Turn Off Ads?
Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 84

Thread: How about Hamilton for Hill?

Hybrid View

  1. #1
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Shelburne Falls, MA
    Posts
    10,259

    How about Hamilton for Hill?

    A Sun Deck thread quotes an article that lists many players the Cubs would be willing to deal, primarily in search of a LH power bat for the OF. One of those players is Rich Hill.

    How do folks feel about Hamilton for Hill?

    Seems fair to me.
    "Baseball is a very, very complex business. It's more of a people business than most businesses." - Bob Castellini

  2. #2
    Churlish Johnny Footstool's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    Olathe, KS
    Posts
    13,832

    Re: How about Hamilton for Hill?

    I doubt the Cubs would do that.
    "I prefer books and movies where the conflict isn't of the extreme cannibal apocalypse variety I guess." Redsfaithful

  3. #3
    Unsolicited Opinions traderumor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Right Down Broadway
    Posts
    18,713

    Re: How about Hamilton for Hill?

    Positives: 3:1 K/BB, 1.20 WHIP back to back, badly needed lefty starter. An interesting stat is that he has good control but hit 12 batters. Boy, do we need a guy who will pitch inside...cheap, this year

    Negatives: HR rate, but then he is also pitching in a bandbox, so perhaps it would not spike in a move to our bandbox. Getting close to a big raise.

    Is Hamilton enough would be my next question?

  4. #4
    Redsmetz redsmetz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Winton Place
    Posts
    11,289

    Re: How about Hamilton for Hill?

    Quote Originally Posted by traderumor View Post
    Positives: 3:1 K/BB, 1.20 WHIP back to back, badly needed lefty starter. An interesting stat is that he has good control but hit 12 batters. Boy, do we need a guy who will pitch inside...cheap, this year

    Negatives: HR rate, but then he is also pitching in a bandbox, so perhaps it would not spike in a move to our bandbox. Getting close to a big raise.

    Is Hamilton enough would be my next question?
    I noticed the home run rate too, but he gave up one less home run than both Arroyo and Harrang.
    “In the same way that a baseball season never really begins, it never really ends either.” - Lonnie Wheeler, "Bleachers, A Summer in Wrigley Field"

    The Baseball Emporium - Books & Things, that's Rallyonion.com

    The Baseball Bookstore

    http://tsc-sales.com/
    http://tscsales.blogspot.com/
    http://silverscreenbooks.com/

  5. #5
    Man Pills
    Join Date
    Dec 2000
    Location
    Philadelphia
    Posts
    25,089

    Re: How about Hamilton for Hill?

    Quote Originally Posted by traderumor View Post
    Positives: 3:1 K/BB, 1.20 WHIP back to back, badly needed lefty starter. An interesting stat is that he has good control but hit 12 batters. Boy, do we need a guy who will pitch inside...cheap, this year

    Negatives: HR rate, but then he is also pitching in a bandbox, so perhaps it would not spike in a move to our bandbox. Getting close to a big raise.

    Is Hamilton enough would be my next question?
    Wrigley's played as a neutral park--he's a gopher king. I smell Milton all over Rich Hill. I'd rather have Hamilton honestly.

  6. #6
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Posts
    10,088

    Re: How about Hamilton for Hill?

    Quote Originally Posted by Falls City Beer View Post
    Wrigley's played as a neutral park--he's a gopher king. I smell Milton all over Rich Hill. I'd rather have Hamilton honestly.
    I wouldn't. But I would think the Cubs would be more interested in Griffey than Hamilton. They are going for it this year, so the age is irrelevant. Also, they appear to be willing to spend to the sky, so the money is irrelevant. The Cubs have been interested in Griffey in the past, whereas they exhibited how much interest they had in Hamilton by selling him to the Reds for less than one of Griffey's gamechecks.
    Go BLUE!!!

  7. #7
    One and a half men Patrick Bateman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Calgary, AB
    Posts
    5,967

    Re: How about Hamilton for Hill?

    Quote Originally Posted by Benihana View Post
    I wouldn't. But I would think the Cubs would be more interested in Griffey than Hamilton. They are going for it this year, so the age is irrelevant. Also, they appear to be willing to spend to the sky, so the money is irrelevant. The Cubs have been interested in Griffey in the past, whereas they exhibited how much interest they had in Hamilton by selling him to the Reds for less than one of Griffey's gamechecks.

