Thank goodness Volquez was foolish enough to turn down the LTC

[Hoosier Red]

Originally Posted by Blitz Dorsey

Yeah, it's almost as if a Reds fan says "I wish we never did that trade," someone will fire back "But I bet you didn't have a problem with it at the time." But they are two separate issues.

For example: Let's say I was the biggest fan in the world of landing Edinson Volquez in a trade. (I wasn't, but work with me here for a moment.) I literally threw a party the day the Reds traded for him.

But does that mean as a fan I can't re-evaluate the trade 3-4 years later and say, "You know what, we got the short end of the stick on that one. I was wrong."??? Absolutely not!

Heck, I don't remember what I thought when the Frank Robinson trade was announced. (Oh yeah, because I wasn't born yet.) But I can still tell you it was one of the worst trades in baseball history! What you thought of the trade when it was made has NOTHING to do with analyzing the trade years later when you have more information on the matter. As of now, the Rangers completely fleeced the Reds in that deal. Hopefully Volquez turns it around and makes it more of a "wash."

I think there's two ways of looking at the "if I would have known" type of retrospection.
1) Taking everything that actually happened in the past two years, and saying, "Well that was a bad trade."
2) Taking everything we knew at the time, and saying whether it was a bad trade.
It's more fair to the parties involved to use the 2nd method, but it's probably more realistic to use the first. The second goes into whether or not it was a "bad" trade, the first essentially tells us whether or not it worked out.

So knowing what I know now, would I trade a recovering addict(relapse percentage between 50%-90%) who also was a health concern, who had had one good year, but had the potential to be an MVP for a 25 year old pitcher who also had great potential, but had his head in the clouds and had never put together all the pieces?
Every day of the week.

Would I trade two MVP caliber seasons(out of 3) for one spectacular year, one so-so year, and one injury shortened year with potential? Probably not.

I think if we're to judge trades, we should judge based on the mind set involved and not necessarily the results. That trade may have been the right trade, even if it worked out poorly. Other trades may be wrong trades, even if they work out well. We pay the GM's and scouts to be good evaluators, not fortune tellers.

That said. The trade's done. It's over. Edison Volquez is no more nor less of a pitcher because he was traded for Josh Hamilton. Josh Hamilton is no more or less of a ballplayer because he was a number one draft pick who nearly wrecked his life before being signed as a rule 5 pick.

[Hoosier Red]

Originally Posted by Blitz Dorsey

This thread is more about the hilarity of Volquez turning down a very-nice long-term offer from the Reds thinking he could get a better deal. That's called not getting very good advice from his agent. He could have had some very nice security -- the Reds were offering him much more than his career production warranted up to that point. They were basing it on potential. Volquez really rolled the dice and needless to say I bet he would go back and sign that deal if it were offered again.

On that, the season's young. There's still a lot of time for him to justify a big payday. Whether it comes from the Reds or not. Remember, arbitration isn't necessarily a bad negotiating point even if he doesn't have a "great year."

[_Sir_Charles_]

Of course hindsight is 20-20, but even knowing what I do now...I STILL make that trade of Hamilton for Volquez & Hererra. We had a surplus of outfielders...and several on the way up too. What we didn't have was starting pitching. He had the upside of a great starter. Hamilton was clearly very talented but with a checkered past that has a habit of creeping back into play. I make that trade 100 time out of 100 and wish Josh the best of luck.

[Hoosier Red]

Originally Posted by REDREAD

I think everyone on the board praises Wayne for finding Josh Hamilton.. One of the few things that is unaminously approved on.

However.. it doesn't matter if Josh was "free" or if the Reds gave up half their farm for him.. It doesn't justify trading him for Volquez. We clearly lost that trade. But yea, I agree.. Overall Wayne is 1-1 on those two moves.

Ok, so O'Neill was close to free agency.. Maybe that was the chief reason the Reds traded him.. However.. that doesn't make it a good trade. Roberto Kelly didn't really give us any long term value.

