PDA

View Full Version : MLB channel discussing baseballs best player



Hollcat
04-22-2012, 08:59 PM
Comparing tool for tool Kemp vs Hamilton for who is best player in baseball. Wonder who Reds would have gotten for Kemp if they had had him too?

*BaseClogger*
04-23-2012, 12:45 AM
Josh Hamilton?

Hollcat
04-23-2012, 01:26 AM
Josh Hamilton?

Yes, Josh

The Operator
04-23-2012, 01:47 AM
That depends. Has Matt Kemp ever been out of baseball due to drug addiction and one strike away from being banned for life?

Is he so helpless to his demons that The Dodgers have to hire a personal babysitter to handle his cash for him?


Teams lose trades all the time, it happens. The guy who made said trade isn't even employed by The Reds anymore so it really doesn't do any good to stew on how awful of a trade it was. But even then, Josh Hamilton had all kinds of risk associated with him. The Reds got a risky (although risky in different ways) player in return, which is all they could have expected at the time. And it's not as if Hamilton is out of the woods. He's an addict for the rest of his life and all it takes is one screw-up and he's done. He's already had two close calls.

I love Josh Hamilton and his story. But some perspective really does come in handy at times. He was and will always be addicted to cocaine. Had that not been the case, he'd still be a Red. Heck, he'd still be a Devil Ray (or he'd be with whatever team signed him via FA after he got too expensive for Tampa).

WVRedsFan
04-23-2012, 02:21 AM
I'll take either one. And to think we once had one of them. Traded him for a potential problem. Good old conservative thinking. Of course, acquiring Edinson was so conservative. He had a history too.

The Operator
04-23-2012, 02:28 AM
I have a sneaking feeling that had the Reds held onto Hamilton and he relapsed the next season and fell off the map, 95% of the people who are now talking about how stupid the trade was would be talking about how The Reds should have sold high on him while they had the chance.

Everyone's a genius when they have the gift of hindsight on their side.

WVRedsFan
04-23-2012, 02:28 AM
But even then, Josh Hamilton had all kinds of risk associated with him. The Reds got a risky (although risky in different ways) player in return, which is all they could have expected at the time. And it's not as if Hamilton is out of the woods. He's an addict for the rest of his life and all it takes is one screw-up and he's done. He's already had two close calls.
As if the Volquez years were that pleasant. Frustrating, but pleasant. And the guy had his PED problems too.

Look at it this way. Our outfield consists of a lack hole, a near black hole, and a potential (who once was young but is seriously getting older). What would Josh Hamilton have done to this outfield? We can only dream. In the meantime we got a head case who will once in a while thrill, but mostly will disappoint. I'll take my chances given the outcomes...

WVRedsFan
04-23-2012, 02:29 AM
But even then, Josh Hamilton had all kinds of risk associated with him. The Reds got a risky (although risky in different ways) player in return, which is all they could have expected at the time. And it's not as if Hamilton is out of the woods. He's an addict for the rest of his life and all it takes is one screw-up and he's done. He's already had two close calls.
As if the Volquez years were that pleasant. Frustrating, but pleasant. And the guy had his PED problems too.

Look at it this way. Our outfield consists of a lack hole, a near black hole, and a potential (who once was young but is seriously getting older). What would Josh Hamilton have done to this outfield? We can only dream. In the meantime we got a head case who will once in a while thrill, but mostly will disappoint. I'll take my chances given the outcomes...

The Operator
04-23-2012, 02:38 AM
And I agree, but we both have the benefit of hindsight.

And yes, EV got caught using PEDs but PEDs aren't so powerfully addictive that a grown man can't even be trusted to carry his lunch money because he's at such risk of relapsing back into using them. To put into perspective, I was regularly carrying more money in my wallet at 8 years old than Josh Hamilton is allowed to at 30.