    Not completely irrelevant. They may be trying to win now, but they also want to win in the next few seasons too since they appear to have the required talent (and cash) to stick around for a few years.

    My guess is that they would be happy to take Griffey's salary off our hands, but not throw in Hill too. He's their 2nd best pitcher. They aren't going to trade him for a 1 year risk.

    I would bet the house that every single team in baseball would take Hamilton before Griffey. They both have their injury concerns, but Griffey's are worse. And it's arguable who the better hitter is right now. Factoring in defense, I'd take Hamilton straight up while ignoring age and salary.

    The proposed Griffey for Hill is living in a dream world. Hamilton for Hill would be opn to debate, but with the pitching market way out of whack, Hill has more value, by quite a bit.

  8. #8
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Posts
    10,088

    Re: How about Hamilton for Hill?

    Quote Originally Posted by Austin Kearns View Post
    Not completely irrelevant. They may be trying to win now, but they also want to win in the next few seasons too since they appear to have the required talent (and cash) to stick around for a few years.

    My guess is that they would be happy to take Griffey's salary off our hands, but not throw in Hill too. He's their 2nd best pitcher. They aren't going to trade him for a 1 year risk.

    I would bet the house that every single team in baseball would take Hamilton before Griffey. They both have their injury concerns, but Griffey's are worse. And it's arguable who the better hitter is right now. Factoring in defense, I'd take Hamilton straight up while ignoring age and salary.

    The proposed Griffey for Hill is living in a dream world. Hamilton for Hill would be opn to debate, but with the pitching market way out of whack, Hill has more value, by quite a bit.
    You're probably right, but I was just noting that the Cubs are one of the few teams that where a trade of Griffey could work. And I would do everything that I could (which may even include trading Cueto) to ensure we could keep Hamilton and move Griffey in a deal for Rich Hill, mainly for all of the reasons that you stated.
    Go BLUE!!!

  9. #9
    Five Tool Fool jojo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    19,138

    Re: How about Hamilton for Hill?

    Quote Originally Posted by Benihana View Post
    I wouldn't. But I would think the Cubs would be more interested in Griffey than Hamilton. They are going for it this year, so the age is irrelevant. Also, they appear to be willing to spend to the sky, so the money is irrelevant. The Cubs have been interested in Griffey in the past, whereas they exhibited how much interest they had in Hamilton by selling him to the Reds for less than one of Griffey's gamechecks.
    I don't think there is a GM on the planet that would choose Jr over Hamilton at this point.

    Anyway, if it's a no brainer from your favorite team's standpoint, its probably a no brainer that the proposed trading partner turns it down too.
    Last edited by jojo; 11-29-2007 at 04:13 PM.
    "This isn’t stats vs scouts - this is stats and scouts working together, building an organization that blends the best of both worlds. This is the blueprint for how a baseball organization should be run. And, whether the baseball men of the 20th century like it or not, this is where baseball is going."---Dave Cameron, U.S.S. Mariner

  10. #10
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Posts
    10,088

    Re: How about Hamilton for Hill?

    Quote Originally Posted by jojo View Post
    I don't think there is a GM on the planet that would choose Jr over Hamilton at this point.

    Anyway, if it's a no brainer from your favorite team's standpoint, its probably a no brainer that the proposed trading partner turns it down too.
    Thanks for the wise words, jojo. I've lived in Chicago for the past five years, I'd say I'm more aware than the average Reds fan of what the Cubs are looking for.

    The Cubs would love to trade Rich Hill for Carl Crawford. If the Reds could figure out a way to replicate Crawford's value though the Cubs eyes we might be able to work something out.

    As I pointed out, and M2 seems to agree, the Cubs may have a unique interest in Ken Griffey, Jr.
    Go BLUE!!!

  11. #11
    The Boss dougdirt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    35,939

    Re: How about Hamilton for Hill?

