug testing in 2008. PED's had nothing to do with Volquez's performance in 2008.

Chip R
09-30-2010, 04:00 PM
And Manny Ramerez also claimed to be doing fertility treatements.
Bonds claimed he didn't know that he was rubbing steriod cream on him.
Other players claim they were just taking vitamins a buddy gave them.
Do you believe they are all telling the truth too?
Let's don't make the fact that we are Reds fans cause us to be so naive.
The players have been eductated umpteen times to get advice before putting anything in their bodies.. Volquez knew exactly what he was doing. He got busted, and lied.

Agreed. I didn't believe Volquez then and I don't believe him now. I'm happy he's pitching for us and I still support the trade but I don't believe he's telling the truth.


It's a different problem, but a problem nonetheless.. Without PEDs, Volquez might never perform at the first half 2008 level again. He might still take them and get suspended or banned from the game. In contrast, past precendent has shown that recreational drug users will get a lot more chances. How many chances did Steve Howe get? A lot. As long as he was still able to throw a baseball, he had a job.

Edit... Hamilton not participating in the celebration because of alchohol is a plus in my book, The guy has incredible self discipline and is trying to avoid temptation..

It's somewhat apples and oranges comparing Volquez and Steve Howe. Back in Howe's day there was no testing and the only way he was busted was when he didn't show up to the ballpark or was arrested or something. Also the punishments handed out weren't well defined. Now everyone tests for PEDs and recreational drugs and specific penalties are in place for violators.

I would have thought Josh would want to participate in the celebration if to do nothing but empty that evil alcohol out of those bottles and onto his teammates. ;)

Razor Shines
09-30-2010, 04:41 PM
he's this

.312/.372/.544 in 2000 trips to the plate, he's good but hardly a once a generation player.

Talent wise sure he is. To be out of baseball for four years and then come straight to the bigs and do what he has done, that's all talent. I'd say there are only a handful of guys with the natural ability to do that. I can only imagine the type of numbers he'd be putting up if he hadn't spent all that time ruining the first half of his career with coke.

TheNext44
09-30-2010, 05:04 PM
In 1970 a mess of folks were cursing that Tommy Harper trade AND that Alex Johnson trade, and still the Reds were in the playoffs.

Questions that need to be answered to correctly evaluate the trade, in my opinion.

How much would having Hamilton on the Reds right now increase their chances of advancing in the playoffs?

How much does having Volquez on the Reds right now increase their chances of advancing in the playoffs?

Who will (would) provide the Reds with the most value in future years, Volquez or Hamilton?

In my opinion, everything else is rather meaningless in terms of evaluating the trade. Reds are in the playoffs. Having or not having Hamilton instead of Volquez prior to this moment is irrelevant, since the Reds have achieved the only goal that matters at this moment.

Chip R
09-30-2010, 05:08 PM
In my opinion, everything else is rather meaningless in terms of evaluating the trade. Reds are in the playoffs. Having or not having Hamilton instead of Volquez prior to this moment is irrelevant, since the Reds have achieved the only goal that matters at this moment.

So have the Rangers.

BRM
09-30-2010, 05:12 PM
So have the Rangers.

So it's a win-win.

TheNext44
09-30-2010, 05:49 PM
I see no need to over-intellectualize this. Practically speaking, the underlying brain chemistry isn't terribly relevant. If you must take actions to avoid situations and circumstances which have a significant chance of leading you to engage in abuse, it's an issue.

Most people don't have to avoid any and all alcohol in order to avoid abusing it. Hamilton does. Call it whatever you want, but it's something to consider.

Yessir, that is the issue, and why I had no problem trading Hamilton.

I pray that he never falls back into drug abuse, but the mere chance of it significantly lowers his overall value for the rest of career, no matter how long and productive it is.

Roy Tucker
09-30-2010, 06:04 PM
How 'bout them Reds?

