Originally Posted by Chip R
I don't think the Reds needed to plant any stories justifying the trade. The Reds couldn't see into the future and know Hamilton would stay on the straight and narrow (mostly) keep healthy (mostly) and be one of the elite players in baseball. The potential was there but as a lot of folks on here will say, the Reds needed young pitching more than they needed hitting. The trade didn't work out in the Reds favor but it wasn't like Volquez was the second coming of Eric Milton.
I guess I would consider the Volquez-Hamilton trade a bigger disaster than Milton. Milton didn't cost us any talent to acquire. The story we heard (who knows if it's true) is that one day Carl woke up and decided to spend some money to improve the team.. There were slim pickings on the FA market at that point, and DanO made a stupid choice to sign Milton (I don't buy the "He was forced to" excuse.. if he can't assert to Carl that Milton is a bad idea, he shouldn't be GM)
So Milton just cost us some money. Volquez cost us an MVP bat that could've played LF and CF for a long time. Hamilton was a potential difference maker for the 2010 and 2012 playoffs .. No one knows for sure, but it's not unreasonable to assume that there was a good chance he would've been more productive than Stubbs. All we got from Volquez was a good half season (probably roids aided) in a lost season..
At the time of the trade, Volquez was a pure enigma.. Honestly, this was another instance of Wayne making desperate moves to bolster the pitching, and like many of his moves, it backfired.. No need to list them all here.. We know them.
People say Hamilton was a risk.. Yet Volquez profiled as a guy with control problems that might never put it together. Hamilton was arguably the best hitter on the Reds when they traded him.. He at least had some track record of production..
If players were jealous that Hamilton got too much spotlight or were bothered that he wouldn't have a beer with them or he talked religion too much.. then those players need to grow up.. Geez.. What other club would trade a guy because he won't go out and have a beer.. that just seems like excuse making.
As far as religion.. how hard is it to tell Josh.. "MAn, I'm glad religion is helping you, but let's move on to a different topic".. We all have to put up with that stuff in our jobs every day.. I can't get someone fired or transfered because his religion or lack of drinking bothers me.. Sorry, but this is a case where the complainers should've been told to suck it up and deal with it.
I can see why the Rangers, the Reds, and other clubs don't want to pay Josh 20 million/year for many years. But if money wasn't a problem, why wouldn't you want Hamilton on the team? Seems like a lot of accusations about a player we really don't know.. People got upset when Dunn/Jr/Kearns were accused of being lazy and caring about video games, but it's ok to assume things about Hamilton?