Reds Insider: Would you make the deal?

Sunday, April 27, 2008

Would you make the deal?

The Reds beat the Giants 10-1.

Edinson Volquez went seven innings. He gave up the one run on five hits, walked three and struck 10.

So the question of the day is this: Would you make the Josh Hamilton-Volquez trade again?

Volquez is 4-0 with 1.23 ERA -- 29 1/3 innings, 20 hits, 16 walks, 33 strikeouts.

Hamilton is hitting .333 with 5 home runs and 27 RBI.

Volquez is 24. Hamilton is 27.

I'm talking about the deal that was made -- Hamilton for Volquez and Danny Herrera. The Reds had to give up Hamilton to get Volquez. The Ranger would not have givn him up for Adam Dunn or Edwin Encarnacion or anyone else.

So would you do it?

123 Comments:

at 8:22 PM

Anonymous said...

Absolutely. Not only is he three years younger, but we still don't know if Hamilton will last the whole season, or when his body will start breaking down due to the years he trashed it. Don't get me wrong, I love Josh Hamilton, and was sad when the Reds traded him, but just think, who would we have pitching in Volquez's spot if he wasn't here? Shearn? Fogg (+Belisle)? I've watched Volquez a couple of times, and the only real weakness I can see is his control, something that can easily be fixed over the coming years. If he can get that together, he could be a dominant pitcher (he kind of already is), which is always worth more than a dominant hitter.

at 8:24 PM

redsfanwoody said...

Yes. As much as I hated to see Hamilton go,pitching was the dire need this past off season. It's still too early to tell but so far so good.

at 8:24 PM

JackBlueAsh said...

good question..I just wonder if Josh Hamilton would be helping this club everyday versus the once every 5 days that Volquez provides.

I think its a good deal but I still wish we did not have top trade talent like Hamilton to get pitching

at 8:29 PM

Beer Guy said...

Any Day of The Week. I will hold off my full opinion of Volquez until this year is done and he starts this hot next year, but the mere fact that we took a chance to get a young arm in our rotation is priceless. Volquez has proven so far he has what it takes to be a starter and the Reds couldn't have asked for a better answer than that. Especially since Jay Bruce is among us very soon.

at 8:32 PM

Brick said...

From the Reds perspective I would. The Reds need pitching. No doubt it was hard to give up Hamilton...he's a beast, but the Reds need pitching and they appear to have gotten a good one. Bruce being on his way made Hamilton expendible.

From the Rangers perspective, NO WAY! Hamilton can go .350, 65 & 150 and they're still going to be horrible because they have no pitching. Volquez could help their rotation and I'm sure Ryan is peeved they gave him up.

at 8:34 PM

Chillicothe redfan said...

Would I make the same trade, knowing what I do now?

Yes, and twice on Sunday, especially a Sunday when the young man pitches like he did today.

at 8:34 PM

Gunner said...

Sorry John,

I want my cake and eat it too. We could really use both of these guys in our lineup/rotation ... is it fair to answer that question in this way? =)

at 8:35 PM

jc said...

i make the deal. both have a chance to be special for a long time. great pitching trumps great hitting.... everytime.

at 8:36 PM

keepinitreal said...

Hamilton's on pace to drive in more than 140 runs. No starting pitcher, who appears once every five days, is worth that amount of run production. However, when your starting pitching is as poor as the Reds has been, you sometimes have to defy conventional wisdom. Normally I would say no, it's not worth it. But with the emergence of Votto and Jay Bruce probably in waiting, I would have to say yes.

at 8:36 PM

Dave said...

Tough call but a pitcher that can win games every 4-5 days vs a position player >> I go with the pitcher.
I loved Hamilton, especially his arm. Volquez isn't going to go 20-0 with a 1.5 ERA, maybe only 17-3 with a 2.2 ERA?!?!? Sold!

at 8:36 PM

Unknown said...

Pitching and defense win championships. So far Volquez has shown us nothing but electric dominant stuff. You make this trade everyday of the week and twice on Sunday

at 8:38 PM

gannfan said...

No. I am still a giant Josh Hamilton fan but if the Rangers approached and asked for Edinson Volquez in exchange for Josh Hamilton I wouldn't make the trade.

What I still want to know is why the Reds traded Josh Hamilton, making less than $400,000 and kept Dunn making $13,000,000.

at 8:42 PM

warrencounty_yoman said...

John,

Volquez for Hamilton will end up being one of the best trades of the year in the entire MLB. A pitcher like E. Volquez will impact and drastically improve the future of the Cincinnati Reds. Hamilton, though talented, was a needy player. He caused a lot of problems in the clubhouse with his constant banter about religion, and his need for a "personal coach" was absurd. As for Hamilton physically - he is a specimen no doubt - but after years of hard drug abuse, his inability to finish last season (due to injury), and his age (27), it becomes pretty clear that Edinson Volquez (24) is in a better situation and condition to be effective for a longer period of time.

The team with the best CF does not win the World Series. It's the team with best pitching staff.

Anyone who still is upset about Josh Hamilton being shipped out for Volquez is obviously not sensible nor worth arguing baseball with.

at 8:43 PM

Warbler said...

Absolutely. Pitching is what it's all about. Who thinks this team would be better with another left-handed outfielder?

at 8:48 PM

d blake said...

Definitely. Like everyone else, I really liked Hamilton. But there aren't a lot of pitchers out there right now with a 4-0 record and 1.23 ERA. There are a lot more outfielders hitting the way Hamilton is... hopefully Bruce will be one of them.

at 8:55 PM

Unknown said...

Josh Hamilton is a stud who does nothing but rake baby. On the other hand Volquez is exactly the kind of starter we need in this rotation. i said it from the start that he looked just as good as cueto if not better. i hated seeing josh go but to answer the question, yes, i would do it again. Let me say it again....the reds will make the playoffs. when they do its going to be so rewarding for me to come on here and read some of the same guys blogs that i read these last few weeks. You know who you are..chevy...cough cough.

at 8:55 PM

HoosierVirg said...

This was a good deal to me and I am a big Josh fan and still root big time for him. As with most deals though I have a tendency to wait a couple of years to see how they go before judgement time. If it stays the way it is now, we got a very good pitcher and they got a very good outfielder, one of those good for both team's deals, can't beat that with a stick.

at 8:56 PM

ron said...

There is no way. Trade for a guy that can win games every day for one that might every 5 days? What is Josh batting - .300 with two winning home runs. Not counting today - we usually need hits and runs lately. Cory in center for under $3 million or Josh for under $750,000? We could have used the difference to buy Volquez!

at 8:57 PM

Unknown said...

