Hamilton for Volquez - then & now

[dougdirt]

But shouldn't what happened before the trade play into discussing the merits of the trade? I mean, people will mention what Hamilton did in Cincinnati before being traded. I think it's only fair what Volquez did in his years with Texas should at least be counted. Especially since Volquez has been up in the Majors in five different seasons, even excluding his 12 innings in 2005, and other than the first half of the year in 2008, he really hasn't done much.

Now, make no mistake, the first 3-4 months of 2008, he was pretty electrifying. But he's also not done much outside of that timeframe. This month is encouraging, because he's been consistent since being recalled from Dayton. But he's been all over the map thus far in his career.

I will lean on the eyes test.... he passes it with flying colors. I just have more faith in him than I do in a drug addict. Maybe its my life in dealing with such people and a lack of any type of trust of them, but for me, its always going to be the first thing about him that I think about.

[MWM]

I don't think there's a team in baseball that would take Volquez over Hamilton given the choice. That's not a knock on Edinson, it's just Hamilton is that good.

[Brutus]

I will lean on the eyes test.... he passes it with flying colors. I just have more faith in him than I do in a drug addict. Maybe its my life in dealing with such people and a lack of any type of trust of them, but for me, its always going to be the first thing about him that I think about.

I'm not saying I disagree about whether or not the Reds should have done the trade. I'm just specifically saying I don't agree with the assertion that Volquez, overall, has been dominant. There are a lot of good reasons to justify the trade--the personal history of Hamilton being one of them (though I think it's unfair to call him a drug addict as it seems he has put those demons behind him to this point). But that doesn't necessarily mean Volquez has, on the field, yet fully lived up to the production one would expect of him in such a trade.

[reds44]

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.

I was not talking about his career with the Rangers, I was talking about his time with the Reds. He was a dominant starter, after the trade, before his arm fell off.

[mdccclxix]

I think the term 'one in the hand is worth two in the bush' helps with my appreciation of the trade. To hold an ace quality starter in hand has allowed the Reds to shape their rotation throughout the time Volquez has been here. It's made the decline of Harang more manageable, the urgency of Bailey's career lesser (he doesn't need to be the future ace), likewise with Cueto. Let's not forget how those two are buds, either. Volquez really fits into the fabric of this team. Despite old reports from Texas, I think he has a great attitude nowadays and a strong work ethic.

That said, Hamilton is an awesome talent. He's more gifted than about anyone else in baseball. Given all the question marks he had which Doug brings up, add the development of Bruce coming on at the time, and we still had Dunn perhaps resigning if needed and Griff was healthy and happy, it was the right time to make a move for pitching. Think of what we paid for Hamilton, nothing. He wasn't a top draft pick who had been coached in our system or anything. Poof, now we have an awesome TOR pitcher.

That's why I don't dwell on it, it was a great trade.

[Brutus]

I was not talking about his career with the Rangers, I was talking about his time with the Reds. He was a dominant starter, after the trade, before his arm fell off.

That's really not accurate though.

Look at 2008:

April: 1.23 ERA
May: 1.63 ERA
June: 3.45 ERA
July: 4.54 ERA
Aug: 4.50 ERA
Sep: 4.09 ERA

Then in 2009 prior to the injury:

4.35 ERA

So if you want to say he was dominant in his first two months as a starter for the Reds, OK fine. But since then... where are you seeing this dominance? For the last 4 months of 2008 and then in the first two months of 2009... there was no dominance to be found.

I think the sheer awesome start in 2008 has jaded people into revisionist history thinking that he carried over that performance into 2009, or even later in 2008. That really didn't happen.

[reds44]

That's really not accurate though.

Look at 2008:

April: 1.23 ERA
May: 1.63 ERA
June: 3.45 ERA
July: 4.54 ERA
Aug: 4.50 ERA
Sep: 4.09 ERA

Then in 2009 prior to the injury:

4.35 ERA

So if you want to say he was dominant in his first two months as a starter for the Reds, OK fine. But since then... where are you seeing this dominance? For the last 4 months of 2008 and then in the first two months of 2009... there was no dominance to be found.

I think the sheer awesome start in 2008 has jaded people into revisionist history thinking that he carried over that performance into 2009, or even later in 2008. That really didn't happen.

You're cherry picking stats right now.

Volquez had a 3.21 ERA and 204 strikesout 196 innings in 2008. He was also probably the best pitcher in baseball during the first half of the season. His 2008 season was dominant.

[Razor Shines]

As I've said for the rest of this one season I'd rather have Hamilton, but for the future I'd probably t!me Volquez.

[paintmered]

It was a win-win then, and it's a win-win now.

[kaldaniels]

I like/liked the deal and the final results are yet to be gathered, but man I wish the Reds had Hamilton going into this postseason rather than Volquez.

[Brutus]

You're cherry picking stats right now.

Volquez had a 3.21 ERA and 204 strikesout 196 innings in 2008. He was also probably the best pitcher in baseball during the first half of the season. His 2008 season was dominant.

I'm not cherry-picking anything. You said he was dominant before the injury. But he played 8 months as a Reds' starter and he was only "dominant" for two of them. To me, you're exaggerating more than I'm cherry-picking.

I think he's been a good starter for the Reds. But I don't see how someone can be dominant when they were only even much above average in 2-3 of the 8 months they played.

That's like saying Chris Heisey has been a dominant outfielder for the Reds because he tore it up in May & June.

[mth123]

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

My thoughts exactly.

[Redhook]

As I've said for the rest of this one season I'd rather have Hamilton, but for the future I'd probably t!me Volquez.

This about sums it up. Does anyone think the Reds would've traded Hamilton if he never had any drug problems? Obviously, he probably would've still been with the Rays, but I don't think he would've been traded if there wasn't the drug risk.

I still remember watching Hamilton on tv during Spring Training that first year with the Reds. I was shocked at what I saw. I remember telling my friend that if you didn't know better and you were watching the Reds for the first time you would've thought Hamilton was the best hitter on the team. By far. I miss watching him play for the Reds.

[HokieRed]

I like having Volquez a great deal, but I'd rather have Hamilton. That was true when we made the trade, is true today, and will be, I suspect, true in future. Two things could change that evaluation, one I hope does not happen, one I hope does. What I hope doesn't happen is that Josh has a relapse, what I do hope happens is that Volquez significantly reduces his walks per nine. If he can do that, I might change my evaluation of the trade.

[VR]

I don't think there's a team in baseball that would take Volquez over Hamilton given the choice. That's not a knock on Edinson, it's just Hamilton is that good.

We have a winner.


I hated it at the time, and am indifferent now, knowing the team has been shaped for two years. It's not as simple as Hamilton replacing Gomes and Volquez replacing Texas' 5th starter.