    Quote Originally Posted by Benihana View Post
    I wouldn't. But I would think the Cubs would be more interested in Griffey than Hamilton. They are going for it this year, so the age is irrelevant. Also, they appear to be willing to spend to the sky, so the money is irrelevant. The Cubs have been interested in Griffey in the past, whereas they exhibited how much interest they had in Hamilton by selling him to the Reds for less than one of Griffey's gamechecks.
    Except thats not how it works. The Cubs didn't pick Hamilton then sell him to the Reds. The Reds said 'we will pay you this amount of money to make a pick for us' and the Cubs agreed. Then the Reds got the paperwork signed, then we tell them who to take. Its not as if the Cubs drafted him then didn't like him and decided to move him.

  12. #12
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Posts
    10,088

    Re: How about Hamilton for Hill?

    Quote Originally Posted by dougdirt View Post
    Except thats not how it works. The Cubs didn't pick Hamilton then sell him to the Reds. The Reds said 'we will pay you this amount of money to make a pick for us' and the Cubs agreed. Then the Reds got the paperwork signed, then we tell them who to take. Its not as if the Cubs drafted him then didn't like him and decided to move him.
    That's all well and good, but it doesn't change the fact that the Cubs had a free and clear shot to grab Hamilton for nothing, and passed. It's not like it was an oversight.
    Go BLUE!!!

  13. #13
    Unsolicited Opinions traderumor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Right Down Broadway
    Posts
    18,713

    Re: How about Hamilton for Hill?

    Quote Originally Posted by Falls City Beer View Post
    Wrigley's played as a neutral park--he's a gopher king. I smell Milton all over Rich Hill. I'd rather have Hamilton honestly.
    I don't have a problem with the gopher ball tendency because he maintains a 1.20 WHIP and can strike guys out. It would be a bummer, but he's giving up solo shots moreso than Milton, who walked guys, gave up hits, then three run bombs.

    Also, I'd have no problems sweetening the deal with Belisle as others have suggested. He is very expendable and replaceable on the cheap.

  14. #14
    Man Pills
    Join Date
    Dec 2000
    Location
    Philadelphia
    Posts
    25,089

    Re: How about Hamilton for Hill?

    Quote Originally Posted by traderumor View Post
    I don't have a problem with the gopher ball tendency because he maintains a 1.20 WHIP and can strike guys out. It would be a bummer, but he's giving up solo shots moreso than Milton, who walked guys, gave up hits, then three run bombs.

    Also, I'd have no problems sweetening the deal with Belisle as others have suggested. He is very expendable and replaceable on the cheap.
    With the Reds' current defense and its very homer friendly environs, you ought to be worried about a guy like Hill. I'll wager he'd surrender 40 a year in GAB, with regularity.

    I'd trade for him, but not Hamilton. I'll wager that Belisle will put up numbers similar to Hill's next year.

  15. #15
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Posts
    10,088

    Re: How about Hamilton for Hill?

    Quote Originally Posted by Falls City Beer View Post
    With the Reds' current defense and its very homer friendly environs, you ought to be worried about a guy like Hill. I'll wager he'd surrender 40 a year in GAB, with regularity.

    I'd trade for him, but not Hamilton. I'll wager that Belisle will put up numbers similar to Hill's next year.
    Well I like Belisle too, but the point is if you're the Reds, you need two Belisles instead of one. If we could get Rich Hill for Griffey and any prospect other than the big four, its a huge coup IMO.
    Go BLUE!!!


Turn Off Ads?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Board Moderators may, at their discretion and judgment, delete and/or edit any messages that violate any of the following guidelines: 1. Explicit references to alleged illegal or unlawful acts. 2. Graphic sexual descriptions. 3. Racial or ethnic slurs. 4. Use of edgy language (including masked profanity). 5. Direct personal attacks, flames, fights, trolling, baiting, name-calling, general nuisance, excessive player criticism or anything along those lines. 6. Posting spam. 7. Each person may have only one user account. It is fine to be critical here - that's what this board is for. But let's not beat a subject or a player to death, please.

Thank you, and most importantly, enjoy yourselves!


RedsZone.com is a privately owned website and is not affiliated with the Cincinnati Reds or Major League Baseball


Contact us: Boss | GIK | BCubb2003 | dabvu2498 | Gallen5862 | LexRedsFan | Plus Plus | RedlegJake | redsfan1995 | The Operator | Tommyjohn25