At the time, The Reds had a glut of offense and no pitching. It made sense to trade a cocaine addict if you could get pitching help in return. Obviously The Reds gambled wrong, but more often than not the drug addict is not the person you go all in on. And either way, Krivsky is long gone.

mth123
04-23-2012, 07:22 AM
That depends. Has Matt Kemp ever been out of baseball due to drug addiction and one strike away from being banned for life?

Is he so helpless to his demons that The Dodgers have to hire a personal babysitter to handle his cash for him?


Teams lose trades all the time, it happens. The guy who made said trade isn't even employed by The Reds anymore so it really doesn't do any good to stew on how awful of a trade it was. But even then, Josh Hamilton had all kinds of risk associated with him. The Reds got a risky (although risky in different ways) player in return, which is all they could have expected at the time. And it's not as if Hamilton is out of the woods. He's an addict for the rest of his life and all it takes is one screw-up and he's done. He's already had two close calls.

I love Josh Hamilton and his story. But some perspective really does come in handy at times. He was and will always be addicted to cocaine. Had that not been the case, he'd still be a Red. Heck, he'd still be a Devil Ray (or he'd be with whatever team signed him via FA after he got too expensive for Tampa).

Exactly right. This team made a great move with Hamilton. Took a flyer on a high risk player and when it worked out traded him and his risk for something they needed. Volquez went south and it didn't work out, but it was the right move then and if another situation exactly as that one would present itself again, I'd be all for doing the same thing the Reds did.

dougdirt
04-23-2012, 07:32 AM
Like Hamilton, it depends when you were to have traded Matt Kemp doesn't it? Did you trade him after 2008 when he was good, but nothing special with a .799 OPS (110 OPS+)? Did you trade him after 2010 when he had a .760 OPS (106 OPS+)? Or did you trade him after 2011 when he was arguably the best player in the NL?

As for Hamilton.... always trade a drug addict and never look back with regret.

Ghosts of 1990
04-23-2012, 07:38 AM
Look at it this way. Our outfield consists of a lack hole, a near black hole, and a potential (who once was young but is seriously getting older). What would Josh Hamilton have done to this outfield? We can only dream. In the meantime we got a head case who will once in a while thrill, but mostly will disappoint. I'll take my chances given the outcomes...

Depressing, but also vrry true.

Vottomatic
04-23-2012, 08:05 AM
I was for the trade at the time, and I've spent no time lamenting what could have been.

My feeling was that Hamilton would relapse and the Reds were desperate for pitching.

Hamilton is gone. Let's move on.

*BaseClogger*
04-23-2012, 08:06 AM
What could we have gotten for Volquez after 2010?

Hollcat
04-23-2012, 08:39 AM
I was for the trade at the time, and I've spent no time lamenting what could have been.

My feeling was that Hamilton would relapse and the Reds were desperate for pitching.

Hamilton is gone. Let's move on.

I hated the move as soon as I heard it. Thought they should have at least gotten more from him but really didn't like that Griffey was about to retire and we knew Dunn wasn't going to be kept and we would soon need offense in the outfield. Just killed me that the Reds got a pitcher who had trouble throwing strikes.

dougdirt
04-23-2012, 08:47 AM
I hated the move as soon as I heard it. Thought they should have at least gotten more from him but really didn't like that Griffey was about to retire and we knew Dunn wasn't going to be kept and we would soon need offense in the outfield. Just killed me that the Reds got a pitcher who had trouble throwing strikes.

Yet you loved the player who had trouble staying away from drugs and had to have an adult-sitter hired to watch him. :laugh:

Cedric
04-23-2012, 09:07 AM
Yet you loved the player who had trouble staying away from drugs and had to have an adult-sitter hired to watch him. :laugh:

I would never have traded him in a thousand years personally. And that doesn't mean it wouldn't have been a big risk either. I would have just had trouble trading away possibly the best pure player of our generation.

_Sir_Charles_
04-23-2012, 05:01 PM
What could we have gotten for Volquez after 2010?

What could we have gotten for Volquez after 2008? Latos straight up would've been easy I think, but many would've gone nuts if we had.

