PDA

View Full Version : Josh Hamilton - 4 bombs tonight



edabbs44
05-08-2012, 09:27 PM
Congrats Josh

Degenerate39
05-08-2012, 09:30 PM
What's the record?

Edskin
05-08-2012, 09:31 PM
4 is the record; remember Mark Whitten?

HokieRed
05-08-2012, 09:36 PM
Congrats Josh. Wish you were in a different uniform.

OesterPoster
05-08-2012, 09:44 PM
If I'm a pitcher, there is NO way I let a guy hit a 4th HR against my team.

WildcatFan
05-08-2012, 10:09 PM
Sigh. I can't believe how badly I want him on my team.

BuckeyeRedleg
05-08-2012, 10:12 PM
At least we have Mat Latos.

In hindsight, what an incredibly horrible trade.

KronoRed
05-08-2012, 10:13 PM
If I'm a pitcher, there is NO way I let a guy hit a 4th HR against my team.

Down 7-1, I bean the guy :cool:

RBA
05-08-2012, 10:16 PM
Down 7-1, I bean the guy :cool:

But don't tell anyone you did it on purpose.

WildcatFan
05-08-2012, 10:18 PM
Also homered in the ninth last night, so last six ABs:

6-for-6, 5 HR, 2B, 10 RBI.

Swoon.

George Anderson
05-08-2012, 10:19 PM
Also homered in the ninth last night, so last six ABs:

6-for-6, 5 HR, 2B, 10 RBI.

Swoon.

Check his urine.

Johnny Footstool
05-08-2012, 10:24 PM
4 is the record; remember Mark Whitten?

Hard Hittin' Mark Whitten.

Big Klu
05-08-2012, 10:31 PM
I believe that Hamilton ties the MLB record for total bases in a game with 18. Braves 1B Joe Adcock had four homers and a double vs. the Dodgers at Ebbets Field on July 31, 1954. (I don't know if anyone has ever had more than that.)

Degenerate39
05-08-2012, 10:36 PM
Anyone remember when Mike Cameron hit 4 home runs soon after he was traded in the deal for Griffey?

Joseph
05-08-2012, 10:36 PM
I believe that Hamilton ties the MLB record for total bases in a game with 18. Braves 1B Joe Adcock had four homers and a double vs. the Dodgers at Ebbets Field on July 31, 1954. (I don't know if anyone has ever had more than that.)

19 for shawn green.

powersackers
05-08-2012, 11:07 PM
Very fun to see. I was at the Mark Whiten game as a teenager.

Big Klu
05-08-2012, 11:46 PM
19 for shawn green.

Thanks. I had forgotten about that.

VR
05-08-2012, 11:58 PM
Love me some Josh Hamilton. Wow.

Ghosts of 1990
05-09-2012, 12:07 AM
Hamilton being dealt to Texas is proof the experts don't always know more than the fans.

Brutus
05-09-2012, 12:22 AM
Hamilton being dealt to Texas is proof the experts don't always know more than the fans.

I don't regret the trade. While I'd take Hamilton over Volquez knowing what we know now, the trade was made for all the right reasons and the Reds needed Volquez at the time worse than they needed Hamilton.

Tom Servo
05-09-2012, 12:28 AM
Sometimes, you just gotta let the past go.


Congrats to Josh, hell of a night.

MasonBuzz3
05-09-2012, 12:42 AM
Sometimes, you just gotta let the past go.


Congrats to Josh, hell of a night.

he wouldn't bat 3rd or 4th for this team anyways, got to break up the lefties.

GAC
05-09-2012, 05:19 AM
Hamilton being dealt to Texas is proof the experts don't always know more than the fans.

Foresight is everything, but what "more" at that time did the fans know over the so-called experts? Some sort of sixth sense? The "experts" saw the raw talent too. That's why he was TB's #1 pick back in 1999. But possessing the talent is one thing. Making it translate into success is another. We all know the Hamilton saga.... he became a junkie who was finally banned by MLB in 2003 as he continued that slide into self-destructive behavior over the next few years. He got sober in 2006, MLB gave him another chance, as did TB. But after a sub-par performance for their single A team TB left him of the 40 man and the Cubs picked him up in the Rule 5 Draft and traded him to Cincy.

So did TB and Chicago also miss the boat on this one? I don't see it that way. The kid was still seen as not only high risk (relapse), but there was also the question - "Did those years of drug abuse diminish that talent as well as his physical durability (injury prone)?" Valid positions. He had a good year with Cincy but also went down with a wrist injury possibly confirming that theory. The Reds needed pitching, Volquez was a highly regarded prospect, so they made the deal.

I'm happy as all get out that Hamilton has "redeemed" himself, both his personal life and baseball career; but I have no regrets over the trade, and I'm certainly not going to waste my time lamenting it, nor blame our management as making another bonehead move seeing the circumstances at that time.

DGullett35
05-09-2012, 06:39 AM
Glad I have this guy on my fantasy team. Congrats Josh! heck of a night

RedFanAlways1966
05-09-2012, 07:17 AM
If I'm a pitcher, there is NO way I let a guy hit a 4th HR against my team.

Exactly. It makes me wish some facets of the game today were like the old days. If I am pitching or managing, he only hits a HR in the last AB if he steps out of the batters box to do it.

redsmetz
05-09-2012, 07:22 AM
I had to go back and look at yesterday's paper, but I was thinking that I saw that someone else hit four homers, shown in the "This Day in Baseball History" section. Alas, I was a tiny bit off. In 1935, Ernie Lombardi hit four doubles off of four different Phillies pitchers in the 1st game of a doubleheader. He also singled, so actually hit for hit, Hamilton doubled the Schnozz's accomplishment.

redsmetz
05-09-2012, 07:39 AM
Exactly. It makes me wish some facets of the game today were like the old days. If I am pitching or managing, he only hits a HR in the last AB if he steps out of the batters box to do it.

But the thing is, four home runs in a game is such a rare feat, having occurred just 16 times out of several hundred thousand games played throughout history. So the odds of that 4th homer happening are slim.

As for "old days," quite a number of the 4 home run games occurred a long time ago. The two games that astound me are the two prior to 1900.

Here's the list

http://mlb.mlb.com/mlb/history/rare_feats/index.jsp?feature=four_homer_game

dougdirt
05-09-2012, 07:44 AM
But the thing is, four home runs in a game is such a rare feat, having occurred just 16 times out of several hundred thousand games played throughout history. So the odds of that 4th homer happening are slim.

As for "old days," quite a number of the 4 home run games occurred a long time ago. The two games that astound me are the two prior to 1900.

Here's the list

http://mlb.mlb.com/mlb/history/rare_feats/index.jsp?feature=four_homer_game

Have to remember, what we consider ground rule doubles now used to be counted as home runs. No idea if that is what happened, but it could have.

redsmetz
05-09-2012, 08:02 AM
Found this little tidbit in a piece about one-time only feats in MLB history. This regards Cameron's 4 homer game:

Accomplished by Mike Cameron and Bret Boone, Seattle Mariners, May 2, 2002. In the first inning of the Mariners versus White Sox, Cameron and Boone hit back-to-back home runs. Seattle batted around... and, in the same inning, Cameron and Boone went back-to-back again.

Cameron went on to hit four homers in the game (that's one of those lame "feats" that tons of people have done) and the Mariners won 15-4.

(I'll start a thread on this one-time only feat that puts his parenthetical comment in context)

crazybob60
05-09-2012, 09:54 AM
Glad I have this guy on my fantasy team. Congrats Josh! heck of a night

I was on the opposite end as I was playing against Josh this week in fantasy. Regardless, good to see this ex-Red do well. Its quite a feat.

Johnny Footstool
05-09-2012, 10:14 AM
Anyone remember when Mike Cameron hit 4 home runs soon after he was traded in the deal for Griffey?

Yes. I also remember finding out later that pretty much the entire Mariners team was loaded on steroids.

westofyou
05-09-2012, 11:35 AM
Second ex red to achieve the feat

redsmetz
05-09-2012, 11:40 AM
Second ex red to achieve the feat

Third - you forgot Joe Adcock.