Josh Hamilton's team is 9-17 because they have no pitching, despite the good start that he has put up. If he was here, we'd have less pitching as well, and he'd be contributing to the struggles against LHP.

I liked the deal when we made it and I like it now. A guy like Volquez (if the Reds can manage to get into the post-season soon), can make it really easy to win those 7 game series, by pitching twice. Throw in Harant and Cueto to do the same and you're formidable.

Thank you, Wayne Krivsky. You knew what you were doing.

at 8:59 PM

ron said...

at 9:00 PM

Will said...

Some fans need to realize that it takes talent to get talent. You don't just get a power arm like that for nothing. Short of Bruce I dont think there is anyone else the Rangers would have taken from the Reds for Volquez.

at 9:01 PM

Librariman said...

In a heartbeat. As a Reds fan I'm sitting here wondering why the Rangers gave up Volquez and only wanted Hamilton in return.

at 9:02 PM

Will said...

I doubt the Rangers would have taken Dunn for Volquez. If the Reds could get that kind of value for Dunn they would have traded him long ago.

at 9:05 PM

amazinglyrefreshing said...

Yes. Starting pitching wasn't just an area of need, it was an area of grave need. The outfield was an area we had depth. You have to give something of value to get something of value (typically), so it's smart to give up value from an area of depth. I think Hamilton is a special ballplayer and hated to see him go...but Volquez is also showing he's special. It would be interesting to put this question to Ranger fans. I'll bet most of them would still make the trade, too. Win-win.

at 9:06 PM

Mike Grayson said...

I guess I would make the trade again. I really like Hamilton.

But I make the trade for a reason nobody has yet mentioned: we have Jay Bruce ready to play centerfield. Jay also has 5 HRs, and is batting .330 at AAA. He will also be great in the field, and he is even younger than Volquez.

Without Jay coming up, it is not so clear. But we did indeed need pitching.

Just remeber that Volquez is likely to hit a rough spot or two along the way. His control is not quite where we would like it, but he has great stuff. We will see how he bounces back after he gets rocked for the first time....

at 9:09 PM

24/7 said...

i do it. do you want hamilton on a team with a rotation full of zitos or a solid rotation with a lineup that's not exactly devoid of proven hitters?

volquez helps the reds every day. having him, in addition to harang and cueto, boosts team morale and your chances of winning a series. with volquez, no matter what, in a standard 3 game set you know you're running out a winner at least one of the three games. you have to give to get, the free agents weren't there, and a bedard/haren/blanton would have been far more expensive in terms of players, money and talent. bailey, bruce and votto to baltimore? cueto and votto to oakland? hamilton for volquez was very reasonable in my estimation.

at 9:12 PM

BATSFAN said...

Hey guys, I went to the Bats game they won 13-4, Paul Janish he went 4-4 6 RBIS and a Grandslam, Jay Bruce added a 2 run homer. After that had a dinner with the players with the bats booster club. All the players seemed really nice, especially Shearn, Rosales, and Bruce. The only one who didnt show up was Bailey, but none of the boosters here like him anyway. And I talked to some media in louisville and they said the same thing about Bailey. Oh well had fun GO BATS AND REDS!

at 9:14 PM

Stan said...

Why isn't anyone talking about the other piece to this trade. Herrera (or however u spell it) is shutting down the minors right now. He continues close to what he's doing and he tips the scale heavily in the Reds favor.

Just like the Kearns/Lopez trade. Right now Daryl Thompson looks like he may better than the whole bunch. I make that trade again just get Thompson.

at 9:19 PM

Unknown said...

Yes. There is no commodity more rare or valuable in the modern game than pitching. Hamilton was a great story, and is still a model example of someone successfully wrestling his inner demons into submission.

But, we still have power in the lineup and smallball seems to be catching on here and there. If you combine that with pitching, you get today's results. Without pitching, which Volquez provides, you lose today 11-10.

at 9:27 PM

ronj said...

It was a great trade for the Reds. Josh apparently wasn't the best guy in the locker room and the big question about staying healthy and playing through some minor injuries would have been an ongoing issue. You can never have too much quality pitching and Volquez has already shown his upside and Herrera was 3-0 at Chattanooga before going up to Louisville. Both players great so far. I would be willing though to trade Baker and Patterson to get Hamilton back.

at 9:36 PM

Reds fan in NC said...

Those of you who say no, arguing that Hamilton can win a game every day vs. once every five days, you have to look at more than those two players. It basically comes down to their two positions: Do you want Volquez and Patterson/Hairston/Freel (Bruce, eventually), or do you want Hamilton and Fogg/Belisle/Bailey? Because we're not COMPLETELY losing Hamilton's production. Someone will be in the lineup in his place, it just probably won't be AS productive as he is now.

at 9:42 PM

Anonymous said...

Hamilton is a position player. In a market with such few quality pitchers out there the trade was a steal.

at 9:43 PM

Dan H said...

Yes. Pitching and defense win championships. Good pitching stops good hitting. Jay Bruce should be as good if not better than Hamilton offensively,both are left hand hitters, thus Hamilton is more easily replaced. Right now Volquez is our #2 starter and although it is early appears to be on the verge of being a dominate starter. That was one of Krivsky's best moves along with the Phillips pick up. A good trade for both teams but a smarter trade for the Reds as dominate pitchers are much harder to acquire than outfielders.

at 9:44 PM

Anonymous said...

To simply answer the question....Yes, I'd make that deal again.

People keep wanting to rationalize why we should've dealt Hammy by saying he'd get hurt again, or that he's older, or that we've got Bruce coming up. But the truth to the matter is quite simple...you win with Pitching. The Reds have finally come to that realization. It's just kinda sad that it took a couple of decades to realize it.

Our rotation is looking VERY solid for the coming decade if we're able to lock up these kids. I'd highly suggest we do so earlier rather than later. The longer we wait, the heftier thier price-tag is going to become.

I know that Bronson is struggling mightily right now, but he'll snap out of it. But unlike many here, I don't consider him to be a true #2 starter. He's "passable" as one in the Central, but we no longer have to settle for "passable". Aaron, Edinson, Johnny and Homer should make a very potent top four with Bronson being a very dependable #5. If we can manage to have Arroyo as our #5 starter then we'd have BY FAR the best rotation in the majors...not just the central.