TRF
09-30-2010, 06:07 PM
How 'bout them Reds?

ok this is the second post like this. The thread title is Hamilton for Volquez - then and now. Discussing Hamilton's drug history, EV's suspension and TJ surgery fall right in line with the thread title.

And some of us want to discuss this. There is like 30,000+ threads covering the Reds on this board if someone doesn't like this one, why not post in one of those instead?

Don't mean to call anyone out, just sayin'.

westofyou
09-30-2010, 06:11 PM
How 'bout them Reds?

Seconal's?

Roy Tucker
09-30-2010, 06:11 PM
ok this is the second post like this. The thread title is Hamilton for Volquez - then and now. Discussing Hamilton's drug history, EV's suspension and TJ surgery fall right in line with the thread title.

And some of us want to discuss this. There is like 30,000+ threads covering the Reds on this board if someone doesn't like this one, why not post in one of those instead?

Don't mean to call anyone out, just sayin'.

Sure, discussing Hamilton's drug history, EV's suspension and TJ surgery fall right in line with the thread title and I was fine with that.

It felt like talking about quite personally-held views on addiction was getting close to Peanut Gallery turf.

JMO though. I'll go read some other threads.

Brutus
09-30-2010, 06:13 PM
ok this is the second post like this. The thread title is Hamilton for Volquez - then and now. Discussing Hamilton's drug history, EV's suspension and TJ surgery fall right in line with the thread title.

And some of us want to discuss this. There is like 30,000+ threads covering the Reds on this board if someone doesn't like this one, why not post in one of those instead?

Don't mean to call anyone out, just sayin'.

Agreed. I think we were having a meaningful, productive, intelligent conversation that was relevant to the subject of Hamilton's history. I think this is the type of conversation we all hope to have on here about important subjects.

westofyou
09-30-2010, 06:16 PM
It was relevant for about 10 posts then it spiraled into a dogma discussion on personal POV's

Brutus
09-30-2010, 06:19 PM
It was relevant for about 10 posts then it spiraled into a dogma discussion on personal POV's

This is dogmazone, isn't it?

pedro
09-30-2010, 06:20 PM
How 'bout them Reds?

Living on them. Along with the vitamin C and Cocaine.

But whatever became of sweet Jane?

http://www.youtube.com/watch#!v=7Py8D6sdeSk

westofyou
09-30-2010, 06:21 PM
This is dogmazone, isn't it?

About baseball yes, about drug use no.

TRF
09-30-2010, 06:46 PM
It was relevant for about 10 posts then it spiraled into a dogma discussion on personal POV's

nah, that's reserved for Adam Dunn threads and the evils of strikeouts.

Perhaps it devolved a bit, but imagine the discussions WK had with his advisors prior to the trade. Had to be similar with guys going back and forth on whether the risk of keeping him out weighed the risk of acquiring a "toolsy" pitcher. How we as people perceive addiction was the centerpiece of this trade, even moreso than the skills each player possessed.

SMcGavin
09-30-2010, 08:01 PM
he's this

.312/.372/.544 in 2000 trips to the plate, he's good but hardly a once a generation player.

Exactly.

Razor Shines
09-30-2010, 09:10 PM
Are people actually comparing Volquez's "drug use" to Hamilton's?

I've seen people on here call Volquez "immature" before, well then what do you call Josh Hamilton? Folks, last year Josh Hamilton blamed his drunken night at the bar on the bartenders. He said the bartender wanted to get him drunk and take pictures of him. That's not immature?

.

Do you have a link for that? I wasn't aware of it. I google'd "Josh Hamilton blames bartender for relapse." Your post above was the third listing. The first two didn't mention anything about him blaming anybody but himself.

He did say:


“I wasn’t mentally fit or spiritually fit,” he said. “It just crossed my mind ‘Can I have a drink?’ Obviously, I can’t. One drink leads to two and two drink leads to 10 or 12. When I was in AA, one saying I heard was one drink is too many and 1,000 is never enough. Alcohol just doesn’t mix well with me.”

