Hamilton for Volquez - then & now

[Brutus]

What did you make of the Josh Hamilton-for-Edinson Volquez trade then and how do you feel about it now?

Both players are giving their teams what they hoped to accomplish out of them, while both continue to have their flaws pop up now and again (Hamilton's health and Volquez' command).

Side note: how scary is it that Hamilton has accumulated 8.0 WAR, per Fangraphs, while only having played 130 games thus far. Amazing, really. (BTW, I am not trying to influence the vote, I'm just blown away by that).

So be heard. I've made an option to cover almost every stance.

[Phhhl]

Hamilton is an incredibly gifted hitter and I wold still love to have him. But, I don't think we are talking about revisitng Frank Robinson here. Volquez has clearly shown that he can be a top of the rotation starter for extended periods of time, even as he fights through injuries, and those guys are worth their weight in gold. I have no regrets. If the Reds were to go far in the postseason, it is hard to imagine it without Volquez playing a major role.

[Brutus]

Hamilton is an incredibly gifted hitter and I wold still love to have him. But, I don't think we are talking about revisitng Frank Robinson here. Volquez has clearly shown that he can be a top of the rotation starter for extended periods of time, even as he fights through injuries, and those guys are worth their weight in gold. I have no regrets. If the Reds were to go far in the postseason, it is hard to imagine it without Volquez playing a major role.

I completely agree that Volquez is the guy more than any in the Reds' rotation that can carry this team through the playoffs. He's the guy capable of going toe-to-toe with a Roy Halladay and matching him tit-for-tat. I guess the obvious question is can he (will he) do it consistently enough? The Reds cannot afford a 4-inning disaster.

Seeing Hamilton doing what he's doing is disappointing, but I don't regret the trade. If anything, his injury problems reinforce why it may have been worth doing. Heck, Hamilton is questionable for the playoffs for Texas and even if he plays, it won't be at 100%.

[edabbs44]

I liked the trade at the time but am indifferent on it now.

[dougdirt]

I loved it then and I still love it now. I just can't trust drug addicts.

[Homer Bailey]

Using hindsight, I think you'd have a hard time convincing me that the Reds have gotten more out of Volquez than the Rangers have gotten out of Hamilton. Going forward, I'm still undecided, but from the time the trade up until now, it's not even close: the Rangers won the trade.

And I was in total support of the trade when it happened. I didn't think Hamilton was THIS good.

[bucksfan2]

Didn't like the trade then and really don't care for it now.

The Reds have a major issue out there in LF while they are deep at the SP position. I just don't know if Volquez will ever take that next step into a TOR starter. If you would ask me right now would I trade Volquez for the American League MVP I would do it.

[reds44]

I don't know how you can go back and say it was a bad trade. Before Volquez blew his arm out, he was a dominant starter. For an entire season, he showed the potential he had. Then he blew his arm out and missed a year. He started slow (as should have been expected), but he's really come on lately and could be an X factor to our playoff run.

As Homer said, you can't really argue that the Rangers have gotten more out of Hamilton then we have Volquez, but it was a good trade. It was a high risk bat for a high risk arm, both who have showed their potential.

[Tom Servo]

At the moment I'm pretty damn indifferent to it. That could change if Volquez continues to get back to a good level though.

[RedsBaron]

Ask me in five years. Ask me again in ten years. Right now the Rangers got the better of the deal, but that may not be the case by the time their respective careers are over.

[Brutus]

I don't know how you can go back and say it was a bad trade. Before Volquez blew his arm out, he was a dominant starter. For an entire season, he showed the potential he had. Then he blew his arm out and missed a year. He started slow (as should have been expected), but he's really come on lately and could be an X factor to our playoff run.

As Homer said, you can't really argue that the Rangers have gotten more out of Hamilton then we have Volquez, but it was a good trade. It was a high risk bat for a high risk arm, both who have showed their potential.

As a preface to my comments, I was in favor of the trade then, and am no worse than indifferent on it now. So I want you to know where I stand on that.

But I don't think it's accurate to call Volquez a "dominant" starter before his injury.

