Josh Hamilton facing MLB discipline?

[Rojo]

I get why they made the deal at the time and I supported it. But you can't say we came out ahead or even close to it, you just can't.

In a nutshell. Krivsky gambled and lost, but it was an understandable gamble.

[Roy Tucker]

Re: Josh turning himself in.

I forget which step it is, but there is one where you admit the exact nature of your wrongs. Legally speaking he didn't have to, but his addiction has a vise-grip on his soul and for his own survival, he needs to completely and openly admit his wrongs. As others have said in here, if you get too far down that path, you can't find your way back.

[REDREAD]

You are ignoring how high everyone was on Bruce and he hadn't started in the majors yet. So it wasn't crazy to go with the 20 year old who is under team control for years over the risky Rule 5 pick up.

I am one of those that defends the trade because of the Red's need at the time was pitching. They were god awful in 2007 and 2008, Matt Belisle was our #3 stater... They needed to improve pitching desperately and turned a Rule 5 pick to a starting pitcher. In 2008, Volquez was our best pitcher and the trade looked like a win-win. Unfortunately, Volquez was injured in 2009 and the trade looked horrible but then Volquez was flipped to Latos. I honestly still have no problem with the trade because even with Hamilton's 2008 numbers, the Red's were going nowhere.

How is it risky to hold on to a rule V pick?
The team only had 50k invested in him. He put up a 922 OPS and at the time, he could play a passable CF.
It's basic risk management. Volquez was a riskier choice, IMO.
Again, Wayne chose the wrong target to trade for if he thought Josh was going to flop.
That all ties in with the bigger picture. Wayne made some good moves along with some horrible ones that set the team back quite a bit.
For example, one could make the argument that it might make sense to trade Lopez and Kearns, but he basically got nothing back for them (other than one decent year of Bray when it was too late)

So yea, the Reds needed pitching, but Wayne (overall) failed to get it for us, and overpaid in the process. I'm thankful that he pulled off Arroyo, Philips and his other good moves, but he also made some moves that showed poor judgement.

[vaticanplum]

Re: Josh turning himself in.

I forget which step it is, but there is one where you admit the exact nature of your wrongs. Legally speaking he didn't have to, but his addiction has a vise-grip on his soul and for his own survival, he needs to completely and openly admit his wrongs. As others have said in here, if you get too far down that path, you can't find your way back.

I'm terribly sad this happened, but the fact that he turned himself in is an excellent sign. Since he's been sober, Hamilton has not struck me as someone who wants to shirk responsibility or who is delusional about the grip addiction still has on him. A relapse is a relapse, but his owning up to it on his own says that he still wants to beat this.

Even if his primary motivator was fear of being caught, that's still a good sign. Shows he's aware of and values what he could lose if caught by other means.

[Chip R]

It just goes to show how tough it is for addicts not to relapse. No matter how long they have been sober, that demon is still there and ready to take over at a moment's notice.

[Trajinous]

How is it risky to hold on to a rule V pick?
The team only had 50k invested in him. He put up a 922 OPS and at the time, he could play a passable CF.
It's basic risk management. Volquez was a riskier choice, IMO.
Again, Wayne chose the wrong target to trade for if he thought Josh was going to flop.
That all ties in with the bigger picture. Wayne made some good moves along with some horrible ones that set the team back quite a bit.
For example, one could make the argument that it might make sense to trade Lopez and Kearns, but he basically got nothing back for them (other than one decent year of Bray when it was too late)

So yea, the Reds needed pitching, but Wayne (overall) failed to get it for us, and overpaid in the process. I'm thankful that he pulled off Arroyo, Philips and his other good moves, but he also made some moves that showed poor judgement.

It was risky in context to the "can't miss/best hitting prospect" that was Bruce at the time. Wayne didn't fail in getting pitching in the short term cause Volquez was the Red's ace in 2008, leading in the team ERA/WHIP/SO putting up a 4.5 WAR. Everything looked good then Volquez got hurt, had TMJ surgery and only pitched 21 games over the next two seasons. For an entire year, the trade was a win-win. Then in 2010, Texas officially won when Hamilton had his MVP year.