The photos show Hamilton dancing with girls, licking whipped cream off one, and having whipped cream licked off him in another. According to the report on Deadspin, which cited unnamed sources, Hamilton asked where he could also purchase some cocaine. Hamilton said details of the night remain foggy, but wouldn’t be surprised if he asked the question. He is, however, tested three times a week for recreational drugs, including cocaine and has apparently passed every test. Before the January incident, Hamilton had been sober October 2005 after being suspended on multiple occasions by MLB for failed drug tests. Alcohol, however, is not on the list of substances for which Hamilton is tested.

“When I drink, it always tends to lean that way,” said Hamilton, whose drink of choice in the past was Scotch. “As far as I know, I don’t believe I [took drugs].”


Hamilton said, however, that he spoke with everyone in his “support staff” immediately after the night to make them aware of the situation and to apologize. That support staff, includes the Rangers front office, After Care counselors who work with MLB’s Drug Abuse prevention program and his family. Hamilton and Daniels both said they were aware the story might eventually find its way to the public, but opted not to be proactive in addressing it.

http://insidecorner.dmagazine.com/2009/08/08/texas-rangers-josh-hamilton-verifies-photos-of-him-in-bar-are-real-drank-alcohol-in-january/
Seems to me that's as about as mature as one could handle the situation. Maybe he did blame the bartender but I haven't found it yet.

WVRedsFan
09-30-2010, 11:30 PM
My position on this is well documented. I didn't like it then and I don't like it now. Volquez' 4.38 ERA, inconsistency, and the injury to his arm (a major argument for the trade was that Hamilton was often injured) has made the trade a win for the Rangers. At this point, it really makes no difference. Both clubs have made the post season. I am one of those who really doesn't expect much from Volquez as time goes by and Josh is continuing to kill the ball in Texas. He would have been the perfect left fielder this year, but...

paintmered
10-01-2010, 12:10 AM
See the non-baseball forum for the discussion on dealing with drug addiction.

Matt700wlw
10-01-2010, 12:12 AM
Will probably always be on the fence about it.

Can you imagine Hamilton's bat in the lineup with Votto, Rolen, Stubbs, and Bruce? His arm in the outfield?

OnBaseMachine
10-01-2010, 12:17 AM
My position on this is well documented. I didn't like it then and I don't like it now. Volquez' 4.38 ERA, inconsistency, and the injury to his arm (a major argument for the trade was that Hamilton was often injured) has made the trade a win for the Rangers. At this point, it really makes no difference. Both clubs have made the post season. I am one of those who really doesn't expect much from Volquez as time goes by and Josh is continuing to kill the ball in Texas. He would have been the perfect left fielder this year, but...

Volquez has a 3.62 ERA and 9.3 K/9 in 308.1 innings with the Reds. Just curious, why don't you expect much from Volquez in the future? I don't get it.

edabbs44
10-01-2010, 12:18 AM
Will probably always be on the fence about it.

Can you imagine Hamilton's bat in the lineup with Votto, Rolen, Stubbs, and Bruce? His arm in the outfield?

Theoretically it sounds very interesting, but it is kind of like the butterfly effect. You can't just slide Hamilton in the lineup like a video game and just add production. You really don't know what this team would look like.

edabbs44
10-01-2010, 12:21 AM
Volquez has a 3.62 ERA and 9.3 K/9 in 308.1 innings with the Reds. Just curious, why don't you expect much from Volquez in the future? I don't get it.

I guess it depends if you believe that his 1st half 2008 was really him or maybe just a product of a hot stretch in a new league. His numbers are a lot different if you remove those 3 months.

Matt700wlw
10-01-2010, 12:21 AM
Theoretically it sounds very interesting, but it is kind of like the butterfly effect. You can't just slide Hamilton in the lineup like a video game and just add production. You really don't know what this team would look like.

Very fair point.