In regards to Homer, I know that many want to leave him in the minors to let him develop slowly. But I'm getting more and more doubtful of that line of thinking. I think it's fairly obvious that this isn't our optimum window of opportunity for contending for the Central crown. In order to win it this year a LOT of things would have to fall our way (I'm not saying it CAN'T happen or that I don't WANT it to happen...just that it's not that likely). So instead of slowing Homer (and Jay's) development, we should bring them up NOW and let them take their lumps. The sooner we let them make the adjustment to the bigs, the better we'll be next year (and after). This year should be all about development and improvement, not contention. I want us to have a CONSISTANT starting lineup (and rotation) by the time next year comes around, and that won't happen unless we let them get their legs under them THIS year. So bring up the kids (Bruce, Homer, Bray, etc).

at 9:57 PM

Unknown said...

"great pitching trumps great hitting.... everytime"

"Pitching and defense win championships"

"Absolutely. Pitching is what it's all about."

Great cliches. Just not true. List for me the number of games in MLB history that have been won by teams that didn't score any runs in the game.

People who repeat stuff like this are folks who watched too much Atlanta Braves on TBS. The Braves, who most would agree have consistently had among the best pitching in MLB since 1990. And yet, since 1990, they've won exactly the same number of World Championships that the Reds have. One. With all that outstanding pitching.

Why is that? Anyone ever ask that question?

Solid #4 and #5 starters help you win division titles. They help you get to the postseason by winning series after series against lesser and good teams. They don't do squat for you when you get the postseason, because traditionally, teams only go three starters deep in the postseason.

But ultimately, final scores in games are determined by which team hits the ball better against whatever pitching is one the menu: great, good or mediocre.

The BRM is your classic example of this. The aforementioned Braves are your classic example of the flaw in the theory. 15 years of postseason play is way too big a sample pool to chalk the lack of championships up to bad luck or coincidence. In fact, the only world series in recent memory that you can say was truly won on outstanding pitching was when Arizona won it with Johnson and Shilling.

All that said, did the Reds need more pitching? Yes. Before the trade, with Cueto still a relative unknown, the Reds didn't have much behind #1 in the rotation, much less a solid #2 and #3.

So it's not a bad deal.

But please, don't take everything Chip Carey and Don Sutton and Pete Van Weren tell you and treat it like it's the gospel truth. Look at the evidence, and think for yourself.

at 10:11 PM

Anonymous said...

I don't buy the every 5th day arguement. If you want to use that, Josh Hamilton only helps you 1/9th of the time vs 1/5th of the time for Volquez...In that scenario, Volquez is more valuable.

at 10:17 PM

Unknown said...

Pitching beats hitting...
Pitching beats hitting...
Pitching beats hitting...

Need I say more?

at 10:27 PM

Unknown said...

John, I'm glad that you called out all the fans that threw a fit over the trade. Haven't seen a lot of them around when Volquez starts.

Don't lie people, there were A LOT of doubters.

at 10:29 PM

inkedchef69 said...

I didn't like it at first. I warmed up to it a little during spring training. I went down to his first start vs. the Phillies and walked out of GABP absolutely in love with the trade. It seemed like eons since I'd been to a game and seen a Reds pitcher throw, flat out, FILTHY stuff. Josh Hamilton is a stud but so is Jay Bruce, soon enough. Josh Hamilton can't lock up hitters like Jimmy Rollins, Chase Utley & Ryan Howard. Volquez, Phillips & Keppinger will end up being the 3 best things that Wayne Krivsky did for the Reds. Did I mention that I love Volquez's stuff?

at 10:30 PM

inkedchef69 said...

at 10:39 PM

ST fan said...

Bob Housem built the Big Red Machine and before that the 196x WS champs in St Louis. He said he'd "never trade an everyday player for a pitcher." Words of wisdom?

at 10:46 PM

John Fay said...

dave hartman: that's a good point. But recent world series have been won by teams with no. 1 power pitchers -- Beckett, schilling, carpenter. The 1990 reds and rijo.

Volquez has a chance -- I said a chance -- to be that kind of guy.

at 10:50 PM

oldtimer said...

Great point, David Hartman. That particular cliche drives me crazy too and I'd just as soon see it disappear from the current vernacular in baseball.

Balanced attacks on all fronts are what wins championships. Two of three don't cut it. Your lesser pitchers are sometimes more important than your ace. The Big Red Machine had very solid Arroyo types at 4 and 5, guys like Freddy Norman and Jim Merrit and Pat Darcy, guys who generally went 13-11 or so and gave their team a chance to win. Their biggest asset was saving a series when the Reds ace, such as Gullet or Nolan or Simpson that one glorious year,had lost.

The reality is, a balanced attack of solid defense, solid offense, and solid pitching work in tandem to create a winning atmosphere. Each feeds off the other. Pitching and defense without hitting leaves teams struggling for clutch run production, and taking some painful losses with the afterthought of 'what if'. Sound familiar?. So maybe lay off the cliches for a while, they're cute and nice, but consider the source before buying the story.

As for the deal, it's far too soon to measure the real worth for both teams. I liked the trade at the time, and nothing has altered my sense of it yet. Hamilton's non baseball issues were a tangible distraction on a team with other problems, as Phillips so honestly suggested last year, and Josh's extremes of personality made me wonder if he can handle slumps at all. Addicts are always recovering, so there's a need for concern always. Last year's slump seemed to bother him tremendously.

We'll see, or as the great Enquirer scribe Lou Smith used to say, time will tell.

Oh and nobody go out and buy playoff tickets cuz the Reds won 2 in a row, OK? Now if they string together 7 or 8 straight by mid May, well then maybe some guarded optimism is in order.

at 10:59 PM

Unknown said...

I agree John. I'm not against the deal per se.

The Reds did need more pitching. And frankly, I'd roll the dice with pitching from someone else's minor league system before I'd roll the dice with our own products (Bailey), given the Reds' recent track record with not developing pitching. Way too many "can't miss" pitchers who flamed out before the bigs.

I just get tired of the argument that everything revolves around pitching. Hitting scores runs which wins games.

at 11:04 PM

Red Faced said...

Oh now it's an even easier decision to make, you make the trade all day long.

When I first heard about the trade I was sorry to hear Hamilton go, I really enjoyed watching him play last year and I expect him to be a very good player for a number of years. But I looked at the trade, saw that we were getting another team's #1 pitching prospect and decided that I had no problem with the trade right there. This team needed pitching badly, that's a chance you have to take when you get the opportunity.

at 11:05 PM

Jeff said...

Time will tell if it was truly a good trade for the Reds. You can't predict what will happen with Hamilton's health. If he stays healthy, he's an all star. Volquez could very well be a dominant pitcher or his control could suddenly go south. But I'd vote to make this trade again without hesitation. Good pitching is much harder to come by that good hitting. And I agree that pitching wins championships.

at 11:08 PM

Adam said...