And there was a bone-headed trade - I'm sure you've shared with us what that was about, but Rocky Bridges and cash? (and a four team trade, to boot).

westofyou
05-09-2012, 11:52 AM
Third - you forgot Joe Adcock.

And there was a bone-headed trade - I'm sure you've shared with us what that was about, but Rocky Bridges and cash? (and a four team trade, to boot).

Actually I was forgetting Cameron, so yes third!

Always Red
05-09-2012, 12:09 PM
what a feat- more rare than a perfect game!

Reds/Flyers Fan
05-09-2012, 12:23 PM
Foresight is everything, but what "more" at that time did the fans know over the so-called experts? Some sort of sixth sense? The "experts" saw the raw talent too. That's why he was TB's #1 pick back in 1999. But possessing the talent is one thing. Making it translate into success is another. We all know the Hamilton saga.... he became a junkie who was finally banned by MLB in 2003 as he continued that slide into self-destructive behavior over the next few years. He got sober in 2006, MLB gave him another chance, as did TB. But after a sub-par performance for their single A team TB left him of the 40 man and the Cubs picked him up in the Rule 5 Draft and traded him to Cincy.

So did TB and Chicago also miss the boat on this one? I don't see it that way. The kid was still seen as not only high risk (relapse), but there was also the question - "Did those years of drug abuse diminish that talent as well as his physical durability (injury prone)?" Valid positions. He had a good year with Cincy but also went down with a wrist injury possibly confirming that theory. The Reds needed pitching, Volquez was a highly regarded prospect, so they made the deal.

I'm happy as all get out that Hamilton has "redeemed" himself, both his personal life and baseball career; but I have no regrets over the trade, and I'm certainly not going to waste my time lamenting it, nor blame our management as making another bonehead move seeing the circumstances at that time.

The Reds weren't the only team to whiff on Hamilton, but they were the most recent. And they're the only team that saw Hamilton produce while he was in town.

Tampa Bay and Chicago gave up on him for good reason. We watched him rake for a year in Cincinnati, then traded him away and the very next year he turns into an All-Star. That makes the Reds the biggest fools in this entire Hamilton saga. And that's not even considering the absolute joke of a starting pitcher we got in return. We trade Hamilton because we're afraid he might relapse on drugs, and the guy we get in return (Edinson Volquez) is the one in the deal who ends up getting suspended for drug use.

HokieRed
05-09-2012, 12:26 PM
We missed the opportunity of a generation: to have Votto, Bruce, and Hamilton in the lineup at the same time. That's the lineup I wanted to see.

Reds/Flyers Fan
05-09-2012, 12:48 PM
We missed the opportunity of a generation: to have Votto, Bruce, and Hamilton in the lineup at the same time. That's the lineup I wanted to see.

How about this lineup:

Cozart SS
Hamilton LF
Votto 1B
Encarnacion 3B
Bruce RF
Phillips SS
Stubbs CF
Hanigan/Mesoraco C
Pitcher

Or would you lead Phillips off and drop Cozart?

_Sir_Charles_
05-09-2012, 01:26 PM
Foresight is everything, but what "more" at that time did the fans know over the so-called experts? Some sort of sixth sense? The "experts" saw the raw talent too. That's why he was TB's #1 pick back in 1999. But possessing the talent is one thing. Making it translate into success is another. We all know the Hamilton saga.... he became a junkie who was finally banned by MLB in 2003 as he continued that slide into self-destructive behavior over the next few years. He got sober in 2006, MLB gave him another chance, as did TB. But after a sub-par performance for their single A team TB left him of the 40 man and the Cubs picked him up in the Rule 5 Draft and traded him to Cincy.

So did TB and Chicago also miss the boat on this one? I don't see it that way. The kid was still seen as not only high risk (relapse), but there was also the question - "Did those years of drug abuse diminish that talent as well as his physical durability (injury prone)?" Valid positions. He had a good year with Cincy but also went down with a wrist injury possibly confirming that theory. The Reds needed pitching, Volquez was a highly regarded prospect, so they made the deal.

I'm happy as all get out that Hamilton has "redeemed" himself, both his personal life and baseball career; but I have no regrets over the trade, and I'm certainly not going to waste my time lamenting it, nor blame our management as making another bonehead move seeing the circumstances at that time.

Everyone who's moaning and groaning about that deal needs to read THIS post.

camisadelgolf
05-09-2012, 04:27 PM
SB Nation tries to defend the Volquez/Hamilton deal . . .
http://mlb.sbnation.com/2012/5/9/3009753/josh-hamilton-four-home-runs-cincinnati-reds-texas-rangers-trade

Reds fans are wondering if the Josh Hamilton trade will overtake the Frank Robinson trade as the worst in franchise history. It might yet. But that doesn't mean it was an awful idea at the time.

redsmetz
05-09-2012, 04:28 PM
Actually I was forgetting Cameron, so yes third!

I almost suggested that as a possibility. I should have known better than to think you'd forget Adcock.

redsmetz
05-09-2012, 04:30 PM
The Reds weren't the only team to whiff on Hamilton, but they were the most recent. And they're the only team that saw Hamilton produce while he was in town.

Tampa Bay and Chicago gave up on him for good reason.

I'm not sure you can say Chicago gave up on him. They merely agreed to be the conduit for the Reds to jump the line to grab him in the Rule 5 draft. It was prearranged; they didn't even know who was going to be selected until the Reds advised them on the day of the draft.

_Sir_Charles_
05-09-2012, 04:33 PM
SB Nation tries to defend the Volquez/Hamilton deal . . .
http://mlb.sbnation.com/2012/5/9/3009753/josh-hamilton-four-home-runs-cincinnati-reds-texas-rangers-trade (http://mlb.sbnation.com/2012/5/9/3009753/josh-hamilton-four-home-runs-cincinnati-reds-texas-rangers-trade)

What do you mean "tries". They did. And pretty accurately. It was a risk either way and it didn't pan out for us. That's not a bad trade, it's a bad result to a trade.

camisadelgolf
05-09-2012, 05:10 PM
What do you mean "tries". They did. And pretty accurately. It was a risk either way and it didn't pan out for us. That's not a bad trade, it's a bad result to a trade.
The first step to succeeding is trying. Fwiw, I agree with you completely on the trade.

RedsBaron
05-09-2012, 05:39 PM
How about this lineup:

Cozart SS
Hamilton LF
Votto 1B
Encarnacion 3B
Bruce RF
Phillips SS
Stubbs CF
Hanigan/Mesoraco C
Pitcher

Or would you lead Phillips off and drop Cozart?

Won't work. You have Hamilton and Votto batting back-to-back. Gotta break up the lefties. Bat Stubbs second and move Hamilton to 7th in the order. ;)

RedsBaron
05-09-2012, 05:45 PM
What do you mean "tries". They did. And pretty accurately. It was a risk either way and it didn't pan out for us. That's not a bad trade, it's a bad result to a trade.

Assume Frank Robinson was an "old 30" and had had the best years he would ever have. Take a risk and get that Pappas guy for more pitching and get Baldshun for the 'pen and that young Simpson outfielder. That's not a bad trade, just a bad result to a trade.
I understand the arguments for trading Hamilton, and I certainly preferred moving him for pitching rather than Joey Votto. Heck, not every trade Bob Howsam made panned out. I'm just noting that Bill DeWitt could make arguments for the trade he made back in the winter of '65-'66.

camisadelgolf
05-09-2012, 05:49 PM
How about this lineup:

Cozart SS
Hamilton LF
Votto 1B
Encarnacion 3B
Bruce RF
Phillips SS
Stubbs CF
Hanigan/Mesoraco C
Pitcher

Or would you lead Phillips off and drop Cozart?
I'd say what a shame it is the Reds couldn't afford any pitching because of the millions put into Hamilton and Encarnacion. Okay, so some of that is alleviated by not having Rolen. But I really doubt the Reds would've gotten Marshall, and the BP extension probably wouldn't have happened either.

westofyou
05-09-2012, 05:52 PM
I almost suggested that as a possibility. I should have known better than to think you'd forget Adcock.