Perhaps, but if we accept as fact that the Reds weren't going to sign O'neill long term, then really the only "value" that matters is the "value" of Paul O'neill's 1993 season. While one could speculate as to what the Reds could have obtained had he been traded earlier or later, the only verifiable facts are the value he actually provided in 1993, versus the value that Roberto Kelly provided on the field over 1 1/2 seasons.
I agree with you that it's a bad idea to consider the value of a player we traded Kelly for, because there's no way to verify whether or not the Reds could have made that trade with another piece.

[kbrake]

Originally Posted by Blitz Dorsey

This thread is more about the hilarity of Volquez turning down a very-nice long-term offer from the Reds thinking he could get a better deal. That's called not getting very good advice from his agent. He could have had some very nice security -- the Reds were offering him much more than his career production warranted up to that point. They were basing it on potential. Volquez really rolled the dice and needless to say I bet he would go back and sign that deal if it were offered again.

Do we know the terms of what Volquez was offered? I don't remember ever seeing that.

[Patrick Bateman]

Originally Posted by Razor Shines

I supported the trade at the time and still say at the time it was the right move. I've said that many, many times.

But saying that if you're saying that it doesn't matter what we got for Hamilton because we got him for nothing then I don't agree with that. But hey at least you're still being condescending.

He's just saying the move to get Hamilton was an even better move than it was a bad move to trade him away. That the entire Hamilton process was a net gain, from start to finish. I think that the first part is largely ignored and instead the more popular opinion was to bash the eventual trade of his. In the end, the process of getting Hamilton for nothing and turning him into Volq was pretty good, even if the second part of the cycle has turned out to be a negative.

Not to say that it is correct to value a trade based on how you got a player. The point was more just that there is more credit to go around than blame.

[edabbs44]

Originally Posted by Patrick Bateman

He's just saying the move to get Hamilton was an even better move than it was a bad move to trade him away. That the entire Hamilton process was a net gain, from start to finish. I think that the first part is largely ignored and instead the more popular opinion was to bash the eventual trade of his. In the end, the process of getting Hamilton for nothing and turning him into Volq was pretty good, even if the second part of the cycle has turned out to be a negative.

Not to say that it is correct to value a trade based on how you got a player. The point was more just that there is more credit to go around than blame.

That is one way to look at it.

It is true that the series of Hamilton transactions was a net gain, but so would trading BP for a middle of the road starter. Or trading Arroyo last year for a 4th OFer.

The way I would look at this is as follows: Acquiring Hamilton took foresight, innovative thinking and roster space. Trading him took risk tolerance and talent management. Just because you pass the first test doesn't mean you get a pass on the 2nd. The 2nd test is much more relevant to your job and something that makes up way more of your grade. WK took flyers on dozens of players and made way less "balls to the wall" moves like this trade. Credit for success on the flyers is warranted, but we should weight those moves properly.

[Hoosier Red]

Originally Posted by edabbs44

That is one way to look at it.

It is true that the series of Hamilton transactions was a net gain, but so would trading BP for a middle of the road starter. Or trading Arroyo last year for a 4th OFer.

The way I would look at this is as follows: Acquiring Hamilton took foresight, innovative thinking and roster space. Trading him took risk tolerance and talent management. Just because you pass the first test doesn't mean you get a pass on the 2nd. The 2nd test is much more relevant to your job and something that makes up way more of your grade. WK took flyers on dozens of players and made way less "balls to the wall" moves like this trade. Credit for success on the flyers is warranted, but we should weight those moves properly.

That's a good point and also takes into consideration where the teams were at a given point. Investing any hope of improvement on 6 flyers for the Reds now makes less sense now than it did in 2006.

When the Reds picked up Hamilton, there was room for improvement at just about every position. When they traded Hamilton, just about any above average pitcher would improve the pitching staff. Two year's later, there's a lot less room for "might be able to help the team given he puts everything together." I'd be disappointed in the Reds traded say Ramon Hernandez(solid 34 year old catcher) for a guy who "could be an ace." In 2006, I'd have gladly traded David Ross(130 OPS+ that year) for a guy like Edison Volquez.

[Patrick Bateman]

Originally Posted by edabbs44

That is one way to look at it.