Poor Wayne Krivsky. I hope he gets another shot somewhere. I think this was a good trade that he made.
But to answer the question, no i would not have made the trade back then but now, yes. Looking back it is always easier to see what are good and bad trades. But at the time of the trade no, but now, yes.

at 11:08 PM

Another losing season said...

Didn't approve of the trade when it was made. Would rather have Hamilton playing everyday in center.

at 11:29 PM

mentalmidget said...

I've said this since day one; it's a "no brainer"! While Josh Hamilton is or will be a special player, quality pitching is more valuable than an OF. OF's are a dime a dozen compared to quality starting pitching. Actually, quality pitching is most valuable on any MLB team!!!!

at 11:35 PM

Stecher said...

Yes a million times over! I think its still too early to tell for sure which team made out the best, but pitching is extremely difficult to find, especially young quality arms, but 5 tool stud outfielders are a little easier to come by, if given the choice between the two I'll take the pitcher. Both are starting with a hot April and I'm happy for Josh but the reds needed a pitcher like Volquez in the worst kind of way so I would definitely make this deal again.

at 12:15 AM

Branden said...

"If you want to use that, Josh Hamilton only helps you 1/9th"

That math is wrong. EV "plays" 1 of every 5 days. Hamilton "plays" almost everyday so thats 4/5 > 1/5.

at 1:00 AM

John said...

I still make the trade.

The Reds have NEVER had a problem cultivating outfielders who could hit. They have ALWAYS had a problem cultivating pitching, especially of the Dominican variety who throw in the high 90s and put up the kind of numbers Voltron has put up so far. I'm sorry to see Hamilton gone because he was one of the few great things about last season. But I can root for him wherever he goes.

Jay Bruce, virtually the same player in my mind, waits in the wings for a shot. No problem.

at 1:49 AM

JerBear said...

I have warmed up to the trade because of Volquez' start and potential. He looks really good, and it's exciting to see the Reds have great young pitching. It's a serious breath of fresh air.

That being said. I guess I am in the minority! I still don't think I'd make the trade. I could be wrong. It's just my opinion.

For some reason though, I compare 2 other players to Volquez and Hamilton and it brings me to a temporary conclusion to keep Hamilton.

I ask myself, would I trade Albert Pujols for Josh Beckett?...and I tell myself...no! haha

Both Hamilton and Volquez have that type of potential I believe.

Hamilton isn't just some dime a dozen outfielder as people have said.

If Hamilton stays healthy he's probably one of the Top 10, maybe Top 5 players in baseball.

Yes, pitching is the key in Major League Baseball. But us Reds fans valuing Volquez so much is more a matter of how desperately bad the Reds pitching has been over the years than the Reds making a great trade.

Albert Pujols, Manny Ramirez, Alex Rodriguez, Barry Bonds in the past....there's certain players that win games by themselves, or have a huge impact on their team winning games by their presence in the lineup alone.

Josh Hamilton has that potential.

I agree with those of you who said that there are a lot of other factors involved in winning. Really you have to have good pitching, solid defense, and a solid lineup.

You can have the RBI leader in baseball (Josh Hamilton) and be 9-17 like the Rangers. You can have a great young pitcher who is 4-0 with a 1.20 ERA, and still be 11-15!

It's an interesting deal with a lot of different ways to look at it. And it's even more interesting to ponder since both players are doing so well. It's good for both teams.

In conclusion...I have no idea about the other guy the Reds got! (Herrera?) That could be the dealbreaker!

at 3:10 AM

Pat said...

After the trade, Nolan Ryan became the president of the Rangers. I wonder if the trade would have occured under his watch? I doubt it.

Hamilton has one more homer, one more run and 16 more rbi than Patterson. I'll take Patterson and Volquez over Hamilton and Fogg (or any of the free agent pitchers) any day of the week.

at 3:45 AM

KevinFtMyers said...

"Pitching wins championships", (maybe not alone), but NEVER without. Examples have been cited where an average to above average hitting team has won because of great pitching.

Can anyone show us a team with really poor pitching that has even sniffed the world series, let alone won it?

(Modern era please)

Pitching is the cornerstone. Noone wins without it.
Teams do win without big time sluggers.

Everyone remember the Bash Brothers in '90?

Put McGwire on Cincy and Rijo on Oakland, is it different?

Would Rijo still shut down McGwire and propably Sabo and Hatcher too?

"Pitching wins championships" is over simplifying, but true within context, because WITHOUT pitching, YOU HAVE NO CHANCE.

at 4:22 AM

KevinFtMyers said...

Dave Hartman,

Braves in WS 1991

G1 5-2
G2 3-2
G3 5-4 IN 12 INNINGS
G4 3-2
G5 14-5
G6 4-3
G7 1-0

Alot of 1 run ballgames. Their other appearences in the WS are really similar with mostly 1 run ballgames.

I would say their pitching is what gave them a chance.

Most of the time, when a good pitching team loses a series in the playoffs, its not because the other teams hitters dominated the pitchers, its because the other team pitched better.

"Pitching Wins Championships" is a cliche for sure, but Ive heard Joe Morgan say "good pitching beats good hitting".

Maybe Im being naive, but I tend to believe JM when hes talking about baseball.

at 6:19 AM

Krawhitham said...

No way you trade Hamilton, Reds needed a center fielder and he was cheap

The Reds had pitching for the 1st time in years

Cueto
Bailey
Harang
Arroyo (needs to find his FB again)

Looking at this year's stats, Josh is putting up A-Rod numbers and Volquez is putting up Santana numbers. Do you trade A-Rod for Santana, NO WAY

Volquez is on pace for 24 wins, lets assume the Reds would win 40% of those games with other pitchers. Do you think 163 RBI would net you 14+ more wins, that is the pace Hamilton is on.

Yes having 3 Lefthanders in the outfield (Bruce, Josh, & JR) is not ideal but you have Phillips & EE to counter act the left handers, Votto seems to have no problem hitting lefties. And you could deal Dunn for a right hand bat or pitching

at 7:17 AM

JackBlueAsh said...

after reading all the posts..here is my rebuttal..

it is way too early to judge this trade..lets see how Volquez does when he faces teams a second time around

and the flip side of the Rangers doing so bad..is that even with the better pitching we have this year, the Reds aint doing so well this year are they?

joe morgan ..god love ..appears to have onset dementia

and for those of you that pretend to have this intimate knowledge of the "clubhouse"....you dont. There were no issues with Josh Hamilton ..most players were pulling for him and liked him

at 7:26 AM

Mr. Doom and Gloom said...

no question you make that deal...Value Over Replacement Player...the Reds have no one else in the system that could come close to replacing what Volquez is giving them for the money...if Bruce is what we think he can be, he can some close to replacing Hamilton's numbers for the same money. (though it's getting tougher to make that argument w/ Patterson out there instead of Bruce)

now if the farm system was loaded with pitching and lacking outfielders, or if Hamilton was right-handed, it may be a different story.

at 7:39 AM

John Fay said...

it is too early judge the trade. The question was would you make it.