I just want to put the trade in context at the time it was made. The Red's were years from contention and trading for a possible #2/#1 starter like Volquez was a worth the risk of the trade, in my opinion.

[TRF]

Well, it's not hindsight, because I hated the trade at the time.
On a pure talent basis Hamilton > Dunn. That was obvious at the time.
As you said, Volquez had warts. It was evident in his minor league stats. He was definitely the wrong target to go after. Wayne got fleeced, no hindsight about it.
Obvious at the time. I would've been ok for trading Josh if we got actual talent in return.

being a crack addict is a pretty big wart too.

There was no way to predict Hamilton wouldn't go off the rails and relapse the next year. But to even SUGGEST Dunn was an extra bat to be dealt after the season he just had is flat out silly.

[TRF]

Well, it's not hindsight, because I hated the trade at the time.
On a pure talent basis Hamilton > Dunn. That was obvious at the time.
As you said, Volquez had warts. It was evident in his minor league stats. He was definitely the wrong target to go after. Wayne got fleeced, no hindsight about it.
Obvious at the time. I would've been ok for trading Josh if we got actual talent in return.

How is it risky to hold on to a rule V pick?
The team only had 50k invested in him. He put up a 922 OPS and at the time, he could play a passable CF.
It's basic risk management. Volquez was a riskier choice, IMO.
Again, Wayne chose the wrong target to trade for if he thought Josh was going to flop.
That all ties in with the bigger picture. Wayne made some good moves along with some horrible ones that set the team back quite a bit.
For example, one could make the argument that it might make sense to trade Lopez and Kearns, but he basically got nothing back for them (other than one decent year of Bray when it was too late)

So yea, the Reds needed pitching, but Wayne (overall) failed to get it for us, and overpaid in the process. I'm thankful that he pulled off Arroyo, Philips and his other good moves, but he also made some moves that showed poor judgement.

Flat out False. He did supply pitching. He got Arroyo, he got Volquez. EV may have imploded sooner than Hamilton, but it could have easily been the other way around. And Volquez still has pretty electric stuff. His season last year would have been good for #3 in the Reds rotation.

[Chuckie]

This thread got me thinking of Volquez. Per BR, he was a 4.8 WAR pitcher for the Reds in 2008 and is a 4.1 WAR pitcher for his career because the rest of his seasons cumulatively are .7 below replacement including -1.3 for us in 2011 and -2.4 in 2013 (after which he received $5MM to pitch in 2014 -- what a world).

He had a 2.5 WAR last year. That contract ended up being a tremendous bargain for Pittsburgh, an organization that has done a good job finding pitchers on the rebound via the FA market like Francisco Liriano and Volquez.

[westofyou]

[Dom Heffner]

How is it risky to hold on to a rule V pick?
The team only had 50k invested in him. He put up a 922 OPS and at the time, he could play a passable CF.
It's basic risk management. Volquez was a riskier choice, IMO.
Again, Wayne chose the wrong target to trade for if he thought Josh was going to flop.
That all ties in with the bigger picture. Wayne made some good moves along with some horrible ones that set the team back quite a bit.
For example, one could make the argument that it might make sense to trade Lopez and Kearns, but he basically got nothing back for them (other than one decent year of Bray when it was too late)

So yea, the Reds needed pitching, but Wayne (overall) failed to get it for us, and overpaid in the process. I'm thankful that he pulled off Arroyo, Philips and his other good moves, but he also made some moves that showed poor judgement.

This is great point and believe it or not I agree with you.

They had nothing in him, so nothing to lose. Period.

No risk.

The problem becomes that as his value rises, now he is a risk because that value well, has value. And there is an opportunity cost if you don't get something for it.

Since they had nothing in him they should have held for a few more years and then moved him. Hindsight is 20/20 but a good GM should see that if you have no investment you have nothing to lose and you don't have to move him until you do.

[REDREAD]

being a crack addict is a pretty big wart too.