True, Adcock is a name slugger that I heard about as a child, he's not Pat Seerey

WMR
05-09-2012, 06:18 PM
This trade just keeps looking worse and worse as more times passes.

dougdirt
05-09-2012, 06:21 PM
This trade just keeps looking worse and worse as more times passes.

Did Josh Hamilton go back in time and never get into hardcore drugs? Otherwise, it was still the right move.

WMR
05-09-2012, 06:22 PM
Did Josh Hamilton go back in time and never get into hardcore drugs? Otherwise, it was still the right move.

Oh you mean that hardcore drug usage that kept him from winning MVPs?

Rangers seem to be doing just fine managing Hamilton's demons.

traderumor
05-09-2012, 06:25 PM
This trade just keeps looking worse and worse as more times passes.So does my first marriage. Yet I've moved on.

WMR
05-09-2012, 06:26 PM
So does my first marriage. Yet I've moved on.

I've definitely moved on as well, just an observation.

It just sucks watching Hamilton play for another team, because he's probably my favorite player to watch in all of MLB.

dougdirt
05-09-2012, 06:38 PM
Oh you mean that hardcore drug usage that kept him from winning MVPs?

Rangers seem to be doing just fine managing Hamilton's demons.

Yeah, those same hardcore drugs that make him the riskiest player in sports. Those same hardcore drugs that got him kicked out of baseball not just once, but twice.

You trade grown men who need babysitters 24 hours a day. Immense talent or not.

_Sir_Charles_
05-09-2012, 07:07 PM
Assume Frank Robinson was an "old 30" and had had the best years he would ever have. Take a risk and get that Pappas guy for more pitching and get Baldshun for the 'pen and that young Simpson outfielder. That's not a bad trade, just a bad result to a trade.
I understand the arguments for trading Hamilton, and I certainly preferred moving him for pitching rather than Joey Votto. Heck, not every trade Bob Howsam made panned out. I'm just noting that Bill DeWitt could make arguments for the trade he made back in the winter of '65-'66.

Agreed.

dabvu2498
05-09-2012, 08:11 PM
I think the arguments both for and against the Hamilton trade have been well documented over the last couple years.

Unless there's something new to add here, let's move along.

Redhook
05-09-2012, 09:34 PM
I've definitely moved on as well, just an observation.

It just sucks watching Hamilton play for another team, because he's probably my favorite player to watch in all of MLB.

Me too. He has the best swing in baseball, by far. It's just incredible to watch. I miss watching that on a daily basis.

BuckeyeRedleg
05-09-2012, 10:21 PM
I'd say what a shame it is the Reds couldn't afford any pitching because of the millions put into Hamilton and Encarnacion. Okay, so some of that is alleviated by not having Rolen. But I really doubt the Reds would've gotten Marshall, and the BP extension probably wouldn't have happened either.

Hamilton will be a FA (for the 1st time) after this season.

After this year, the Rangers will have had him for 5 years at $5.5M per year (about the cost of a set-up man/Sean Marshall).

Sea Ray
05-10-2012, 11:52 AM
At least we have Mat Latos.

In hindsight, what an incredibly horrible trade.

Agreed. It is the Frank Robinson deal of the 21st century

Sea Ray
05-10-2012, 11:55 AM
Did Josh Hamilton go back in time and never get into hardcore drugs? Otherwise, it was still the right move.

If the hardcore drugs bothered you, why acquire him in the Rule 5 trade with the Cubs? Once you got him and saw that he could play, you ride the wave. He was making the major league minimum. What's the risk?

Crumbley
05-10-2012, 11:57 AM
I'm glad that user loser Hamilton was traded, would have made a terrible role model for my non-existent children, Altoids and Taco Bell.

dougdirt
05-10-2012, 12:00 PM
If the hardcore drugs bothered you, why acquire him in the Rule 5 trade with the Cubs? Once you got him and saw that he could play, you ride the wave. He was making the major league minimum. What's the risk?

We didn't acquire him from the Cubs. We paid them to draft him for us so someone else didn't. Technically, we got him from them, but it was a pre-arranged deal. It isn't as if the Cubs had the idea to draft him then we thought, hmm, that is a good idea, lets go get him.

And I didn't make the decision to acquire him. As for where the risk is, it is simple, if you don't trade him when you did and he relapses (which was rather likely), you get nothing from him. But if you do trade him when you did, you get something of value.

Sea Ray
05-10-2012, 12:21 PM
We didn't acquire him from the Cubs. We paid them to draft him for us so someone else didn't. Technically, we got him from them, but it was a pre-arranged deal. It isn't as if the Cubs had the idea to draft him then we thought, hmm, that is a good idea, lets go get him.

And I didn't make the decision to acquire him. As for where the risk is, it is simple, if you don't trade him when you did and he relapses (which was rather likely), you get nothing from him. But if you do trade him when you did, you get something of value.

I understand that line of thinking but I still think he was worth more than a 5th starter. There's always a reason to trade someone but that doesn't make it a right one. The reason for trading Frank Robinson and Tony Perez ten yrs later was that they were getting old.

We knew at the time of the trade that he could re-lapse or he could be an MVP. He'd already shown himself to be a very good player at the major league level. His skills did not need to improve. They were there. Volquez' skills needed to improve in order for him to reach his full potential. As I recall the Reds brass said at the time that they'd acquired another young prospect who they compared to Homer Bailey. We all know the bust factor of young pitchers. We were trading a proven major league everyday player for basically (sorry Danny) one pitching prospect

Bad deal

mth123
05-10-2012, 12:49 PM
If the hardcore drugs bothered you, why acquire him in the Rule 5 trade with the Cubs? Once you got him and saw that he could play, you ride the wave. He was making the major league minimum. What's the risk?

No risk, but once you buy a penny stock and it goes up to $2 bucks, you take your profit before it all disappears as fast as it came. No problem with flipping Josh and his risk for something they thought could solve a long time organizational issue. Heck it even worked until the elbow gave out. Volquez was an all star starting pitcher who was young and on the rise. When was the last time the Reds had one of those?

westofyou
05-10-2012, 12:54 PM
I'm glad that user loser Hamilton was traded, would have made a terrible role model for my non-existent children, Altoids and Taco Bell.

I love this post

That is all

RedFanAlways1966
05-10-2012, 12:59 PM
I have seen a team that has had lots of hitters and sucky pitching for too long. That formula does not work in the Queen City. Check the last 10 years if you are not buying. Foolish to think that formula has not been tried here. I care more about pennants than I do have the prettiest swing in MLB. Those pennants become more plentiful with arms than swings. Ask your friend who likes the Braves.

Sea Ray
05-10-2012, 04:23 PM
No risk, but once you buy a penny stock and it goes up to $2 bucks, you take your profit before it all disappears as fast as it came. No problem with flipping Josh and his risk for something they thought could solve a long time organizational issue. Heck it even worked until the elbow gave out. Volquez was an all star starting pitcher who was young and on the rise. When was the last time the Reds had one of those?

I'd argue that Volquez had massive control issues even before the elbow gave out and I'll grant you that he got off to a good start with us but injuries like snapped elbow ligaments are why young pitching prospects are so chancy. That makes my case for why it wasn't a good risk to take. If they were hellbent on trading Josh they should have insisted on 3 pitching prospects

mth123
05-10-2012, 04:29 PM
I'd argue that Volquez had massive control issues even before the elbow gave out and I'll grant you that he got off to a good start with us but injuries like snapped elbow ligaments are why young pitching prospects are so chancy. That makes my case for why it wasn't a good risk to take. If they were hellbent on trading Josh they should have insisted on 3 pitching prospects

But everyone else knew he was a crack addict who needed a babysitter too. They just weren't going to get much more. I'd have dealt him 100 times out of 100 rather than take the very high risk of being left with nothing.

He already has relapsed twice that we know of. I'm surprised that he hasn't been suspended simply for what we know about to be honest.

Sea Ray
05-10-2012, 04:32 PM
But everyone else knew he was a crack addict who needed a babysitter too. They just weren't going to get much more. I'd have dealt him 100 times out of 100 rather than take the very high risk of being left with nothing.

He already has relapsed twice that we know of. I'm surprised that he hasn't been suspended simply for what we know about to be honest.

