Yeah! Keith Law Doesn't Like The Hamilton Deal

[757690]

It is on the Insider part of ESPN, so I can't link it, but here is a quick summary of what Keith Law says about the trade.

Hamilton will be a stud, but he may not be durable. Even if he only plays 3/4 of the season, he is far more valuable than Volquez, who Law sees as a #4 starter at best, and could be a complete flop at worst. He did add that he could end up as a good reliever if all else fails.

KEITH LAW IS ALWAYS WRONG!!!!! So this is very good news for the Reds. If he had liked the deal, I would have been worried.

His main argument against Volquez is that he does not have a good third pitch, so he can't be a good starter. That is complete nonsense. Steve Carlton, Nolan Ryan, Tom Glavine, Mario Soto, and too many to mention great pitchers were two pitch starters.

Not saying that Volquez will be great, just that his lack of a third pitch is not what will hold him back.

[Blue]

How many #4 starters has he seen with a 94-97 mph fastball and a devastating changeup?

[redsfanmia]

It is on the Insider part of ESPN, so I can't link it, but here is a quick summary of what Keith Law says about the trade.

Hamilton will be a stud, but he may not be durable. Even if he only plays 3/4 of the season, he is far more valuable than Volquez, who Law sees as a #4 starter at best, and could be a complete flop at worst. He did add that he could end up as a good reliever if all else fails.

KEITH LAW IS ALWAYS WRONG!!!!! So this is very good news for the Reds. If he had liked the deal, I would have been worried.

His main argument against Volquez is that he does not have a good third pitch, so he can't be a good starter. That is complete nonsense. Steve Carlton, Nolan Ryan, Tom Glavine, Mario Soto, and too many to mention great pitchers were two pitch starters.

Not saying that Volquez will be great, just that his lack of a third pitch is not what will hold him back.

Maybe there is a reason he writes about baseball and is not employed in baseball.

[Vada Pinson Fan]

Maybe there is a reason he writes about baseball and is not employed in baseball.

Hahahaha!!! I Love It!!!

[Bip Roberts]

This guy would find something wrong with the reds if they won a WS, i care so little about his opinion

[AmarilloRed]

This must mean Edison Volquez will turn out to be a great pitcher.

[*BaseClogger*]

Daniel Cabrera?

[Nasty_Boy]

Keith Law is a very arogant writer. I think he knows the numbers but he seems very bitter about his time in Toronto. Both players exchanged have a ton of talent, but they also have a ton of question marks. I think the Reds have enough OF depth to cover the loss of Hamilton, especially if Stubbs, Dorn, Dickerson, or Strait pan out. I know Stubbs has a long way to go but his defense is ML ready, as is Dickerson. Let's hope one of their bats follows suit.

[lo ryder]

KEITH LAW IS ALWAYS WRONG!!!!!

IMHO, 95% of ESPN's expert are usually wrong. With a few exceptions, I take all of their on air personalities with a grain of salt, especially when it comes to football and baseball.

[INRedsFan]

Keith Law is a very arogant writer. I think he knows the numbers but he seems very bitter about his time in Toronto. Both players exchanged have a ton of talent, but they also have a ton of question marks. I think the Reds have enough OF depth to cover the loss of Hamilton, especially if Stubbs, Dorn, Dickerson, or Strait pan out. I know Stubbs has a long way to go but his defense is ML ready, as is Dickerson. Let's hope one of their bats follows suit.

I don't feel that Dickerson is any Hamilton replacement.

[Handofdeath]

Here's the actual article

Rangers get best of Hamilton trade
posted: Saturday, December 22, 2007 | Feedback | Print Entry
filed under: Cincinnati Reds, Texas Rangers, Josh Hamilton, Edinson Volquez

There's some risk involved, but there's a very good chance by acquiring Josh Hamilton, the Rangers just picked up a middle-of-the-order bat who's about to enter his prime years in exchange for a hard-throwing young pitcher (Edinson Volquez) with more risks around his future. For the Reds, they cash in some of their outfield surplus to add some pitching depth, but it's surprising to see a club aiming to contend in 2008 take a young arm in return, rather than using that surplus to acquire a starter who can push them toward 85-90 wins now.



The Rangers' system is full of pitching prospects, and they have a good number of infield and catching prospects, but they're light in the outfield, with 2007 draftee Julio Borbon probably the best of that group. Hamilton immediately becomes the best center fielder the Rangers have had in a decade -- all apologies to Laynce Nix, Tom Goodwin and Damon Buford -- and has a good chance to be the best hitter in the Rangers' 2008 lineup. Hamilton was a five-tool player coming out of high school, and he's a four-tool player now, with his speed diminished by injuries. He has good bat speed and centers the ball well, shows at least 30-homer power, plus a cannon arm and above-average range in center. In limited time, he showed a patient approach at the plate and a willingness to work deep counts, although that will be tested with a full season of playing time in 2008.

The risks with Hamilton are obvious. One is his history of substance abuse, which kept him out of pro ball for almost four full seasons; we know he's been clean for at least 18 months, and you can be sure the Rangers are going to have a support system in place. (If I'm Rangers general manager Jon Daniels, I track down former Reds manager Johnny Narron, who has known Hamilton since the kid was in high school and who was Hamilton's personal coach in Cincinnati, and hire him to fill the same role in Texas.)

The bigger concern is Hamilton's history of injuries. He's had at least two operations on each knee, although his knees didn't pose any trouble in 2007. He missed time with an intestinal ailment and then a hamstring pull this season, playing in just 90 games. It's fair to say he's injury-prone, and he's going to face fatigue issues if he stays healthy for a full season at some point. However, these are risks worth taking if you're Texas because of the sheer magnitude of Hamilton's talent.

