P Doc: Brewers considering Josh Hamilton; Reds should too

[REDREAD]

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?

[Chip R]

Originally Posted by REDREAD

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..[/quote]

The Rangers were reluctant to make the trade because they too had little pitching in their system. So it wasn't exactly a no-brainer. And, as I said earlier, that trade has been and will be defended by people who know what they are talking about. Hindsight's always 20/20.

And there's a difference between a guy who may never put it together and a guy who could be out of baseball if he relapses.

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.

Who said that he was traded because he couldn't have a beer with the boys? All I said - and it's just speculation - was that he may not have been too popular because he didn't socialize. Having a player on a team who doesn't socialize with his teammates has happened since they started playing the game. I'm sure there have been players who were traded because they weren't "one of the boys". Most teams realize that if a player like that is on their team, he isn't going to be the one to be traded. Look at Brandon Phillips. He's a teetotaler and he's probably going to be a Red for the rest of his career.

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 don't know if Josh was one of those guys who we saw in "Bull Durham" who would proselytize to his teammates after games. Maybe he was like George Foster who would sit in his locker and read his Bible - something Sparky wasn't really fond of.

These are baseball players. Most of them are prima donnas and/or adolescents. They are going to complain about darn near anything and get away with it because they possess a skill set that few others do.

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?

Again, you may not want Hamilton on your team because if he relapses, he's gone for good. He also has an injury history. But he also had/has value. Perhaps, just perhaps, the Reds traded him because they wanted pitching. I'm not sure if Dunn and/or Junior were on the block but I'm sure their salaries - plus Junior's 10/5 rights made them more difficult to trade than Hamilton. Hamilton was basically making minimum wage - as was Volquez. As for accusing Hamilton of things, that's not what I'm doing. The facts are that Hamilton is religious, he doesn't socialize with teammates and he needs a handler. Maybe some or all of those things got him traded. That's no slam on Hamilton. I would hope that the players were/are mature enough to realize that he is someone that needs special treatment. Anyone familiar with his history knew that. If the players couldn't/can't handle that, that's a shame. But sometimes Occam's Razor applies: The reason he was traded is the simplest reason of them all. The Reds needed pitching. No big conspiracy theories here. No second spitter on the grassy knoll.

[MikeS21]

Wow! Sorry, I had no intention of starting a firestorm.

I do think Josh Hamilton has AT TIMES been treated unfairly in the media. And I fully understand the frustration when he misses games with ailments that many of us would go ahead and work through (although a sinus infection would make me pretty useless).

I do not wish to rehash the "Trade." I am on record as to my opinions in far too many threads on the subject.

If the Reds could sign Hamilton to a two year deal with a club option for a third year, that would be super. However, you can be sure Hamilton is looking for a longer deal. I might go three years with a club option for a fourth year, but I would think long and hard. Still, an OF of J. Hamilton, Stubbs/B. Hamilton, and Bruce would be a productive group for the next 2-3 seasons, both offensively and defensively.

[Scrap Irony]

Hamilton will end up in New York or perhaps LA.

Which will be interesting like a car wreck on the freeway.

[Chip R]

Originally Posted by Scrap Irony

Hamilton will end up in New York or perhaps LA.

Which will be interesting like a car wreck on the freeway.

Mets or Yankees?

[traderumor]

Originally Posted by Chip R

Mets or Yankees?

I would say Mets. The Yankees do risky things and they either work or they eat the money. The Mets do risky things and it blows up on them.

[Scrap Irony]

Originally Posted by Chip R

Mets or Yankees?

In order of likelihood (IMO):
1. Mets
2. Yankees
3. LA Dodgers
4. LA Angels
5. Boston
6. Detroit
7. Philadelphia
8. Toronto
9. Baltimore
10. Seattle

[RedsBaron]

Originally Posted by Scrap Irony

Hamilton will end up in New York or perhaps LA.