I think his relapses have been a drink or two and since that's legal activity, MLB isn't going to make a big deal out of it

mth123
05-10-2012, 04:38 PM
I think his relapses have been a drink or two and since that's legal activity, MLB isn't going to make a big deal out of it

Maybe, but he was on a strict stay on the wagon policy as a condition of being let back in. My guess is that if he hadn't become an all star, feel good story, they'd have come down on him.

Its pretty easy to look back, and even at the time, I was well aware that with his talent Josh could go on to become a top player and if both he and Volquez fulfilled expectations, the Reds would probably have still "lost" the deal. But if Josh went on to become a multi time loser like Steve Howe, Daryl Strawberry or Dwight Gooden, I'm sure many of the same folks blasting the Red's for dealing him would be the ones blasting them for keeping him.

RedsBaron
05-10-2012, 05:33 PM
I have seen a team that has had lots of hitters and sucky pitching for too long. That formula does not work in the Queen City. Check the last 10 years if you are not buying. Foolish to think that formula has not been tried here. I care more about pennants than I do have the prettiest swing in MLB. Those pennants become more plentiful with arms than swings. Ask your friend who likes the Braves.

It worked in the Queen City pretty well in the 1970s. ;)
For that matter the team Hamilton is with has been in the World Series the last two seasons.

Tom Servo
05-10-2012, 05:35 PM
It worked in the Queen City pretty well in the 1970s. ;)
For that matter the team Hamilton is with has been in the World Series the last two seasons.
They were able to score runs by the boatload for years, it was the pitching that finally got them to playoff glory.

Kc61
05-10-2012, 05:48 PM
All trades are about predicting the future. I understand why the Reds made the deal for Volquez. I probably posted what a good idea it was. I usually support management when trades are made.

Enough time has passed to say that the Reds' predictions underlying the Hamilton trade were very wrong. It was a terrible trade. With Josh Hamilton, the Reds would be a much better team.

These things happen to most teams. Met fans I know still are furious about trading Nolan Ryan. The Hamilton trade was a gamble, but there were reasons for it, I don't hold a grudge about it.

But let's not sugar coat it. This was a really bad trade.

westofyou
05-10-2012, 05:58 PM
It worked in the Queen City pretty well in the 1970s. ;)
For that matter the team Hamilton is with has been in the World Series the last two seasons.

In the last fifty years every year (but three, off the top of my head) that the Reds had at least a league average or better ERA and a league average or better RC/27 the Reds went to the playoffs

RedsBaron
05-10-2012, 09:33 PM
In the last fifty years every year (but three, off the top of my head) that the Reds had at least a league average or better ERA and a league average or better RC/27 the Reds went to the playoffs

True. It takes both at least league average pitching and an effective offense. The 70's Reds generally had at least average pitching and well above average hitting (and fielding).

WVRedsFan
05-10-2012, 11:04 PM
All trades are about predicting the future. I understand why the Reds made the deal for Volquez. I probably posted what a good idea it was. I usually support management when trades are made.

Enough time has passed to say that the Reds' predictions underlying the Hamilton trade were very wrong. It was a terrible trade. With Josh Hamilton, the Reds would be a much better team.

These things happen to most teams. Met fans I know still are furious about trading Nolan Ryan. The Hamilton trade was a gamble, but there were reasons for it, I don't hold a grudge about it.

But let's not sugar coat it. This was a really bad trade.Yes. EV had potential. JH had a problem. The question you had to ask which player had the most risk? We now know the answer. Edinson was, if not a disaster, a loose cannon. Took HGH, got suspended, and was so very inconsistent, not to mention losing him for most of a year to injury. In the meantime, Josh became all-world while Volquez allowed run after run in the early innings and wearing out the bullpen. Wayne guessed wrong. It happens but it equals a bad, bad trade, almost identical to the Frank Robinson-Milt Pappas trade.

RedFanAlways1966
05-11-2012, 07:57 AM
The question you had to ask which player had the most risk? We now know the answer. Edinson was, if not a disaster, a loose cannon. Took HGH, got suspended, and was so very inconsistent, not to mention losing him for most of a year to injury. In the meantime, Josh became all-world while Volquez allowed run after run in the early innings and wearing out the bullpen. Wayne guessed wrong. It happens but it equals a bad, bad trade, almost identical to the Frank Robinson-Milt Pappas trade.

Really? Those hindsight goggles fit well... I understand.

No one doubted Josh's baseball abilities. But many (yes, MANY teams) doubted his ability to stay clean. And that part of the story is still not done. I'd guess that even Josh and his family wondered. All-world is fair to use in a few more years... not now. I like to think all-world types can play 80% of their teams games too. I am not anti-Josh (just to be clear). I think what he is doing is great. But I will not bad mouth the REDS organization for what they did. At the time it made sense. And the REDS FO does not have a crystal ball like some here. And there were stories about clubhouse problems due to the "special" treatment for one. Not sure if that is valid or not. But teams, companies, armies, etc. usually do better when they work as a team.

Frank Robinson trade. PLEASE. Was Frank a risk to be banned for life for heroin or whatever usage? Do not go there. Apples vs. oranges.

Sea Ray
05-11-2012, 09:48 AM
Frank Robinson trade. PLEASE. Was Frank a risk to be banned for life for heroin or whatever usage? Do not go there. Apples vs. oranges.

The Frank Robinson comparison is apt in that we got screwed. As for the reasons, one was drugs one was age. The point is management mis-read that the player's performance was going to decline and that's where it's similar

dougdirt
05-11-2012, 09:51 AM
The Frank Robinson comparison is apt in that we got screwed. As for the reasons, one was drugs one was age. The point is management mis-read that the player's performance was going to decline and that's where it's similar

We didn't get screwed. It just didn't work out. There is a large difference. Getting screwed would be trading Joey Votto right now for an Edinson Volquez like player.

Patrick Bateman
05-11-2012, 10:48 AM
This really isn't a black and white issue. With a risk reward guy like Hamilton, it's no differnet than playing the stock market. I can see why people were and are critical of the trade, as Hamilton, after doing heavy drugs for 5 years stepped into the major leagues after never touching AA, and produced a .900 OPS. There was a greater than minimal chance that he was going to become a fantastic hitter.

I was on the fence at the time, as the Reds were in a position where they had a glut of outfielders, the others of which were going to be difficult to move. The more popular opinion at the time was to trade Votto or Dunn for Volquez as most people actually liked the player we got as he was considered one of the more special arms available. Of course Dunn was never going to fetch that return, and Votto turned out to be amazing. Goes to show, it was a difficult situation, something had to give, and because of the turmoil that Hamilton was causing in the lockeroom, in a sense he made the decision for them.

He could have just as easily relapsed, and I think the context is important here. For the record, I did not like the trade at the time, but IMO, it was justifiable considering the circumstances and the Reds trying to reposition their assets.

Dom Heffner
05-11-2012, 10:58 AM
I don't regret the trade. While I'd take Hamilton over Volquez knowing what we know now, the trade was made for all the right reasons and the Reds needed Volquez at the time worse than they needed Hamilton.

You must have low standards on what you consider regrettable.

There is no way- it isn't possible- to spin this any other way than it was a mistake.

Dumb move. Dumb moves happen, but it was dumb. Probably one of the dumbest this organization has ever done. Up there with Frank Robinson.

There wasn't a soul who didn't know he was the pick of a generation, and we got him for free. For free. You don't ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, trade something like that that you got for free.

It's like winning $50,000 in Vegas and then walking back in and giving it right back.

And Volquez failed the drug test. Just dumb.

Dom Heffner
05-11-2012, 11:02 AM
Really? Those hindsight goggles fit well... I understand.

No one doubted Josh's baseball abilities. But many (yes, MANY teams) doubted his ability to stay clean. And that part of the story is still not done. I'd guess that even Josh and his family wondered. All-world is fair to use in a few more years... not now. I like to think all-world types can play 80% of their teams games too. I am not anti-Josh (just to be clear). I think what he is doing is great. But I will not bad mouth the REDS organization for what they did. At the time it made sense. And the REDS FO does not have a crystal ball like some here. And there were stories about clubhouse problems due to the "special" treatment for one. Not sure if that is valid or not. But teams, companies, armies, etc. usually do better when they work as a team.