And there were clubhouse issues. Players resented the johnny narron personal coach thing. But that wasn't the only issue.

at 7:44 AM

John Fay said...

I'm not saying the issues in the clubhouse were a reason to trade him. A lot of great players aren't well liked.

at 8:03 AM

Anonymous said...

It doesn't much matter whether "pitching beats hititng" or not. You can't speak in generalities when talking about two specific players and two specific teams. Reds have a CF of the future who will likely come close to, if not exceed Hamilton's production. Do the Reds have anyone (save Bailey, still a big question mark) who could come close to matching Volquez's level of production? Taken specifically on need, this trade HAD to be done.

at 8:23 AM

Unknown said...

Yes!

Volquez could be a stud. I LOVE the Reds high-strikeout pitching staff these days. It's perfect for a bad-defense team playing 81 games in a bandbox.

Herrera is a bonus... a groundball/strikeout lefty out of the bullpen eventually... very very useful.

I love Hamilton and yeah he is raking again. I wish him all the best.

But this roster was way out of balance and pitching is what we needed. It was a good move.

at 8:24 AM

Unknown said...

Oh, and for all you "but the pitcher only plays every 5th day" people... sure that's true... but the starting pitcher has SO much more impact on whether or not his team wins that game that day than any position player, it more than balances out.

Even better in the playoffs (yes, wishful thinking) when you can shorten your rotation for 4 or maybe even 3 guys. Then the starting pitchers have even more impact.

at 8:30 AM

JackBlueAsh said...

john..I am friends with two players on the Reds..not good friends but we speak at least two -three times a month. One of those players is David Weathers and I consider him to be a reasonable indicator of the tone of that clubhouse.

He thought the world of Josh Hamilton as did the majority of the players. There was one player that did not like the attention that Hamilton was getting..I wont mention any names. But that one player, does not like anyone to get more attention than him so its not real significant

Regarding Narrons brother..I did ask if that was a problem. Absolutely not. I was told that certain coaches befriend certain players anyway..its not that big a deal

And may I add, I agree with you, the atmosphere in any clubhouse is tenuous at best..many players are not beloved..it can be as bad as jr highschool a times. The "clubhouse" good or bad, is not the reason that this team is doing or has done so poorly

I hope that this trade works out best for everyone. My concern is that by paying Griffey and Dunn almost 25 million a year limits our ability . It would be nice not to have to give up such potential talent to get pitching

27 is young Hamilton should have another 8 solid years in the majors.

at 8:36 AM

Another losing season said...

What exactly were the clubhouse issues? The fact he had someone with him to help with his sobriety? The fact he kept to himself because baseball and sobriety don't exactly go hand in hand? You make it sound as if he were some kind of prima donna. I've heard Hamilton interviewed at length and nothing I have heard or read gives me reason to think he isn't anything but a grateful recovering alcoholic/addict. Sounds to me you and the rest of the players could have used a little more insight and tried to understand what he was doing was not only for himself but for his team. The Rangers get that.

at 8:53 AM

24/7 said...

another great trade for both teams

beckett/lowell-ramirez/sanchez

would i trade pujols? no, but because he's the no. 1 hitter in baseball. if he's 3 or 4, i do for scott kazmir.

all the religious talk had to wear on a guy or two. think about it. do most people you know that are heavy into religion need a babysitter? you gotta have faith to preach faith, and he was def. preaching it.

at 9:04 AM

Rob Dicken said...

You ALWAYS trade fielding for pitching. That's a no brainer. For years we have been complaining about pitching, and when we finally get a decent young starter, we're complaining about trading away a guy that played 90 games for us last year.

Volquez has been dominant for us thus far, and thus far the trade has been a good one.

Apparently there are still people here that think Josh Hamilton would win us ball games with mediocre to low-level starting pitching. Which obviously isn't the case in Texas (just look at their rotation).

To me it only makes sense to win ball games by your starter limiting a team to 2-3 runs as opposed to us relying on a guy to drive in 5 runs a game for us just to win a ballgame because the starting pitching had given up 6-8 runs already.

The Reds don't have a "great team" so far this year because of their hitting, not their pitching. The first game of the Giants' series was proof of that. Jack...even your good 'ol buddy Jeff Keppinger was in a little of a slump. If I seriously saw him ground into one more double play after Friday's game I probably would have screamed!

You can find every excuse in the book for why this team isn't any good this year (despite winning the last 2 games). BUT what it boils down to is the Reds' hitters just aren't hitting when they need to be.

The trade was a good deal for both sides. Not to mention, we got another pitching prospect in the deal from Texas who could be a quality reliever for us in the next few years.

I give Wayne props on this deal. It was a good one.

at 9:09 AM

jdeezman said...

Joe Morgan is a fountain of baseball knowledge, a HOF player, and great announcer.

For anyone to put down Joe Morgan is absurd, as he has forgotten more baseball knowledge than anyone on this board will ever have.

It says a lot about those wh put him down.

at 9:25 AM

Osogato said...

Absolutely. I've benn a fan of the trade since it happened. Even though our offense is struggling, it will come around. It's much harder to find quality pitching than quality offense. Good deal Krivsky (Fare thee well). You always have to trade top talent for good pitching.

at 9:43 AM

Joe said...

Rangers got an everyday bat and outfielder they needed. Reds got a very very good pitcher with a lot of upside potential. It appears to be working for both teams, which equates to a great trade.

It is easy to root for Josh Hamilton to make it. He's showing young Americans you can go from trouble to cheers if you want to. Reminds me a little of George Foreman and his life story. Hoepfully, this works out for Josh and some day he'll be marketing and selling burger cookers rather than flipping burgers.

at 9:48 AM

Aaron said...

YES.....You make that trade. However it can be a tough pill to swallow. Hamilton still has a huge upside and not to mention he wasn't making a ton of money.

It would have been nice to deal Dunn in some sort of possible scenario and keep Hamilton, but I am sure the Rangers didn't want his big contract nor his strikeouts.

Also, the Reds knew how far along Jay Bruce was in his developement so they probably helped with the trade. I think it was a good deal. Especially if the other player the Reds got makes it.

I won't let this go, but if the Reds were truly comitted to winning this season.....then why didn't we get Bedard?

at 9:53 AM

pootyhead said...