There's no way the Reds could've known he'd fall off like he did. There's no way the Reds could've known that Hamilton would continue to improve like he did. It was the right trade at the time and I'd do it again in a heartbeat.

_Sir_Charles_
04-23-2012, 05:12 PM
People tend to forget just what we'd seen in Hamilton when he was traded. We hadn't seen the MVP player. We'd seen one season where he had 2 stints on the DL and totaled 300 ab's with 19 hr's, 47 rbi's, a .292 batting average, 33 bb's, 65 k's and an OPS of .922. Those numbers to me look an awful lot like Chris Heisey's numbers from last year minus some K's and more walks. Heisey had 300 ab's with 18 hr's, 50 rbi's, a .254 batting average, 19 bb's, 78 k's and an OPS of .800.

People need to keep thing in perspective. We didn't know what we had back then truthfully. We also had the best prospect in the game knocking on the door too. Trading a guy with a questionable history after having an excellent season for a starting pitcher with a boat-load of potential was exactly what we needed back then. I'd do it again in a heartbeat.

Tom Servo
04-23-2012, 06:00 PM
To me, it is what it is and there's no sense in dwelling on the "what if". Wayne Krivsky, who made the trade, is long fired.

Kc61
04-23-2012, 06:22 PM
Why was Hamiton traded?

I never understood whether the deal was caused by the Reds' chronic need for pitching or whether off-the-field factors caused the trade. Possibly both.

I can't judge this trade because I never understood why it was made in the first place. Likely very few people really know.

From a baseball perspective, it's been great for the Rangers, that's undeniable.

defender
04-23-2012, 06:34 PM
People tend to forget just what we'd seen in Hamilton when he was traded. We hadn't seen the MVP player. We'd seen one season where he had 2 stints on the DL and totaled 300 ab's with 19 hr's, 47 rbi's, a .292 batting average, 33 bb's, 65 k's and an OPS of .922. Those numbers to me look an awful lot like Chris Heisey's numbers from last year minus some K's and more walks. Heisey had 300 ab's with 18 hr's, 50 rbi's, a .254 batting average, 19 bb's, 78 k's and an OPS of .800.

People need to keep thing in perspective. We didn't know what we had back then truthfully. We also had the best prospect in the game knocking on the door too. Trading a guy with a questionable history after having an excellent season for a starting pitcher with a boat-load of potential was exactly what we needed back then. I'd do it again in a heartbeat.

I think the 2 trips to the DL and the fact he would have to play in CF between Dunn and Griffey was a pretty big issue at the time.

Rojo
04-23-2012, 06:53 PM
Kemp's had the best single season of the pair. Kemp's had more good seasons. Kemp gets 650+ PA's every year.

IOW, it's Kemp.

757690
04-23-2012, 06:56 PM
People tend to forget just what we'd seen in Hamilton when he was traded. We hadn't seen the MVP player. We'd seen one season where he had 2 stints on the DL and totaled 300 ab's with 19 hr's, 47 rbi's, a .292 batting average, 33 bb's, 65 k's and an OPS of .922. Those numbers to me look an awful lot like Chris Heisey's numbers from last year minus some K's and more walks. Heisey had 300 ab's with 18 hr's, 50 rbi's, a .254 batting average, 19 bb's, 78 k's and an OPS of .800.

People need to keep thing in perspective. We didn't know what we had back then truthfully. We also had the best prospect in the game knocking on the door too. Trading a guy with a questionable history after having an excellent season for a starting pitcher with a boat-load of potential was exactly what we needed back then. I'd do it again in a heartbeat.

Except for the homers and RBI's, those sets of numbers don't look much alike to me at all.

757690
04-23-2012, 07:09 PM
Why was Hamiton traded?

I never understood whether the deal was caused by the Reds' chronic need for pitching or whether off-the-field factors caused the trade. Possibly both.

I can't judge this trade because I never understood why it was made in the first place. Likely very few people really know.