Frank Robinson trade. PLEASE. Was Frank a risk to be banned for life for heroin or whatever usage? Do not go there. Apples vs. oranges.

What was the risk with Hamilton? We got him for free. There is no risk when it's free. Stop leaving that out.

As well- there is also the risk that Volquez would have control issues and fail a drug test. And wow, that's exactly what happened. There is risk on both sides. It's not like we traded Hamilton for Miguel Cabrera.

When you have a "risk" like that, you sit with it and see how it plays out. You don't act like your playing with house money.

You don't not need a player like Josh Hamilton. You don't ever have a need that is greater than a guy lke that. Hindsight is how we review what we did, and that was a major blunder. No two ways about it.

Patrick Bateman
05-11-2012, 11:08 AM
What was the risk with Hamilton? We got him for free. There is no risk when it's free. Stop leaving that out.


Moving forward, the fact that we got Hamilton for free is completely irrelevant. The risk is in that the asset of Hamilton at the end of his season with the Reds was at risk of declining significantly if he relaspses.

I would have played the risk, but the Reds decided to hedge it with a perceived less risky player at a position of need. Of course, various issues turned Volquez sour pretty fast.

Dom Heffner
05-11-2012, 11:10 AM
Really? Those hindsight goggles fit well... I understand.


I'll stop posting, I promise.

But this is the fallacy: You keep acting like a decision had to be made right then, right there. It didn't.

"Well what we knew at the time..."

You don't trade something away until you know what you got. Especially when he was free. There is absolutely nothing to lose by holding him and he flames out. Nothing.

The only time you put yourself in a situation where you have something tangible to lose, is when you trade him before you know what you have and he blows up. And that's exactly what they did.

And they traded him for a question mark. One of those I'll take your problem if you take mine kind of deals. At that point you are better off holding, especially when you have the guy with the higher ceiling.

Dom Heffner
05-11-2012, 11:12 AM
Moving forward, the fact that we got Hamilton for free is completely irrelevant. The risk is in that the asset of Hamilton at the end of his season with the Reds was at risk of declining significantly if he relaspses.

I would have played the risk, but the Reds decided to hedge it with a perceived less risky player at a position of need. Of course, various issues turned Volquez sour pretty fast.

Getting him for nothing is everything. There was no absolute necessity for a deal being made. Other than this sinking feeling of oh no we need to move him before he relapses or else....or else, what? You got him for nothing!

Zero risk. He was free. Off the scrap heap. Draft pick of his generation for free, and you talk yourself out of it for Edison Volquez. Unreal.

BuckeyeRedleg
05-11-2012, 11:28 AM
I'm with Dom on this one.

oneupper
05-11-2012, 11:38 AM
There seems to be some kind of semantic issue between cost and value.
Not the same thing.

At the beginning of 2007, Hamilton's cost was $50,000 (plus salary). His value was unknown, but you could say it was $50.000 because he could be acquired for that.

He produced a 2.3 or 2.6 WAR season (depending on source), with injuries and having Juan Castro hit for him. At that point his value was no longer $50,000.
He was uber-cheap for two more years. I think that it was reasonable to think he could produce 3-5 wins in those years (he produced 5.5 with the rangers, FWIW).
That's worth $12-$25 MILLION DOLLARS (Subtract the $0.8 mm to be paid to JH).
(We're not counting possible arbitration years).

Would anyone have paid $12 million for EV? $8 mm? $5 mm?. No? Don't think so.

That's what makes it so hard to understand. Frankly, when I saw the trade, I didn't get it. But after getting BP and JH for nothing, I figured that EV had to be the reincarnation of Walter Johnson, if Krivsky was giving up that much for him.

At that same point, EV had done NOTHING at the MLB level. His value was that of a prospect (-2.0 WAR). Mostly promise. He actually produced a 2008 WAR of 3.2, but that is irrelevant since it came AFTER the trade. In 2007 he was not worth a damaged or injured Josh Hamilton.

I think there was some other stuff going on behind the scenes. It's a shame if that collateral stuff was the driving force behind this decision.

Patrick Bateman
05-11-2012, 11:59 AM
Getting him for nothing is everything. There was no absolute necessity for a deal being made. Other than this sinking feeling of oh no we need to move him before he relapses or else....or else, what? You got him for nothing!

Zero risk. He was free. Off the scrap heap. Draft pick of his generation for free, and you talk yourself out of it for Edison Volquez. Unreal.

I believe you are confusing two points. He was no risk when he was acquired. If he flames out, whatever.

After he had some success, his ability to contribute in the future was more risky, then say, a Joey Votto, who had already had some major league and AAA success, and did not have the same history. The risk going forward is whether he was going to maintain the valuable asset he was at the end of his first season. No different then a penny stock that shoots through the roof one week.... sure you acquired it for nothing, however, going forward, the risk is whether it is going to maintain that value, or whether it is smarter to cash out while it hits that high value for the first time in its history. How that stock was acquired is absolutely irrelevant in determining what to do with it in the future.

IMO, the proper reason to not trade Hamilton was the chance that the stock keeps rising. Hamilton was clearly a very unique case, perhaps the first of his breed with the accomplishments that he did after 5 years of hard abuse. For that reason, even if it was believed to be a small chance, having a perhaps ultra-elite player for 5 years was IMO worth more than the gamble of an unproven pitcher. In the Reds eyes, they were taking a safer option they were more comfortable with, adding a needed pitcher, while still maintaining a reasonable position player for all OF positions. I also believe that there is quite a bit of info. not privy to us behind the scenes that we don't know about. It's simply a situation that really could have gone either way, and there was significant risk on both sides of the transaction.

The Reds lost big time. But at the same time, any other team could have given a better pitcher than Volquez, and I'm sure the Reds would have listened hard on a more established guy, not to mention that every other team felt Hamilton was an even bigger risk than the Reds did a year before.

Although the Reds ended up losing big, the turn of events goes to show that the rest of MLB had similar doubts on Hamilton, showing that just about everyone didnt see this as a slam dunk.

Johnny Footstool
05-11-2012, 03:31 PM
I'm glad that user loser Hamilton was traded, would have made a terrible role model for my non-existent children, Altoids and Taco Bell.

Twin girls?

Big Klu
05-11-2012, 05:42 PM
Twin girls?

Now that's just silly! Everyone knows that Altoids is a boy's name!

Razor Shines
05-12-2012, 01:40 AM
Twin girls?

Hamilton named the two home runs he hit tonight Taco Bell and Altoids.

Dom Heffner
05-12-2012, 02:11 AM
n/m

Matt700wlw
05-12-2012, 02:28 AM
Phillips
Votto
Hamilton
Bruce

How sexy!

Tom Servo
05-12-2012, 08:16 AM
Phillips
Votto
Hamilton
Bruce

How sexy!
Gotta break em them lefties, dude.

GAC
05-13-2012, 07:16 AM
SB Nation tries to defend the Volquez/Hamilton deal . . .
http://mlb.sbnation.com/2012/5/9/3009753/josh-hamilton-four-home-runs-cincinnati-reds-texas-rangers-trade

That was a good article.

For any Red fan though to try and compare it to the Frank Robinson trade is far-fetched IMO. FR was a well established major league level ballplayer. Josh Hamilton was not. Yeah, the Reds were wrong (even laughable) in their evaluation that FR was an "old" 30. So age was a factor in that decision. At that time, Hamilton's highest minor-league level was AA, where he received fewer than 100 at-bats. He put up good numbers in '07 with the Reds, but again, played in only 90 games due to injury and other aches and pains. So not denying the potential, but there were still very viable "concerns" about Hamilton.

When he is healthy he puts up some phenom numbers. But that has always been the question concerning him. Over the last 4 years he's only played one season of more than 133 games. He misses 40 games last season with a fractured humerus. You look up his injury history and it's quite an extensive list covering every major body part.

Texas signed him to a 2 yr/24M deal, and this is the final year of that deal. Texas wants to sign him long-term and has opened up negotiations.