Which will be interesting like a car wreck on the freeway.

For Josh's sake I hope not. NY or LA would probably be the two worst places he could wind up, given his personal struggles. Frankly, the franchises in those cities would be nuts to sign him.

[Scrap Irony]

Hamilton has, IMO, a limited number of spots that "make sense." Seattle, I suppose, might work. Milwaukee would be a nice fit, relatively speaking. Both need offense and would gladly overlook his penchant for throwing teammates and coaches under the bud. So, sadly, would St. Louis, though they already have a nice nucleus of productive OFers.

Kansas City would be interesting-- he could very well vault that team to the playoffs (assuming many of their youngsters pan out). Signing with Houston would be poetic, though there wouldn't be anything around him at all. Neither Chicago team makes sense. Tampa can't afford him.

San Diego might be a nice spot-- it's a relaxed town, and he'd be in the middle of a (likely) competitive team. Colorado doesn't need any OFers. Pittsburgh would love him, but he'd have to move to LF. That's a maybe.

There's just not a great fit for a guy with as much baggage as he has.

[UKFlounder]

Is he a bit too old to try to take a 1 year deal somewhere just to re-establish his value and go at free agency again next year?

[RedsBaron]

Originally Posted by UKFlounder

Is he a bit too old to try to take a 1 year deal somewhere just to re-establish his value and go at free agency again next year?

It obviously would be a risk for him to do that. He turns 32 next May and the general belief is that Josh is an "old 32" to be, given the abuse he put his body through while he was on drugs, and the reckless way he plays now.
Incidentally, I looked up his Hall of Fame Monitor Score-it is now 72 (the average member of the HOF has a score of 100). When you look up his similarity scores, none of the ten most similar batters and only one of the ten most similar batters through age 31 made the HOF (Earl Averill is the sole Hall of Famer). The second most similar batter, ignoring age, is Joey Votto.
It wouldn't shock me if Josh Hamilton put up HOF quality numbers for the next five seasons and thereby locked up a spot in the HOF. Unfortunately it wouldn't shock me if he suffered a relapse or significant injury and never had another HOF quality season either.
I do wish him the very best but I have no way of knowing if he will attain it.

[mbgrayson]

Originally Posted by UKFlounder

Is he a bit too old to try to take a 1 year deal somewhere just to re-establish his value and go at free agency again next year?

I don't think he will do this. In six MLB seasons since he came back, he has hit .304/.363/.549 for an .913 OPS, with 27 HRs/year, and has averaged playing 122 games per year. In 2012 with Texas, he played in 148 games and hit .285/.354/.577 for an .930 OPS with 43 HRs. There is nothing he needs to "re-establish". In one year, he will be a year older, and he risks the chance that his market value will decline. He WILL get a good multi-year deal from someone.

[mth123]

I'm guessing the LA Dodgers or Philly, with the Red Sox the most likely AL team.

[Chip R]

Originally Posted by mth123

I'm guessing the LA Dodgers or Philly, with the Red Sox the most likely AL team.

Oh, I don't think he'd ever go to Philly. They would just be brutal on him whenever he fails.

[REDREAD]

Originally Posted by Chip R

Perhaps, just perhaps, the Reds traded him because they wanted pitching. .

I'm willing to trade anyone if it improves the team. Targeting Volquez in a trade of Hamilton was a huge mistake. If Wayne had actually gotten a good pitcher in return, I wouldn't be complaining.

It seems a lot of energy is spent rationalizing why trading Josh was such a brilliant idea at the time.. he was antisocial, etc, etc.. All these excuses because on a talent level, the trade made no sense on the day it was made.
Kind of silly that people worry that Hamilton could relapse and be out of baseball, yet no worries about trading for a pitcher that struggled with control throughout his entire career, was more potential than results, and ended up being a roid user..

If the Reds wanted to trade Josh for pitching.. fine.. they should've actually gotten good pitching though..