In exchange, the Reds get Volquez, a 24-year-old right-hander with five years in pro ball who still is more a thrower than a pitcher. He has a strong two-pitch combo in his fastball and changeup; his fastball is 91-96 mph and is "heavy," so he breaks a number of bats and it's hard for hitters to drive the ball, but he doesn't generate groundballs. His changeup is his best secondary pitch, always plus and occasionally rating a 65 or 70 on the 20-80 scale, making him more effective against left-handed hitters than right-handed hitters.

But Volquez has some significant red flags. His control has never been good, with 150 walks over the last two years in about 330 innings, and his fastball command is fringe-average; despite the heaviness of his heater, he's still been homer-prone in Texas, and heads now to another hitter-friendly park. Volquez still doesn't have an average breaking ball and it seems likely that at this point, he never will, in which case, he's much more likely to end up in the bullpen. If he's going to be a starter long-term, it's hard to envision him as more than a fourth starter because of the lack of a third pitch, although he could be an excellent short reliever with that two-pitch repertoire because he won't have the large platoon split so many short relievers have. The Reds also received Danny Ray Herrera, a slight 5-foot-6 lefty with a low-80s fastball and a curveball right out of the 1940s. He's a quality organizational player, but pitchers with grade-35 fastballs do not pitch in the majors, especially not in a hitter's park like Great American.

Even if Hamilton settles in as a 120-game, 500-plate appearance hitter, it will be hard for Volquez to perform well enough to provide more value to the Reds than Hamilton will to the Rangers. Add to that the normal risks associated with pitchers and the fact that Hamilton can contribute right away while Volquez has yet to show he's ready to pitch regularly in the majors and the exchange clearly favors Texas.

[Az. Reds Fan]

Don't know if this has been posted, but here's more extensive analysis...from a Rangers point of view.

http://www.newbergreport.com/article.asp

[Dracodave]

Even if Hamilton settles in as a 120-game, 500-plate appearance hitter, it will be hard for Volquez to perform well enough to provide more value to the Reds than Hamilton will to the Rangers. Add to that the normal risks associated with pitchers and the fact that Hamilton can contribute right away while Volquez has yet to show he's ready to pitch regularly in the majors and the exchange clearly favors Texas.

And thats where I differ, if Volquez can stay above league average in era, right around 3.73/4.00, I fail to see Hamilton as the superior player. Hamilon might be a 300/30/100 guy, or he might be 280/25/76 if he gets injuried constantly, and honestly, I feel we will have that and more in Jay Bruce with Volquez's pitching stats...

So really this path is one that the Reds have BOTH worlds...not just one.

[bglass]

I think Law's questions are valid. He says Volquez has control problems which is an obvious concern for any pitcher. Basically what I am trying to say is, anytime a guy who is more of a prospect than a proven commodity is traded, someone can make an argument that the player will not pan out. He says the Reds should have acquired a proven starter that would be more of a sure thing for this year, well, no kidding. But no one would have traded a proven impact starter for an outfielder with as many unanswered questions as Hamilton.

Hamilton had a very good half season for the Reds last year, but that doesn't necessarily indicate that he will become a superstar, although personally I hope he does become that. So many have analyzed this trade with the idea that Hamilton is a proven 30 homer a year guy, which is not yet true. I still like this trade for the Reds. Why not take a chance on a young player like Volquez who could turn out to be a 12-15 win per year pitcher, instead of some washed up pitcher that would have helped get 10 wins in 2008 but little after that? Because that is what it seems like Law is suggesting. I'm not mad at Law for writing this piece, but what more did he expect the Reds to get for Hamilton?

[757690]

I think Law's questions are valid. He says Volquez has control problems which is an obvious concern for any pitcher. Basically what I am trying to say is, anytime a guy who is more of a prospect than a proven commodity is traded, someone can make an argument that the player will not pan out. He says the Reds should have acquired a proven starter that would be more of a sure thing for this year, well, no kidding. But no one would have traded a proven impact starter for an outfielder with as many unanswered questions as Hamilton.

Hamilton had a very good half season for the Reds last year, but that doesn't necessarily indicate that he will become a superstar, although personally I hope he does become that. So many have analyzed this trade with the idea that Hamilton is a proven 30 homer a year guy, which is not yet true. I still like this trade for the Reds. Why not take a chance on a young player like Volquez who could turn out to be a 12-15 win per year pitcher, instead of some washed up pitcher that would have helped get 10 wins in 2008 but little after that? Because that is what it seems like Law is suggesting. I'm not mad at Law for writing this piece, but what more did he expect the Reds to get for Hamilton?

You are correct that Law did the part right about Volquez's control being a problem in the past, and you are correct in wondering why Law thought the Reds could do better than a prospect for Hamilton.

But what I have a problem with is Law's assessment of where Volquez projects. He says that he will never get a good curveball, and thus, he will never be "more than a fourth starter because of the lack of a third pitch".

Most starters who throw mid to high nineties, do not need to master a third pitch. In fact, most starters are two pitch pitchers. They have a third pitch, but mostly use just their two best. Heck, Josh Becket won game one of the World Series last year by throwing almost nothing but fastballs. Here is a list of starting pitchers who used only two pitches for around 90% of the time.

Josh Becket
Eric Bedard
Aaron Harang
Rich Hardin
Rich Hill
John Maine
Brad Penny
Johan Santana
Ian Snell
john Smoltz
Justin Verlander.

I guess they are all only #4 starters at best.

Either Law is an idiot, or he is just trying to find a way to be critical of the Reds. Or both.