Hamilton's incredible start may make it harder for Rangers, outfielder to hammer out a deal.... http://www.dallasnews.com/sports/texas-rangers/headlines/20120509-writer-hamilton-s-incredible-start-may-make-it-harder-for-rangers-outfielder-to-hammer-out-a-deal.ece


Jeff Passan, of Yahoo!Sports.com, writes that the Rangers are not alone in their concern about signing Josh Hamilton to a big-money, long-term contract.

Passan writes: Despite Hamilton's ascent to superstardom, the Rangers haven't committed more than two seasons at a time to him during his arbitration years, fearful that his years of drug use left his body especially susceptible to injuries.

Others share the concern. Three general managers surveyed following the four-homer game Tuesday agreed that even if Hamilton were to play the entire season and finish healthy, they would have trouble giving him much beyond a six-year deal if that.

He's turns 31 this month. I wish him the best. But that is a valid concern IMO, and we're talking about a lot of money (commitment) for a guy who ain't getting any younger.

And even if the Reds had retained him, IMO, there would be no way we'd have been able to re-sign Votto and maybe a few others.

oneupper
05-13-2012, 09:09 AM
And even if the Reds had retained him, IMO, there would be no way we'd have been able to re-sign Votto and maybe a few others.

Retaining Hamilton certainly would have changed the whole team dynamic, including the money aspect. BUT, he was cheap for 2008-09 (under $500,000).
You would have had a lot of options then.
Maybe you extend him, buying out some FA years. Maybe you trade Votto for Halladay. Or Dunn and Griffey earlier. Maybe the revenue side improves, if the team reaches the postseason or is more successful in it.
We can only speculate and play out those scenarios in our heads.

The point that many have tried to make in this thread is that AT THE TIME OF THE TRADE (and certainly thereafter), Hamilton's value in good old US Dollars far exceeded that of Edinson Volquez. It wasn't even close.
I'm surprised to see so many posters who use advanced statistics and analyze payrolls and budgets throw their hands up and say "we couldn't have known". Of course you can't KNOW. But you project scenarios, assign probabilities to them and value accordingly.
Put yourself in late 2007, do that and try to find a scenario where this deal is a winner, with a good degree of probability.

It's not rocket science, this stuff is done ALL the time in the finance world. That's how you value risky assets. Let's not forget Moneyballl starts with MONEY, not BALL(s).

Bad deal then, worse deal now. Maybe not Robby for Pappas, but certainly a not so far second place.

RedsManRick
05-13-2012, 11:46 AM
The point that many have tried to make in this thread is that AT THE TIME OF THE TRADE (and certainly thereafter), Hamilton's value in good old US Dollars far exceeded that of Edinson Volquez. It wasn't even close.
I'm surprised to see so many posters who use advanced statistics and analyze payrolls and budgets throw their hands up and say "we couldn't have known". Of course you can't KNOW. But you project scenarios, assign probabilities to them and value accordingly.
Put yourself in late 2007, do that and try to find a scenario where this deal is a winner, with a good degree of probability.

It's not rocket science, this stuff is done ALL the time in the finance world. That's how you value risky assets. Let's not forget Moneyballl starts with MONEY, not BALL(s).

Bad deal then, worse deal now. Maybe not Robby for Pappas, but certainly a not so far second place.

To the point others have made, I 'd be curious to see how you're assigning the probabilities.

People seem to be downplaying the very real possibility that Hamilton simply feel apart again. Or the percent chance that he'd never be able to stay healthy because of what he did to his body. Or the percent chance his presence and requirement for special treatment would have significant negative impact on the clubhouse.

And on the flip side, what was the chance that Volquez put it all together? Let's look at the threads after the 2008 season when a lot of people thought the 24 year old Volquez was our next ace.

You're right, there was absolutely a case to be made from the very beginning that we gave up more value than we got back. But we also got a lot of value back and were supposedly getting a good deal more certainty. The comments in this thread make think the people are having a lot of trouble remembering just how very real the risks were and just how much upside Volquez had.

http://www.redszone.com/forums/showthread.php?t=64460&highlight=Hamilton+Volquez&page=5

bucksfan2
05-14-2012, 08:33 AM
To the point others have made, I 'd be curious to see how you're assigning the probabilities.

People seem to be downplaying the very real possibility that Hamilton simply feel apart again. Or the percent chance that he'd never be able to stay healthy because of what he did to his body. Or the percent chance his presence and requirement for special treatment would have significant negative impact on the clubhouse.

And on the flip side, what was the chance that Volquez put it all together? Let's look at the threads after the 2008 season when a lot of people thought the 24 year old Volquez was our next ace.

You're right, there was absolutely a case to be made from the very beginning that we gave up more value than we got back. But we also got a lot of value back and were supposedly getting a good deal more certainty. The comments in this thread make think the people are having a lot of trouble remembering just how very real the risks were and just how much upside Volquez had.

http://www.redszone.com/forums/showthread.php?t=64460&highlight=Hamilton+Volquez&page=5

The think is, when you use hindsight, it makes the decision, arguments, and outcomes all clear. What you said about risks associated with Hamilton were all valid, but the reality was none of them came true. The risks with Volquez seemed to be there, but his tenure with the Reds had been even rockier than most could have anticipated. A TJ surgery, a PED suspension, a demotion to the minors, and eventually being a throw in piece in a trade.

The thing with Hamilton is the Reds hit the jackpot with him. They had a hot start up company that they decided to sell in its infancy because there was some risk. Krivsky at the time decided he no longer wanted to hold onto his lottery ticket instead traded it early for a paltry return.

You can't convince me that the trade made sense at the time and you can't convince me it was a good trade in hindsight. Other than Robinson it was the worst trade in this franchise, it will probably go down as one of the worst trades in recent history. Its obvious that Hamilton had a tremendous deal of risk, but doesn't every major league player? In the end the Reds traded a MVP and one of the best players in baseball today, all because there was risk associated with him.

PuffyPig
05-14-2012, 09:12 AM
In the end the Reds traded a MVP and one of the best players in baseball today, all because there was risk associated with him.

Except he wasn't an MVP when the trade was made, he wasn't one of the best players in baseball and we desparately needed pitching. And we'd be likely losing him as a FA after this season.

In hindsight the trade obviously stunk, but that wasn't so obvious at the time.

Dan
05-14-2012, 09:16 AM
Is this the greatest week for a single player in the history of baseball?


Date ▴ Tm G GS Rslt PA AB R H 2B 3B HR RBI BB IBB SO HBP SH SF ROE GDP SB CS BA OBP SLG OPS BAbip aLI WPA RE24
5/7-13/12TEX 7 7 5-2 34 30 10 14 2 0 9 18 4 2 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .467 .529 1.433 1.963 .500 .67 0.472 12.66
per 162 games 163 163 116 787 695 232 325 47 0 209 417 93 47 255 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11.4 293.

oneupper
05-14-2012, 09:17 AM
Is this the greatest week for a single player in the history of baseball?


Date ▴ Tm G GS Rslt PA AB R H 2B 3B HR RBI BB IBB SO HBP SH SF ROE GDP SB CS BA OBP SLG OPS BAbip aLI WPA RE24
5/7-13/12TEX 7 7 5-2 34 30 10 14 2 0 9 18 4 2 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .467 .529 1.433 1.963 .500 .67 0.472 12.66
per 162 games 163 163 116 787 695 232 325 47 0 209 417 93 47 255 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11.4 293.

I'm sure Bonds, McGwire and/or Sosa have better. But you know their story.

oneupper
05-14-2012, 10:43 AM
To the point others have made, I 'd be curious to see how you're assigning the probabilities.


I did not do this exercise, but it's not that hard. You can still put yourself in the moment and come up with some approximations.

Start with Hamilton.
Key with him is health...mental and physical.
On the mental side, statistics on relapse are sketchy, but they say 50% of users go back to hard use after rehab, while 90% suffer brief relapses. (about.com).
However, very few users have the incentives or follow-up that Hamilton was to have. Let's face it, an addict who can earn millions of dollars playing baseball by not using is more likely to stay clean than one who can only look forward to an average life (I know we have examples with Gooden and Strawberry, but they still made the cash). And Yes Hamilton made good with that 90% with his brief relapses.