Great trade for both teams so far. Neither argument about "every 5th day" vs. "everyday" is wrong. But the more "every 5th day" guys you have the more likely you are to win(despite the current status of the team).

I Agree that Joe Morgan has baseball knowledge that 99% of most us. And if I am going to listen to anyone about the pulse of the Reds clubhouse, it would be John. Anyone can claim they know without proving it.

at 9:57 AM

JackBlueAsh said...

the reds have not had a good team in 7 plus years Rob..wake up.. quit making excuses for a lousy team

Joe Morgan has been making major blunders the past three years in the broadcasting booth..everyone knows this

at 10:02 AM

Arden Dulou said...

Yes.

The Reds have tried the hitting wins scenario for awhile and look where they are. Pitching and defense (with some hitting) wins.

With 20/20 hindsight I wish the Reds had traded Dunn, Coffey, Stanton, Ross, and Castro for Volquez though. :)

at 10:06 AM

KevinFtMyers said...

"john..I am friends with two players on the Reds..not good friends but we speak at least two -three times a month."

In other words an aquaintance.

Close enough that you know without a doubt that he would be a "staight shooter" when it comes to clubhouse info?

Has he ever said anything bad about anyone in the clubhouse?

Im not interested in specifics if he did, but would be interested in the possibility that you got a P.C. answer about Hamilton.

I just wonder why John Fays insights, which come from first hand observations of the players in the clubhouse would differ from your information, which comes second hand from an aquaintance that may or may not give a fan the whole story.

at 10:13 AM

KevinFtMyers said...

"Joe Morgan has been making major blunders the past three years in the broadcasting booth..everyone knows this"

Everyone?

More absolutes with no way to substantiate.

at 10:14 AM

Cheviot Sports Authority said...

George Grande and The Creep get worse with every broadcast.

Note to JTM, bought some Steak-Ums yesterday to make my own cheese steak sandwiches instead of JTM. You should thank whoever made those commercials.
St CSA

at 10:16 AM

Ol' Timey Redsfan said...

Yes, the Reds are too left handed already. They needed Starting Pitching and Texas needed a power bat, the trade workout on both ends,(Which you always like to see), with the Reds getting a little extra.

at 10:21 AM

Bob Loblaw said...

You have to make the trade, based on our glut of left handed hitting outfielders and our lack of pitching. I think they're both good players but we did what we could. Would I have rather traded Dunn? Of course, but Texas had no center fielder and they liked Hamilton's glove as well as his bat. Dunn obviously not so much. Hitters reach their prime(on average) a couple of years earlier than pitchers, so we definitely have the advantage as far as youth.

I also have to concur with Jack about Joe Morgan. God bless him, but he's a couple french fries short of a happy meal at this point. I would never take any personnel advice from him.

I would have to respectfully disagree with Jack about Hamilton's clubhouse presence. That's great that you're buddies with Weathers or whatever, but I think John Fay has a better grasp of the Reds clubhouse than you do, and he says there were a couple problems. Everyone knows you're fingering Griff as the malcontent, but there are others as well.

at 10:21 AM

Jeff said...

John wasn't the only writer who reported that players had issues with Hamilton having a personal trainer, as well as other things. Hal McCoy and Trent Rosecrans reported the same thing. We can all speculate what the truth is but the the fact is none of individuals posting here (except for John) really know what goes on in the clubhouse. The only individuals with any true insight on this are the folks that are in the clubhouse on a daily basis.

at 10:32 AM

Zippy said...

I think it's impossible to grade this trade without knowing what the other options might be. If I were GM, I'd have looked for a deal to get a good starter in return for a different player. Perhaps I wouldn't have had ended up with a pitcher of Volquez's ability, but if I could get a pitcher with 90% of his ability for, say, EE rather than Hamilton, then I go ahead and make THAT deal and skip the Volguez deal.

But if the question is whether this deal helps the team, I think at best it's a wash. The "every 5th day" thing really does come into play. If Hamilton gets 600 ABs, that's 600 innings in which his bat affects the team. Then, his defense is likely to be a factor in countless other innings. No matter how good he is, Volquez's pitching is only going to affect the outcome of maybe 200 innings. In case anyone hasn't noticed, Volquez has 4 wins, but the team only has 11. No matter how well he throws, he can't help us 4 out of 5 days.

It's a tough call, but, as I said, I can't even begin to decide whether I'd make this deal without knowing every other possible deal I could make.

at 11:00 AM

Steven Ross said...

A question which should have been asked at the beginning of the year. Based on what we've seen so far, of course you make the deal.

Next to Harang, Volquez is our best starter. In the windup, he's nasty. From the stretch, he's not as effective but still very good.

The more I read about Hamilton, the more I feel the deal had to be made. Now let's move Dunn and continue our march forward.

at 11:25 AM

Red Faced said...

OK the whole argument that a pitcher can only help you 1 out of every 5 days just doesn't carry any weight. A good pitcher will not only help you the day he pitches but also on following days when your bullpen can be used and not be overtaxed because they had to pitch 5 innings the night before. A good pitcher will stop losing streaks which will also help team moral.

I loved Josh Hamilton and I wish he were on the team still but I knew enough back when the trade was made that we needed good pitching so badly that it's a trade you take a chance on and I'd say it's worked out well for both clubs. Can't both teams just benefit from a trade and there not have to be a clear cut winner?

I'm still pissed about the Sean Casey trade. Not that Casey is a better first base option than what we have but we got NOTHING for Casey and lost a true leader on this club that we haven't had since. Let's talk about that one or better yet potential trades to come and put the Josh Hamilton trade to bed finally.

at 11:58 AM

Unknown said...

I grudgingly supported the trade at the time because pitching on this team was so lousy.

It's a given that you have to have pitching, and that you have to have a lot of pitchers. You don't get to use any of them every day.

But the Reds weren't going anyplace with a stable of hitters and one pitcher....multiple losing seasons under that plan.

at 12:10 PM

jfrizn said...

Yes! I would trade Hammy in a second for the DR Dominator. Pitching is a premium, outfielders aren't. Just look at what Lohse got in ST. Louis.

at 12:19 PM

Unknown said...

Hamilton's on pace to drive in more than 140 runs. No starting pitcher, who appears once every five days, is worth that amount of run production.

Uh huh...and what is Hamilton's team's record and why?

What I still want to know is why the Reds traded Josh Hamilton, making less than $400,000 and kept Dunn making $13,000,000.

You answered your own question! A player making 400k is more attractive to the other team. Krivsky already stated that they were not going to trade Volquez for anything less than Hamilton.

Didn't approve of the trade when it was made. Would rather have Hamilton playing everyday in center.

How's that going for the Rangers?