From a baseball perspective, it's been great for the Rangers, that's undeniable.

I feel the same way.

I was okay with the trade because of Hamilton's health/drug issues. He was a big risk. However, he also had the best natural power swing of any Reds hitter I had seen since Eric Davis. he was like Griffey in his prime in Seattle. Watching him hit, you knew that if healthy, he would be the best player in the game. So it also caused a huge pit in my stomach when I heard he was traded.

Most importantly, there really was no need to trade him then. The Reds were more than one good pitcher away from contending, heck they were more than three good pitchers away from contending.

Their best move was to sit tight, wait for the young prospects to take over, see what they had, and then build the team. Which is exactly what they did once Krivsky was fired. But this irrational belief that if they could just get one more pitcher then they could contend, cost them Hamilton, and set their development back at least one season.

Rojo
04-23-2012, 07:31 PM
The Reds were more than one good pitcher away from contending, heck they were more than three good pitchers away from contending.

I'm not sure I follow. Volquez was 24 at the time. How was acquired as a building block, not as an over-the-hump guy.

Tom Servo
04-23-2012, 07:44 PM
Also the Reds pitching depth in 2007 was pretty dire. I mean, the bullpen featured luminaries such as Jon Coutlangus, Brad Salmon, Gary Majewski, Marcus McBeth, Mike Gosling, Ricky Stone, Rheal Cormier, Victor Santos, and a horrific Mike Stanton to go along with guys who got multiple starts like Phil Dumatrait, Kirk Saarloos, Bobby Livingston, and Tom Shearn.

_Sir_Charles_
04-23-2012, 08:14 PM
Except for the homers and RBI's, those sets of numbers don't look much alike to me at all.

I know, it was kinda for perspective. Both short seasons, both similar dingers/ribeyes. My point is would anyone here have been upset if we dealt Heisey plus a minor leaguer for Volquez? Because that's about what we're talking about here in regards to production at that time.

757690
04-23-2012, 08:19 PM
I'm not sure I follow. Volquez was 24 at the time. How was acquired as a building block, not as an over-the-hump guy.

If that's the case, I'd rather have Hamilton as a building block.

_Sir_Charles_
04-23-2012, 08:22 PM
If that's the case, I'd rather have Hamilton as a building block.

We had Junior, Dunn and both Stubbs, Bruce and others on the way up. They felt they were dealing from a strength to address a weakness. Plus, Hamilton never cost them anything, they were playing with the house's money.

Kc61
04-23-2012, 08:25 PM
I know, it was kinda for perspective. Both short seasons, both similar dingers/ribeyes. My point is would anyone here have been upset if we dealt Heisey plus a minor leaguer for Volquez? Because that's about what we're talking about here in regards to production at that time.

Hamilton's production was limited that first year. But the guy was the first pick overall in the draft, everyone knew he was an enormous talent. When the Reds traded him, they understood that too.

I recall at the time the Reds saying that they believed the fans would be very unhappy with the deal and that the Reds demanded Danny Herrera in the deal just in case Volquez got hurt or couldn't perform well. They wanted something else back.

No, the Reds knew they were trading a big time prospect. They may have traded him for off the field reasons. They may have traded him because they were desperate for pitching. Maybe they felt, given everything, he wouldn't progress.

I have no idea what the thinking was. But it wasn't because they thought he was Heisey. The Reds knew Hamilton was a special talent.

_Sir_Charles_
04-23-2012, 08:40 PM
Hamilton's production was limited that first year. But the guy was the first pick overall in the draft, everyone knew he was an enormous talent. When the Reds traded him, they understood that too.

Sure, but it was unrealized talent at that time. Nobody knew what would become of him and the odds of him relapsing were huge as you'd expect. And with what we know about drug addicts, the toll it takes on the body is tremendous...so seeing 2 dl stints that year was also a probable concern to them. Nobody questioned his talent or skill....just his ability to put them to use regularly (clean or not).