So...50% Josh goes back to using hard. He's worthless. You lose two years trying to fix him. $1 mm.

Other scenarios:

2. Oft-injured. He plays sparingly, but is good when playing. Think JD Drew.
JD averaged 3 WAR for 14 years. With ups and downs. Hamilton already had a 2.6 WAR half year with some injuries.
Give it 25% perhaps?

3. MVP. Plays to Potential. Hamilton is entering his prime years. He has proven that the skills are still there. Shakes the rust, becomes the best.
Another 25%? 6-8 WAR per year.

This is a simplified version of the analysis that SHOULD be done. You can only hope that the FO went over these scenarios in much deeper detail, before putting a $$ value on Josh. The expected (average) WAR of these scenarios is about 2.5.

It actually played out somewhere between scenarios 2 and 3, since Josh has been injured. We don't know what would have happened if he were to stay a RED. Maybe better maybe worse. (Maybe they don't send him crashing to the plate to break an arm...who knows).

You can do the same with Volquez, remembering that you are in 2007 and Edinson has yet to prove anything at the major league level. What were the reasonable odds of Edinson being a top pitcher, getting injured or flaming out.

I would have put the odds of him becoming an AS at 10% or less (which is what actually happened and made it look like a good deal), because of TTINSTAAPP, and he didn't have much of record to back it up.

Then, injuries. Was he TJ-prone? (he did eventually succumb and a large % of pitchers these days have had it). Did he have recurring command/mental issues?
So on...put numbers on it (this is long enough as is) I don't see any way the expected $$$ value approximates Josh's, even accounting for the dispersion of results.
EV was not Roy Halladay or even Chris Young (a young pitcher) in late 2007.

So
10% AS/Top of rotation 3-5 WAR
70% Middle/Back rotation guy (Baseball America said IF he keeps head on straight could be solid middle of rotation guy). Redszone had him as a #3 at best in a bad rotation. 0-1 WAR. Cory Lidle anyone?
20% Injury/Flameout. 0 WAR at best. Possibly negative value.

So expected WAR/year = about 1.

I think these percentages used are generous towards the EV part of the deal, but you were looking at a 1.5 WAR expected loss per year. So for the pre-arb years, the REDs threw away something like $15 million (if you take $5 million per WAR).
The fact that EV actually performed well in 2008 speaks well of his scouting intuition, but that was always a longshot. Longshots for $50.000 are great, but long shots for millions of dollars (which Hamilton was worth in late 2007), no you don't do it.

Sorry this was so long.

dougdirt
05-14-2012, 11:06 AM
The think is, when you use hindsight, it makes the decision, arguments, and outcomes all clear. What you said about risks associated with Hamilton were all valid, but the reality was none of them came true.
This is like saying that with the dealer showing a 6 and you showing 15, you take a card and hit a 5 and claiming you made a good decision because it worked out in your favor. It was not a good decision simply because it worked.



The thing with Hamilton is the Reds hit the jackpot with him. They had a hot start up company that they decided to sell in its infancy because there was some risk. Krivsky at the time decided he no longer wanted to hold onto his lottery ticket instead traded it early for a paltry return.
Of course, using your example, that hot start up company was being run by a bunch of people who have been absolute epic failures in business in the past.

Vottomatic
05-14-2012, 11:16 AM
I honestly never even think about that trade.

There have been so many players that have had a minor league or major league quick drink of water with the Reds and gone on to greater things. And I think when the Reds signed him and I learned about his off field additions/struggles, I never really felt he would be here long term anyway.

RedsManRick
05-14-2012, 11:30 AM
I did not do this exercise, but it's not that hard. You can still put yourself in the moment and come up with some approximations.


Thanks for going through the process -- a few thoughts.

- 25% of 6-8 WAR annually? 25%? That strikes me as incredibly optimistic. From 2008 to 2011, the following players averaged at least 6 WAR per year: Albert Pujols, Evan Longoria, Chase Utley. That's it. I don't think anybody would have put a 25% chance of becoming the best player in the game on him. A chance? Sure. But not 25%.

- I think the idea that if Hamilton stays off drugs that he's JD Drew at worst is precisely where the coloring of our memories comes up. When the Reds traded Hamilton, he had less than 400 PA above A ball. Yes, he was great in those PA. But lots of players have a great half season before the league finds the holes in their swings. Go back to the winter of 2002-03. Austin Kearns was the 7th overall pick and just put up .315/.407/.500 over 400+ PA at age 22. He and Dunn were going to be the next bash brothers. Not so much. He turned in to basically the same player as Matt Murton who had to go to Japan to get regular playign time.

Maybe I was underselling Hamilton's pedigree, but I think there was reasonable doubt of whether or not he could keep it up. To what degree was his breakout "for real"? That was still an open question; not just health. There was a not insignificant chance that he'd settle in to a 1-2 WAR 4th OF type with tools but who couldn't produce consistently.

- I think you undersell Volquez's upside. Yes, he put up 4 WAR in 2008. But that's 200 IP of a 3.60 FIP. Even then, there were people who thought he'd improve on his control and take another step. That's 5-7 WAR, not 3-5 WAR upside.

All in, I think the math may still work out in Hamilton's favor. But I think those probabilities get skewed when will fill them out in retrospect.

oneupper
05-14-2012, 11:57 AM
Thanks for going through the process -- a few thoughts.



Thanks for reading. We could probably lower Hamilton's MVP scenario. I'm glad you liked the JD Drew comp. I do believe it was Hamilton's baseline "clean" scenario at the time. 3 WAR average over 14 years is nothing to sneeze at. We could also lower the "drug recurrence" scenario, since as I pointed out, JH had better reasons and chances to stay clean than the average junkie.

On EV, I don't think I downplayed him too much. Pitchers are risky per se, young pitchers more so, and EV had command issues that made him even riskier. His 2008 season was a future unknown at the time of the trade, so we can't consider that "step up" to ace as anything but an extremely remote possibility (on top of an already low chance of him being an all-star).

A trade between 2007 Hamilton and 2008 EV was much more evenly matched, of course. EV then had a record to show. I'm pretty sure, however that no one makes the trade after the 2008 season for both players (even if they were both all stars).

In the end, I think the REDS went too far in their effort to balance the team, which was, after all (we hope) the main reason for the trade and one of the main reasons some analysts/fans liked it.

Brutus
05-14-2012, 02:46 PM
Is this the greatest week for a single player in the history of baseball?




I believe Shawn Green had 10 homers in a week when he had his 4-homer game.

I don't remember how many hits he had that week beyond his home runs, though, but he had a surreal stretch of games.

camisadelgolf
05-14-2012, 02:53 PM
I believe Shawn Green had 10 homers in a week when he had his 4-homer game.

I don't remember how many hits he had that week beyond his home runs, though, but he had a surreal stretch of games.
Yup. http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/gl.cgi?id=greensh01&t=b&year=2002&share=2.31#1082-1088-sum:batting_gamelogs

Degenerate39
05-14-2012, 03:32 PM
Yup. http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/gl.cgi?id=greensh01&t=b&year=2002&share=2.31#1082-1088-sum:batting_gamelogs

Video game numbers

kaldaniels
05-14-2012, 03:44 PM
Thanks for reading. We could probably lower Hamilton's MVP scenario. I'm glad you liked the JD Drew comp. I do believe it was Hamilton's baseline "clean" scenario at the time. 3 WAR average over 14 years is nothing to sneeze at. We could also lower the "drug recurrence" scenario, since as I pointed out, JH had better reasons and chances to stay clean than the average junkie.

On EV, I don't think I downplayed him too much. Pitchers are risky per se, young pitchers more so, and EV had command issues that made him even riskier. His 2008 season was a future unknown at the time of the trade, so we can't consider that "step up" to ace as anything but an extremely remote possibility (on top of an already low chance of him being an all-star).

A trade between 2007 Hamilton and 2008 EV was much more evenly matched, of course. EV then had a record to show. I'm pretty sure, however that no one makes the trade after the 2008 season for both players (even if they were both all stars).