It is true that the series of Hamilton transactions was a net gain, but so would trading BP for a middle of the road starter. Or trading Arroyo last year for a 4th OFer.

The way I would look at this is as follows: Acquiring Hamilton took foresight, innovative thinking and roster space. Trading him took risk tolerance and talent management. Just because you pass the first test doesn't mean you get a pass on the 2nd. The 2nd test is much more relevant to your job and something that makes up way more of your grade. WK took flyers on dozens of players and made way less "balls to the wall" moves like this trade. Credit for success on the flyers is warranted, but we should weight those moves properly.

Agreed.

The Hamilton transaction was clearly a special circumstance.

For a (at the time) pitching starved team, there are a number of reasons why it made sense to cash in Hamilton for the best pitcher that could be acquired for him. At the time, there was a strong contingent that were willing to make the same trade with Votto, as well as moving a package of Votto+Cueto+stuff for Bedard.

A move for a pitcher had to be made. Hamilton was probably the right target to trade, as he could have just as easily relapsed and never played again as he had the chance to be the MVP. There was obviously much less risk associated with acquiring him in the first place since the cost was less.

As such, I have trouble criticizing the decision to trade Hamilton for Volquez because of the information that was available at the time. Hammy was still only had 400 at-bats overe A ball, he was hardly a sure thing.

But of course, you can't argue the fact that it has turned out poorly. But in most cases, and especially this one, hindsight is not the correct way to judge this move. If there was a better pitcher available for Hamilton at the time, he'd likely be a Red right now. So should every other team be kicking themselves for not trading a better pitcher than Volq to get him? Of course not, as the risk associated with Hamilton was not worth a better player at the time.

IMO, overall, in the two tests with Hamilton, Krivksy actually made well thought out decisions at each step and played the hand he was dealt well. At the same time, the fact that he didn't do this more often is why he made a lot of moves that were bad "at the time" and why he eventually expired as the GM.

[Scrap Irony]

The majority opinion about Hamilton completely ignores his addictive personality and drug and alcohol abuse history. This is not a small problem, to be sure.

The Reds, IMO, tok what they knew of Hamilton and his history, balanced that with his production and how he was treated in the locker room. (The one major black eye, IMO, of the Dunn/ Junior leadership era was how poorly they treated Hamilton, at least according to Hamilton and others in the know.)

They then made a decision to punt one high talent problem child for another. It's partly just that Volquez's problems are far less visible/ problematic than are Hamilton's.

So the question becomes, would the Reds make the deal again today? It's still possible they would. The Reds, as an organization, were/ are pretty risk averse, and Hamilton was the biggest risk (from that point on), perhaps, since Jackie Robinson. (The stakes, obviously, weren't as high.) The odds of Hamilton being worth his Texas contract is remarkably small-- there is a 16% success rate of saying clean after being addicted to crack, according to a 1998 study by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Service Administration. Would you give $32 million to a guy with Hamilton's track record, talent, and those statistics?

Volquez's uncertainty hinged on everyday baseball activities at that point. (The PEDs recovery irony isn't lost on this guy, though it can be understood.) He simply couldn't throw strikes. That's a lot easier to digest than crack abuse.

[REDREAD]

Originally Posted by Hoosier Red

Perhaps, but if we accept as fact that the Reds weren't going to sign O'neill long term, then really the only "value" that matters is the "value" of Paul O'neill's 1993 season. While one could speculate as to what the Reds could have obtained had he been traded earlier or later, the only verifiable facts are the value he actually provided in 1993, versus the value that Roberto Kelly provided on the field over 1 1/2 seasons.
I agree with you that it's a bad idea to consider the value of a player we traded Kelly for, because there's no way to verify whether or not the Reds could have made that trade with another piece.

Yea, you are right, even back then, finances were an important part of the trade process.

In fact, that's usually why when an established player is traded for prospects, the team that gets the established player usually wins the trade.
It's hard to win a trade for prospects.

[PuffyPig]

Originally Posted by REDREAD

Yea, you are right, even back then, finances were an important part of the trade process.