I recall at the time the Reds saying that they believed the fans would be very unhappy with the deal and that the Reds demanded Danny Herrera in the deal just in case Volquez got hurt or couldn't perform well. They wanted something else back.

No, the Reds knew they were trading a big time prospect. They may have traded him for off the field reasons. They may have traded him because they were desperate for pitching. Maybe they felt, given everything, he wouldn't progress.

I have no idea what the thinking was. But it wasn't because they thought he was Heisey. The Reds knew Hamilton was a special talent.

Talent was never the question. Production was. If he was regularly injured or had a relapse....*shrugs*. My point was up to then, his production was similar to Heisey last year. Josh wasn't a kid anymore either. He was 27 when dealt. So he was past the traditional time when you'd look at him with the "potential" tag. IMO that leaves you with what he's actually done. I certainly didn't consider him a "prospect" anymore.

757690
04-23-2012, 09:02 PM
Sure, but it was unrealized talent at that time. Nobody knew what would become of him and the odds of him relapsing were huge as you'd expect. And with what we know about drug addicts, the toll it takes on the body is tremendous...so seeing 2 dl stints that year was also a probable concern to them. Nobody questioned his talent or skill....just his ability to put them to use regularly (clean or not).



Talent was never the question. Production was. If he was regularly injured or had a relapse....*shrugs*. My point was up to then, his production was similar to Heisey last year. Josh wasn't a kid anymore either. He was 27 when dealt. So he was past the traditional time when you'd look at him with the "potential" tag. IMO that leaves you with what he's actually done. I certainly didn't consider him a "prospect" anymore.

Hamilton's production in 2007 was significantly better than Heisey's last year.

In 2007, Hamilton produced an estimates 61 runs. In 2011 Heisey produced an estimated 41 runs. That's a full 2 win difference in half a season, or a 4 win difference in a full season. That's the difference between Joey Votto and Ryan Hanigan.

Plus Hamilton was likely to get better, as that was his first season since being out of baseball for years. There really is no comparison between the two.

_Sir_Charles_
04-23-2012, 09:07 PM
Hamilton's production in 2007 was significantly better than Heisey's last year.

In 2007, Hamilton produced an estimates 61 runs. In 2011 Heisey produced an estimated 41 runs. That's a full 2 win difference in half a season, or a 4 win difference in a full season. That's the difference between Joey Votto and Ryan Hanigan.

Plus Hamilton was likely to get better, as that was his first season since being out of baseball for years. There really is no comparison between the two.

Okay, I guess I'm not explaining my point well enough. I wasn't trying to insinuate that they were similar players at all. Nevermind, I'll drop it.

Hollcat
04-24-2012, 12:16 AM
People tend to forget just what we'd seen in Hamilton when he was traded. We hadn't seen the MVP player. We'd seen one season where he had 2 stints on the DL and totaled 300 ab's with 19 hr's, 47 rbi's, a .292 batting average, 33 bb's, 65 k's and an OPS of .922. Those numbers to me look an awful lot like Chris Heisey's numbers from last year minus some K's and more walks. Heisey had 300 ab's with 18 hr's, 50 rbi's, a .254 batting average, 19 bb's, 78 k's and an OPS of .800.

People need to keep thing in perspective. We didn't know what we had back then truthfully. We also had the best prospect in the game knocking on the door too. Trading a guy with a questionable history after having an excellent season for a starting pitcher with a boat-load of potential was exactly what we needed back then. I'd do it again in a heartbeat.

And Hamilton did that (.922 ops) after being out if baseball a couple of years

Hollcat
04-24-2012, 12:25 AM
And Hamilton did that (.922 ops) after being out if baseball a couple of years

Just looked at Hamiltons baseball reference page. Ironically at the top of his most similar to list, Joey Votto.

oneupper
04-24-2012, 09:24 AM
At the time and even now, analysis of the Hamilton-Volquez trade is rife with rationalization.