In the end, I think the REDS went too far in their effort to balance the team, which was, after all (we hope) the main reason for the trade and one of the main reasons some analysts/fans liked it.

Just in general reading thru the last page or so, it seems fruitless to go back and try to assign probablity of things such as "what were the odds Josh would be an MVP" or "what were the odds EV would be a Cy Young winner", given that we know the outcome already...there is going to be some bias built in. The time to have such a discussion would have been at the time of the deal, at which point we could layout such odds.

It turned out to be a terrible deal. No argument.

But we have your extreme, saying it was a no doubt boneheaded deal from the get go, and we have Doug's extreme, basically saying never trust an addict (paraphrasing). But what needs to be acknowledged is there was always a chance that either could have had the "right" opinion. If Josh's night at the bar escalated into a night with the needle, Doug would be on stating just as strong as you that he was right along.

The guy that held the reins on this move was gone, so just accept the sick feeling in your stomach and try to move on.

I enjoy your thoughts on the board unquestionably and am not trying to give you a hard time, but I'm just suprised you seem to be taking such a hardline stance that your opinion was infalliable (perhaps too strong a term here)for the most part. Many,many unique variables in this case...both in favor of keeping and in favor of trading Josh.

Brutus
05-14-2012, 04:03 PM
Yup. http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/gl.cgi?id=greensh01&t=b&year=2002&share=2.31#1082-1088-sum:batting_gamelogs

Thanks, that's what I suspected but was too lazy to look it up haha.

oneupper
05-14-2012, 04:23 PM
I enjoy your thoughts on the board unquestionably and am not trying to give you a hard time, but I'm just suprised you seem to be taking such a hardline stance that your opinion was infalliable (perhaps too strong a term here)for the most part. Many,many unique variables in this case...both in favor of keeping and in favor of trading Josh.

Points taken and accepted. I guess what was lost in my rant was not so much the conclusion that the REDS FO came to (trade JH for EV), but the process by which they reached that decision.

Did they go through all those possible outcomes and their probabilities and dollar values when evaluating the trade? A little Financial Management 101?
If so, OK...they got it wrong. We all do.

Or was it just "we need pitching, Hamilton could be a problem and Texas wants him, lets see what they can give us"?

We can not know, but I'd put my money on the latter. That bothers me. I just think that had they used a more analytical approach, they might have come to a different conclusion or in any case, gotten a better deal.

Water under the bridge, as you said. /rant.

The other point I wanted to address was the general idea that "you can't know the future". It's true you can't. But there are ways to plan and project around that. You build scenarios and decision trees. Instead of cursing uncertainty, you put a number on it.

RedsBaron
05-16-2012, 09:47 AM
While the trade of Josh Hamilton to the Rangers for Edinson Volquez was a bad trade for the Reds, whether or not it ultimately proves to have been as bad as the trade of Frank Robinson after the 1965 season remains to be seen.
There are a few similarities to the two trades.
In each case the Reds traded a talented slugger and outfielder to attempt to get more starting pitching.
In each case the centerpiece of the trade for the Reds, be it Milt Pappas or Volquez, was a disapointment.
In each case, the guy the Reds traded away proceeded to win a batting title, a RBI crown, a MVP award and two pennants in his first four seasons with his new team.
Admiitedly the comparison isn't perfect. Robinson's batting title, RBI crown and MVP season all came in 1966, along with 49 HRs to complete a triple crown season, while Hamilton's RBI crown came in 2008 and his batting title and MVP in 2010, and he has not yet come close to a 49 HR campaign.
Without adjusting for their respective eras, Robby's and Josh's numbers their first four years with their new teams look somewhat similar, other than in HRs. Robinson hit .303 with 610 hits, 126 HRs and 368 RBI while Hamilton hit .311 with 611 hits, 99 HRs and 378 RBI. When their eras are considered, Robinson's numbers are more impressive. His cumulative WAR score for 1966-69 was 22.8 compared to Hamilton's 17.6 for 2008-11, although Hamilton's WAR in 2010 of 8.4 is the best single season either had in those seasons.
Hamilton of course is three years younger during those seasons. By the time of Robinson's fifth year away from the Reds he was 34 and past his peak. Hamilton is 31 and at this point in the 2012 season is leading the 'verse in about everything.
One other similarity is that a new GM was able to salvage something from each trade. Bob Howsam picked up the pieces and used Pappas to acquire Clay Carroll, Tony Cloninger and Woody Woodard. Carroll was a valuable reliever for nearly a decade.
Howsam also traded Dick Simpson to get Alex Johnson, who gave the Reds two .300+ seasons at the plate, while fielding at a similar percentage and displaying the warmth of Albert Belle. Howsam then traded Johnson and acquired Jim McGlothlin and Pedro Borbon; McGlothlin was a decent starting pitcher in 1970-71 and Borbon was a quality reliever and biter of opponents for numerous seasons.
Walt Jocketty of course used Volquez to get Mat Latos, who may yet be the pitcher the Reds hoped to get for Hamilton.

kaldaniels
06-29-2012, 12:16 AM
http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/josh-hamilton-needs-to-start-making-adjustments/

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/josh-hamiltons-weakness-on-full-display/

Interesting reads.

dougdirt
06-29-2012, 07:14 AM
Even guys like Josh Hamilton still need to understand that you can't hit everything and you need to wait for your pitch.

Razor Shines
06-29-2012, 02:07 PM
Even guys like Josh Hamilton still need to understand that you can't hit everything and you need to wait for your pitch.

Yep. Biggest reason I think Votto is a head of Hamilton in running for best hitter in baseball currently.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

WMR
06-29-2012, 02:38 PM
Yep. Biggest reason I think Votto is a head of Hamilton in running for best hitter in baseball currently.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Can you imagine if Hamilton was protecting Votto in this lineup? Or the other way around? I can't really wrap my ahead around the awesomeness.

kaldaniels
06-29-2012, 03:15 PM
For the next week or so at least I wonder what percentage of Hamiltons at bats would result in a walk if he simply refused to swing at any pitch.

westofyou
07-26-2012, 02:42 PM
http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=17779


Scouts’ views

Rangers left fielder Josh Hamilton: "He's prone to go into funks at the plate, but I've never seen him in one for this long. He's swinging at absolutely everything that's thrown to him. He's always been able to get hits on pitches out of the strike zone, but pitchers are getting him to chase pitches he has no chance to reach."

June 107 ab's .318/.436/.754
July 74 ab's .230/.308/.537

Orenda
07-26-2012, 03:06 PM
http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=17779



June 107 ab's .318/.436/.754
July 74 ab's .230/.308/.537

so his worst funk is an 845 OPS? Check Please!

dougdirt
07-26-2012, 03:07 PM
so his worst funk is an 845 OPS? Check Please!

Pretty sure that is OBP/SLG/OPS, not AVG/OBP/SLG.

reds44
07-26-2012, 03:08 PM
Pretty sure that is OBP/SLG/OPS, not AVG/OBP/SLG.
For sure.

http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/players/6679/splits;_ylt=AqPhmxjjDXrDXr5086EEgUeFCLcF

dougdirt
07-26-2012, 03:08 PM
Hamilton's problem is expanding the zone. I don't think he is going to be changing it anytime soon either, given that he said when he gets hits on the balls outside of the zone it is ok. He is purposefully swinging at balls trying to get hits. I know the guy is a freak and all, but that isn't a good plan.

Chip R
07-26-2012, 03:14 PM
I heard Nolan called him out for taking off ABs.

westofyou
07-26-2012, 03:17 PM
Pretty sure that is OBP/SLG/OPS, not AVG/OBP/SLG.

Yeah... I would hardly complain about a .754 slg%

dabvu2498
07-26-2012, 03:17 PM
I heard Nolan called him out for taking off ABs.

"Giving away" ABs was the term Nolan used.

Patrick Bateman
07-26-2012, 03:21 PM
NA

Orenda
07-26-2012, 03:42 PM
Pretty sure that is OBP/SLG/OPS, not AVG/OBP/SLG.

that's a horse of a different color then

Chip R
07-26-2012, 04:09 PM
"Giving away" ABs was the term Nolan used.

You're right.