His career numbers in 388 innings:

4.38 ERA
1.48 WHIP
8.7 K/9 but 4.7 BB/9
4.31 FIP

Nothing about those numbers suggest he's been a dominant starter. Good starter, yes, absolutely. But he's been far from dominant thus far. He definitely shows the ability to be dominant. If he keeps improving his command, he will be a dominant starter. But to this point, even prior to the injury, I don't see it with him. Actually his overall FIP this year is better than his numbers prior to the injury.

[UKFlounder]

I think Gomes in LF has been as good as the back end of our supposed deep rotation. Volquez, Bailey, Harang & others at the back end of the rotation have had some very good games & shown promise, but have had quite a few miserable outings as well, much like Gomes has been inconsistent in the outfield. If you count Leake as being a 4th or 5th starter, he too had ups and downs.

Arroyo & Cueto have been the only 2 reliable starters this year, with the Reds riding hot streaks and surviving cold spells from the others, including Volquez. I just am not sure that our starting pitching, especially after Arroyo & Cueto, has been that much better than what Gomes has provided in LF

Granted, guys like Volquez, Baily, Leake & Wood have much better potential than Gomes, but not necessarily production, from what I've seen.

I guess the other question is what was your answer in mid-season 2008? Would you have traded a NY Cy Young contender for Hamilton at that time? Neither has been healthy or reliable, and while Hamilton has had a remarkable year, will he repeat it? Will Volquez repeat 2008?

It's a tough question. Hamilton is awfully good right now, when he plays, and Volquez is inconsistent. I'd love to have Josh right now, but maybe a year from now I'll be thrilled with Edinson.

Didn't like the trade then and really don't care for it now.

The Reds have a major issue out there in LF while they are deep at the SP position. I just don't know if Volquez will ever take that next step into a TOR starter. If you would ask me right now would I trade Volquez for the American League MVP I would do it.

[dougdirt]

As a preface to my comments, I was in favor of the trade then, and am no worse than indifferent on it now. So I want you to know where I stand on that.

But I don't think it's accurate to call Volquez a "dominant" starter before his injury.

His career numbers in 388 innings:

4.38 ERA
1.48 WHIP
8.7 K/9 but 4.7 BB/9
4.31 FIP

Nothing about those numbers suggest he's been a dominant starter. Good starter, yes, absolutely. But he's been far from dominant thus far. He definitely shows the ability to be dominant. If he keeps improving his command, he will be a dominant starter. But to this point, even prior to the injury, I don't see it with him. Actually his overall FIP this year is better than his numbers prior to the injury.

What he did as a Ranger means nothing though. As a Red, Volquez has a 3.62 ERA (120 ERA+), 308.1ip, 320K, 160BB and 26HR allowed. That is a #2 starter.

Now, numbers wise, the Rangers have gotten the better end so far (5.6 wins for Volquez, 13.4 for Hamilton). Still, all Hamilton has to do is fail one test, just one bad night and he is out of baseball forever. You can't place a value on that, but even with how it is now, I wouldn't trade Volquez for Hamilton today if the Rangers called about it.

[Sea Ray]

The issue with Hamilton is could he stay healthy? That's still a question. How disappointing would it be if he can't contribute during the playoffs?

At the time the thinking was a stud starting pitcher was more valuable than a stud outfielder with the idea that it's a pitching dominated game.

That said I'd just as soon have kept Hamilton but it wasn't a bad trade.

[bucksfan2]

As a preface to my comments, I was in favor of the trade then, and am no worse than indifferent on it now. So I want you to know where I stand on that.

But I don't think it's accurate to call Volquez a "dominant" starter before his injury.

His career numbers in 388 innings:

4.38 ERA
1.48 WHIP
8.7 K/9 but 4.7 BB/9
4.31 FIP

Nothing about those numbers suggest he's been a dominant starter. Good starter, yes, absolutely. But he's been far from dominant thus far. He definitely shows the ability to be dominant. If he keeps improving his command, he will be a dominant starter. But to this point, even prior to the injury, I don't see it with him. Actually his overall FIP this year is better than his numbers prior to the injury.

Volquez was a dominant starter in the first half of 2008. Ever since the All-Star break that year he has leveled off, had TJ surgery, suspended for 50 games, and had an up and down last 10 starts.