Truth is, at the time and of course in hindsight, it was a terrible trade. A 5-tool OF with a .922 OPS with all his warts (and CHEAP-under CONTROL) was worth more than a volatile tempered, wild pitcher, albeit with good "stuff", but who was coming from a stint in A-ball.

Personally, I was smitten with Krivsky after pulling Phillips and Hamilton off the trash heap. He must have known something the rest of us didn't. Well, he didn't. The guy won the lottery once, and traded the winning ticket for a turn on the roulette wheel.

Awful, Awful, Awful and I avoid looking at Hamilton's stats, 'cause it makes me sick to the stomach to think how good the team would be with him on it.

dougdirt
04-24-2012, 11:16 AM
He wasn't coming off of a trip to A ball. He was coming off of 34 solid innings in the Majors after dominating in AA and AAA (109.1 innings, 128 strikeouts, 40 walks). Yes, he did go to A ball that season. Josh Hamilton was in A ball the season before. So what?

oneupper
04-24-2012, 11:59 AM
He wasn't coming off of a trip to A ball. He was coming off of 34 solid innings in the Majors after dominating in AA and AAA (109.1 innings, 128 strikeouts, 40 walks). Yes, he did go to A ball that season. Josh Hamilton was in A ball the season before. So what?

All of 34 innings in a September callup vs. diluted rosters and mostly teams playing out the string. Wow. With a K/BB below 2 and nothing over 6 innings. Heck, Luke Hudson's 2004 late season callup was better. (We all thought he'd be good, too).

Edinson's previous MLB stints had been unmitigated disasters.
Krivsky didn't buy Volquez on his record (I hope not, at least), but on his potential.

Hamilton's 2007 two-thirds of a season against real competition pretty much showed he was more than potential at that point.

Sorry to split hairs like this, but it is the frustration talking. Nothing to do now but lament.

dougdirt
04-24-2012, 12:12 PM
All of 34 innings in a September callup vs. diluted rosters and mostly teams playing out the string. Wow. With a K/BB below 2 and nothing over 6 innings. Heck, Luke Hudson's 2004 late season callup was better. (We all thought he'd be good, too).

Edinson's previous MLB stints had been unmitigated disasters.
Krivsky didn't buy Volquez on his record (I hope not, at least), but on his potential.

Hamilton's 2007 two-thirds of a season against real competition pretty much showed he was more than potential at that point.

Sorry to split hairs like this, but it is the frustration talking. Nothing to do now but lament.

Sure, but he was coming off of a whole lot different than 'a ball', which is all I was responding to.

Kc61
04-24-2012, 12:15 PM
All of 34 innings in a September callup vs. diluted rosters and mostly teams playing out the string. Wow. With a K/BB below 2 and nothing over 6 innings. Heck, Luke Hudson's 2004 late season callup was better. (We all thought he'd be good, too).

Edinson's previous MLB stints had been unmitigated disasters.
Krivsky didn't buy Volquez on his record (I hope not, at least), but on his potential.

Hamilton's 2007 two-thirds of a season against real competition pretty much showed he was more than potential at that point.

Sorry to split hairs like this, but it is the frustration talking. Nothing to do now but lament.

Pitching is so volatile, trading position players for pitchers is usually a high risk move. The Hamilton move didn't work out. On a lesser scale, I hope the recent Francisco trade doesn't turn out to be one-sided in favor of the Braves.

On the other hand, stockpiling pitchers is a good thing because you are looking for a needle in a haystack. If you have enough quality arms, some will work out well, which may be all you need.

But you do have to have adequate offense on a ballclub. It can't be ALL about pitching. When you look at the Reds today, which IMO is a flawed offensive team, it does cause one to lament the loss of a guy like Hamilton.

Rojo
04-24-2012, 02:38 PM
All of 34 innings in a September callup vs. diluted rosters and mostly teams playing out the string. Wow.

Does 17-6 with 3.21 ERA and an all-star appearance make for a "wow"?

He gambled and landed a great pitcher -- who got hurt.