Poll: Would you trade Hamilton for Stanton?

[RedsManRick]

Originally Posted by Vottomatic

I'd offer Chapman, Leake, Mez, and Corcino.

Now that would be an overpay.

I think we've started to undervalue Leake around here. He's a high quality #4 starter (#3 on some teams). Only 99 pitchers were able/allowed to through 150 IP this year, Leake among them. That's not an insignificant fact.

We sometimes forget the value of simply being a proven, healthy major leaguer. Add in cheap and those don't grown on trees.

I'd LOVE to have Stanton, but we can't simply ignore the downside risk too. Sure, he could be a perennial MVP candidate. But what if he's just a 4 WIN player for the next 3 years?

Mes is more valuable than Billy Hamilton (I would argue). No way do I add Leake and Corcino to my Chapman/Hamilton offer.

[bucksfan2]

I voted no, so far I am the only one. Would I trade Hamilton straight up for Stanton, absolutely. But the reality is that will never happen. It would take a monster deal, and from reports Bud Selig may have a say so into whether or not the trade goes down. If the Reds were going to even entertain a Stanton trade it would take Hamilton, Leake, Corcino/Cingrani +. You trade from strength, but at what point do they decimate the farm system.

The Latos deal last year made sense, they traded prospects at blocked positions. If they were to make another blockbuster for Stanton they would in essence gut the system, the life blood of any non major market team.

[kaldaniels]

Originally Posted by bucksfan2

I voted no, so far I am the only one. Would I trade Hamilton straight up for Stanton, absolutely. But the reality is that will never happen. It would take a monster deal, and from reports Bud Selig may have a say so into whether or not the trade goes down. If the Reds were going to even entertain a Stanton trade it would take Hamilton, Leake, Corcino/Cingrani +. You trade from strength, but at what point do they decimate the farm system.

The Latos deal last year made sense, they traded prospects at blocked positions. If they were to make another blockbuster for Stanton they would in essence gut the system, the life blood of any non major market team.

If you would do the trade shouldn't you vote yes?

I think "Do we live on planet Earth?" would fail to reach a unanimous consensus on here.

[bucksfan2]

Originally Posted by kaldaniels

If you would do the trade shouldn't you vote yes?

I think "Do we live on planet Earth?" would fail to reach a unanimous consensus on here.

Trading Billy Hamilton straight up for Stanton isn't going to happen on this "plant Earth" you say we live on.

[kaldaniels]

Originally Posted by bucksfan2

Trading Billy Hamilton straight up for Stanton isn't going to happen on this "plant Earth" you say we live on.

I just don't understand why you would agree to the trade but voted no.

[CySeymour]

Originally Posted by Vottomatic

I do think Chapman for Stanton straight up would work though.

Not even close. No way Miami would even have to consider that trade.

[RedEye]

Originally Posted by Benihana

Reports are that Selig would likely veto a Stanton trade after the last boondoggle.

Reports from where? Do you really think he'd veto a trade out-of-hand based on another deal? Doesn't seem logical -- though I realize who we're dealing with here.

[RedEye]

Originally Posted by bucksfan2

I voted no, so far I am the only one. Would I trade Hamilton straight up for Stanton, absolutely. But the reality is that will never happen.

I don't understand this one iota. The question is not "Would a Stanton for Hamilton trade ever happen?" It's "Would you trade Hamilton for Stanton?" So by that rationale, you are also a "Yes" voter, right?

[Reds/Flyers Fan]

Originally Posted by bucksfan2

I voted no, so far I am the only one. Would I trade Hamilton straight up for Stanton, absolutely. But the reality is that will never happen.

Huh?

[bucksfan2]

Originally Posted by RedEye

I don't understand this one iota. The question is not "Would a Stanton for Hamilton trade ever happen?" It's "Would you trade Hamilton for Stanton?" So by that rationale, you are also a "Yes" voter, right?

Because in no reality is it going to happen. Its like the 700 sports talk caller suggesting that the Reds trade Mike Leake for Mike Trout. If I am fantasizing about trades I at least like to operate in the realm of possibility.

[RedEye]

Originally Posted by bucksfan2

Because in no reality is it going to happen. Its like the 700 sports talk caller suggesting that the Reds trade Mike Leake for Mike Trout. If I am fantasizing about trades I at least like to operate in the realm of possibility.

Dude. With due respect, please read my post. You may be right, but you are missing the point. The PREMISE of this poll is that there IS a reality in which this DOES exist. It is a "Would you..." question and not a "Would this ever happen..." question -- which would be another poll entirely. Voting "no" just registers you as someone who would not, in any reality, trade Hamilton for Stanton. It skews the poll, which is intended as an opinion poll on a Yes-No question. It's like a poll on whether or not people like cupcakes, yes or no. If you'd rather eat licorice, that's great -- it may be healthier or whatever -- but it isn't what the poll is about!