There was no way to predict Hamilton wouldn't go off the rails and relapse the next year. But to even SUGGEST Dunn was an extra bat to be dealt after the season he just had is flat out silly.

Well, that was not a slam on Dunn.
Look, people say that Hamilton was an "Extra bat too".. Supposedly the team (at the time) was something like 6 deep in the OF, or at least was the justification for saying Hamilton was expendable. Every OF bat was "Extra"..
But when looking at who was the better complete player at the time?
Hamilton, easily. Dunn is always going to be carrying around negative defensive value in LF, and the Reds couldn't move him to 1b or DH.
In contrast, like I said, Hamilton could play a passable CF.
Not to mention, when Hamilton was drafted, his tools drew comparisons to Griffey Jr. Not as if he was a Chris Stynes who put up one good year as a fluke.

You like to bring up Hamilton's addiction as a monster risk. Well, that hurts his trade value too. The Rangers got it right, IMO. The Reds blew it.
Now if the Reds had traded Hamilton for Kershaw or another great pitcher, then sure, I could follow your logic. Seems like no one on this board was really worried about Josh relapsing until he was traded. Then it became THE reason to get rid of him.

The fact that EV ended up with TJ surgery (or whatever reason we are going to give for him flaming out, and of course TJ is legit, or maybe the steroids he was using, or whatever).. Anyhow, the fact that EV flamed out pretty much proves he was the higher risk, doesn't it?
In general, position players are safer long term investments. IMO, that's why rebuilding teams will sometimes rebuild the position players first.

The Reds traded one risk (hamiton) for a bigger risk (Volquez) and that's not hindsight either. I said it at the time.

[vaticanplum]

The flip side of "nothing to lose" comes up when the player that's costing you almost nothing can bring a big return. Hamilton was a textbook case of sell high. It cost the Reds all but nothing to give him up but he was a huge commodity to other teams. And the Reds needed the pitching.

Trades are not always made to last a team forever. If anything, the big money and the chasing that is doled out on free agents makes them much more likely to be the long-term building blocks. Trades are often stopgaps or holdovers en route to building a better team. I think that's absolutely what Volquez was for. He was kind of a high-risk, high-reward pitcher anyway, so this was a trade that lined up with that. If he had panned out long-term, great. If not, he served a purpose for a while, a purpose that a monster masher could not have filled.

[Dom Heffner]

I'm terribly sad this happened, but the fact that he turned himself in is an excellent sign. Since he's been sober, Hamilton has not struck me as someone who wants to shirk responsibility or who is delusional about the grip addiction still has on him. A relapse is a relapse, but his owning up to it on his own says that he still wants to beat this.

Even if his primary motivator was fear of being caught, that's still a good sign. Shows he's aware of and values what he could lose if caught by other means.

Just for you, I'm reminded of the line from Streetcar:

"Well,there's some people that rarely touch it, but it touches them often."

It is a humble reminder of the pull these things can have on certain people.

[Dom Heffner]

The flip side of "nothing to lose" comes up when the player that's costing you almost nothing can bring a big return. Hamilton was a textbook case of sell high. It cost the Reds all but nothing to give him up but he was a huge commodity to other teams. And the Reds needed the pitching.

Trades are not always made to last a team forever. If anything, the big money and the chasing that is doled out on free agents makes them much more likely to be the long-term building blocks. Trades are often stopgaps or holdovers en route to building a better team. I think that's absolutely what Volquez was for. He was kind of a high-risk, high-reward pitcher anyway, so this was a trade that lined up with that. If he had panned out long-term, great. If not, he served a purpose for a while, a purpose that a monster masher could not have filled.

I stated this before, sorry if I'm beating a dead horse.

His value ended up being wayyyyy more than Edison Volquez.

If Volquez was risky, too- and everyone is saying he was, then you really hold onto Hamilton. They had nothing and I mean nothing in him....that's a card you hold onto to see if the value goes up. You don't trade him for another risky proposition.

I realize it's easy to look back, but it's also easy to recognize they were playing with house money.

And the guy that gives away house money just because it is house money is a fool.