In fact, that's usually why when an established player is traded for prospects, the team that gets the established player usually wins the trade.
It's hard to win a trade for prospects.

There are, of course, some exceptions to that rule.

Bagwell and Smoltz were traded as low level prospects for established players

Reds traded an aging Vade Pinson and got youngsters Bobby Tolan and Wayne Granger. That worked out well for us.

Dave Parker for Jose Rijo.

Shaw for Konerko.

Burba for Casey.

[Big Klu]

I still think that the Rijo/Parker trade was a win/win. Both clubs got exactly what they wanted. The A's had established veterans in their rotation (Dave Stewart, Bob Welch, and Storm Davis), and needed a lefthanded power hitter at DH to balance their righty-heavy lineup (RF Jose Canseco, 1B Mark McGwire, and CF Dave Henderson) and put them in a position to "win now". The Reds had a plethora of young, talented OF's (Eric Davis, Kal Daniels, Paul O'Neill, and Tracy Jones), and needed to move Parker to make room for them. Furthermore, other than Tom Browning, starting pitching was a weakness. So both clubs dealt from positions of strength to shore up weaknesses.

A similar argument could be made regarding the Casey/Burba trade. The Indians were a powerhouse club that were looking to contend for a World Championship, but they needed to bolster their pitching. Dave Burba was a versatile pitcher who could be a MOR or BOR starter or a high-leverage reliever on a good club. (He was forced into a TOR starting position with the Reds.) The Tribe had depth at 1B, as Sean Casey was blocked by Jim Thome and was also being pushed from below by Richie Sexson. The Reds' system was barren, and needed young talent at any position. So it made sense to trade an established player who was in demand for a younger major-league ready player with a higher ceiling whom they could control for a longer period of time.

[Blitz Dorsey]

Originally Posted by Big Klu

I still think that the Rijo/Parker trade was a win/win. Both clubs got exactly what they wanted. The A's had established veterans in their rotation (Dave Stewart, Bob Welch, and Storm Davis), and needed a lefthanded power hitter at DH to balance their righty-heavy lineup (RF Jose Canseco, 1B Mark McGwire, and CF Dave Henderson) and put them in a position to "win now". The Reds had a plethora of young, talented OF's (Eric Davis, Kal Daniels, Paul O'Neill, and Tracy Jones), and needed to move Parker to make room for them. Furthermore, other than Tom Browning, starting pitching was a weakness. So both clubs dealt from positions of strength to shore up weaknesses.

A similar argument could be made regarding the Casey/Burba trade. The Indians were a powerhouse club that were looking to contend for a World Championship, but they needed to bolster their pitching. Dave Burba was a versatile pitcher who could be a MOR or BOR starter or a high-leverage reliever on a good club. (He was forced into a TOR starting position with the Reds.) The Tribe had depth at 1B, as Sean Casey was blocked by Jim Thome and was also being pushed from below by Richie Sexson. The Reds' system was barren, and needed young talent at any position. So it made sense to trade an established player who was in demand for a younger major-league ready player with a higher ceiling whom they could control for a longer period of time.

I agree on Casey/Burba, but not so much Rijo/Parker. While Parker was great for the two years he played for the Reds, his production greatly dropped off after the trade to the Athletics. In theory it might have been a win-win for both teams, but there is no way to spin trading Jose Rijo in his prime for a washed-up Dave Parker, no matter what else a team had on their roster.

And am I a bit biased when discussing Rijo? Yes, yes I am!

[cincrazy]

Originally Posted by traderumor

It would be laughable if that was the truth. Volquez' return was anticipated by those following the club as an upgrade to help a team that was throwing Sam Lecure and Matt Maloney out there. Maybe some posters on RZ tagged him as an "ace," but I don't think that was the Reds/media representation for the value of his return. The Reds certainly didn't want to pay him as an "ace" or he'd have that LTC.

That's all Dusty and the boys in the booth talked about from day one. And if they didn't see him as their "ace," why did they start him Game 1 vs. Philly? Does he have "ace" stuff? Yes. Is the rest of the package there? No way. And that's something they're not willing to grasp yet.