For anyone to put down Joe Morgan is absurd, as he has forgotten more baseball knowledge than anyone on this board will ever have.

He's a good announcer from the perspective of traditionalists who don't understand today's sabermetrics (because he doesn't either).

But if the question is whether this deal helps the team, I think at best it's a wash. The "every 5th day" thing really does come into play.

Volquez's impact on a game far exceeds that of a hitter. He faces every batter for several innings and controls the outcome of the game far more than an everyday player. Do that well 25 times a year and that makes a huge impact in the standings. The opposite can't be said for a team loaded with hitters and no pitching (Texas Rangers). Arizona made it to the NLCS with no hitting last year.

at 12:24 PM

24/7 said...

a few tidbits about voltron...

the obvious - 1.23 era

.238 slugging pct

they are hitting .406 off harang and .412 off cueto

37/16 ground to fly ratio. that's 2.50.

his total base tally is 24. cueto's is 49 in four more innings.

10 k's and 6 hits per 9. best in the rotation.

his walks are high and hurt his bb/9 and whip, but he gets out of his trouble. 4 runs, 20 hits and 33 k's in 29 innings??

what is there to complain about? if you WANT belisle and fogg in your rotation, you're rooting against the reds.

at 12:31 PM

Anonymous said...

The Reds of the last few years and the current Astros demonstrate that you can hit the cover off the ball and still lose, lose, lose. A quality pitcher who can give you a win every five games is far more valuable than a slugger who can only provide so much offense, and often not enough to overcome bad pitching.

Look at SF the other night - scoring 9 runs and losing.

at 12:36 PM

Unknown said...

For those of you who don't make that trade and continue to assert that offense wins championships, have you not been paying attention the last 8 years???

This team has led in a number of offensive stats the last 8 years yet still finished at the bottom.

Having a guy like Volquez does more than just provide wins on the day he pitches, he also keeps the bullpen from being over-used because he has the ability to go deeper into games.

Keep in mind Bailey isn't here because he hasn't been able to keep his pitch count down, thus this brings the bullpen in early.

Keep in mind that we would have Fogg and Belisle in this rotation as well, which means the bullpen would be getting used by the 5th inning every night.

And like some have pointed out, just because Hamilton will finish with 120 rbi's, assuming he stays healthy, doesn't mean the Reds will fall short of replacing those 120 rbis. Keep in mind that Patterson, Freel, Hairston, and eventually Bruce will all spend time in center. There numbers combined will likely reach at least 80 RBIs by years end.

So, the question is, would you trade Edinson Volquez for 40 RBIs??

I would hope to think not!

at 12:36 PM

Unknown said...

I don't think anyone has mentioned this: Danny Herrera, the other pitcher we got in the trade, seems to have just recently been promoted to AAA. He was 3-0 with a 2.55 ERA at Chattanooga. Not sure how he gets it done at 5-8 145, but he seems to have had success at every level. If Hamilton for Volquez is about equal, Herrera might swing this trade in favor of the Reds.

at 12:36 PM

Unknown said...

I mean, I would hope to think so!

at 12:39 PM

Zippy said...

I have to agree the "pitching beats hitting" thing just doesn't seem to pan out in the real world. Sure, pitching is important, but plenty of teams get into the playoffs and World Series without great pitching.

Look at the starting pitchers from last year's NLCS. The Rockies went with Francis, Jimenez (who?) Fogg(!) and Morales (who?). The Diamondbacks countered with Webb, Davis, Hernandez, and Owings. Neither team had more than one really good starter, and the Rockies managed to sweep the series with those four starters. Meanwhile, the Padres had the Cy Young winner and the best ERA in the National League, and they finished third in their division.

at 12:52 PM

REddlegg in Colorado said...

I would have done the deal,but as others said would have traded less expensive chips to get what was needed.

Hamilton was a delight to have but the reds didn't fare much better with him here lasts season.So to say that Hammy is the difference maker is a long shot.

Reds need pitching,they have a hard time over the years in developing pitching,they have produced plenty, solid to above average OF's.

OF's are easier to replace in this day & age.Pitching is like looking for gold,you either get fools good(Ex. Milton,Stanton) or real gold(Volquez).

What I heard on FSN from wally & beav was that WK never wanted to do the deal,so who really pulled the trigger on this one is still a mystery to me.

at 1:09 PM

CoachD178 said...

First of all I would have made the deal. Guys with Volquez upside are few and far between. The Reds havent won with hitting the last five years. There is enough offense on this team and coming up in the system to win (Bruce, Rosales, Frazier, Waring, Valaika, Francisco, Turner, Stubbs). This team has sorely lacked top flight pitching and with Harang, Cueto, and Volquez they have the makings of a potentially dominant rotation. If guys like Homer Bailey, Daryl Thompson, Sam Lecure, Matt Maloney, Jordan Smith, Travis Wood, Josh Roenicke, and Sean Watson develop the pitching could match the young hitting. That's a big if. Moral of the story, start with the rotation and build out.

I can't believe how many people are talking about Hamilton's faith, and his constant talking about it, as a negative. Josh Hamilton's immense ability is why he was given so many chances. It couldn't keep him off drugs. It was his faith and family that saved him from the drugs and the likely death he was pursuing. Does it surpise anyoen that he would want to share that faith and be proud of that faith?

The fact so many Reds were apparently upset with the special treatment Hamilton was getting speaks volumes about the character of the Reds players, and not of Josh Hamilton. We constantly wonder why the Reds underachieve so often. Perhaps it is a lack of character on the roster as a whole. It's sad to me.

at 1:25 PM

Another losing season said...

So far all I have ever read is Hamilton had issues in the clubhouse. Yet, not once, has anyone substantiated their statement including John Fay. Why is that? Tell us what you observed. What were the issues?

at 1:52 PM

JackBlueAsh said...

another losing season...good point I dont think they want to touch possible slander and defamation issues with a ten foot poll

jealousy and 101 other petty issues are commonplace even in major league locker rooms..

at 1:54 PM

John Fay said...

It started with the personal coach thing. He wasn't popular in the clubhouse for whatever reason. I'll stand by that. I don't think it affected his play or anyone's play.

Let's move on to another topic.

at 1:58 PM

Bob Loblaw said...

I don't think John has to substantiate his claims. He's actually been in the clubhouse. I doubt if he's making all this stuff up. And for the person who wonders how Herrera gets it done-From what I've read/heard about him, he only throws mid 80's but he has a nasty screwball type pitch that is basically unhittable by righties and lefties. I'm anxious to see if it's effective at the major league level

at 2:00 PM

JackBlueAsh said...

Hamilton produced last year..show me many players that have on this team over the course of the past 7 years

Lockeroom popularity?..that is grocerty store journalism and gossip John. And I dont think the players want you airing the "dirty laundry"

at 2:06 PM

John Fay said...

I've allowed your rebuttal.

We're done with the topic. I've made my point. Others have made theirs.

at 2:06 PM

Anonymous said...

Branden, but, he only hits 1/9th of the time. If Hamilton could have every AB, then you'd have your point.

at 2:07 PM

schlemdog said...

Yes! Hell, yes!

And, I hope both players continue at their current level for years.

at 2:20 PM

Another losing season said...

I'm very disapointed in the way you have handled this John Fay. Now you want to censor the subject and move on to other things. I'm not quite done yet. Why the censorship?

at 2:24 PM

Another losing season said...

BTW, Joe Morgan was a great ball player and a pleasure to listen to in the booth. It is sad to see his broadcasting skills diminish so quickly.

at 2:38 PM

IndyCat said...

I would still make this deal. Eventually, Dunn and Griffey will hit better than they are now.

We needed the starting pitching. We could still use two more: one to replace Fogg/Beslisle, the other to replace Arroyo, who has always been at best a 5th starter in No.2 clothing.

If Homer can keep pitching the way he has recently, Thompson is probably the fifth guy. He should be ready along about the time Arroyo's $20 million gift from Krivsky wears off.

Make the deal!

at 2:41 PM

IndyCat said...

Oh, and for those who would "make the deal with less expensive chips," go back and read what was said about the deal when it was made. No Hamilton = No deal. Wayne Krivsky was very clear about that.

at 2:46 PM

oldtimer said...

Balance. balance, balance....that's the key in developing a winning arsenal. (And being taken seriously on a blog. LOL) You can be great in one area,i.e., defense, hitting, or pitching and average in the others and have a good shot at a great season. But be below average and you're shot. The Reds are burdened on offense by not one but two sluggers with below average speed. Poor Griff, he still has unbelievable hand-eye, his legs have seen the knife too many times. Which has reduced him to a slugger/hitter, like Dunn. Except at 39 he still makes a lot more contact than poor overpaid Dunn.

A point I rarely see made is an obvious one to me, that baseball history is littered with teams that built their offense around boom-or-bust guys, like Frank Howard and Dave Kingman and Adam Dunn, guys who rarely hit for any king of average and led their teams to many losing seasons. Their home rums were all ooh and ahh as mammoth as the number of losses their teams suffered. These guys are a luxury, never a cornerstone to build around, I like Adam Dunn and his laid back personality, but his hitting skills are all wrong to build around. It's one of the things that's gotten so many guys fired here in Reds land. Every year the offense lacks set up guys and clutch hitting, other than when Griffey or Dunn are hot for a week or so, and this team comsistently leaves with men left on base. Every freakin year. HELLO!!!??

I will not weep when he is traded. Nor will I when Creepy Guy and the Wallopping Wailer hit the archives of all time bad commercials. Enough!!!

at 2:52 PM

24/7 said...

Hamilton played how many games since he was drafted in 1999? 116. Subtract two years to account for minor league development and that's seven years. 116 games in seven years. John, is there a way to block IP's and save us from some of the ignorance? I like your blog and I don't have a problem with people having an opinion, but when it's a couple guys (I hope) throwing out a few off-base comments put on ultra-repeeat every five minutes day after day, it's hard to deal with, and I'm not even you, John Fay, founder and moderator.

at 3:07 PM

JackBlueAsh said...

24/7 any blog will have people disagreeing..all the time..If you dont like blogging you have an easy option..leave

at 3:09 PM

John Fay said...

Another Losing Season (which happens to one of Jack in Blue Ash's favorite lines): It's not censorship. It's my blog and I moderate it. I can reject any comment I want.

You can post your opinion elsewhere. You drive down to Fourtain Square and shout it out.

Nothing further was going to be gained by continuing. It's over. Move on.

at 3:12 PM

Ashland ATeam said...

A couple things no one has mentioned:

- With the price of pitching, a stud pitcher is inherently more valuable than a stud hitter. When Carlos Silva is signing $48 million deals, you have to acquire pitching via other means than Free Agency. That's not to say that hitting is exactly cheap, but with more good hitting than good pitching, pitching is at a premium.

- There are three principle parties here: Voltron, Hamilton AND Bruce. If all three live up to their potential (Voltron becomes a right handed Santana, Hamilton is a perennial MVP in Texas, and Bruce is the second coming of Ken Griffey Jr.), it's slam dunk for the Reds (whether or not they should have been hamstrung by Grif and Dunn isn't the issue - the facts are the facts, and we play based on fact, not potential). We replace Hamilton with Bruce, gain a #1 starter, and there you have it.

Yes, you have to make the deal... but it'll be three years, at least, until we know if it was good or not.

at 3:23 PM

JackBlueAsh said...

john losing aint me ..calm down

at 3:38 PM

Cheviot Sports Authority said...

Oldtimer is exactly right about Dunn. This is not a guy you build a team around. If you have plenty of money and can count on other players to drive in runs yon might want to keep him as a luxury, hitting way down in the order.

Dunn is a LH KIngman for sure but I wouldn't put Frank Howard in that class. That guy could hit and hit for a very respectable average until the very end of his career. He's strike out 100 times a year, but thats nothing compared to Dunn. I watched him play at Crosley Field. No body ever hit the ball any harder than Frank Howard.
ST CSA

at 3:41 PM

Cheviot Sports Authority said...

Oldimer, I almost forgot. I will never buy another JTM product for as long as those commercials are assaulting my ears on radio or TV.
ST CSA

at 4:49 PM

Another losing season said...

jackblueash...sorry dude. I don't know why he would think I am you. I don't think I have ever seen you use the term - another losing season, which by the way just happens to fit this club and is the sole reason I picked it as a screen name.

at 7:30 PM

reaganspad said...

Texas would NOT make this trade today. They need pitching. To get Volquez from the Reds today, it would take a lot more than Hamilton.

Hamilton is continuing where he was last year, but #1, #2 starters do not grow on trees, like outfielder seem to

at 7:43 PM

ajshoe said...

good trade but could have been better if Griffey and/or Dunn were gone instead of Hamilton.

Griffey and Dunn are cancer on this team - both are extremely selfish baseball players.

Hopefully they will be gone next year and we can get to the playoffs. John

at 7:47 PM

keepinitreal said...

I couldn't help but notice how Richie Rich apparently can't or won't read an entire statement, and how he conveniently failed to mention that the Reds are 11-15, due in large part, to their inability to score enough runs. Brilliant, absolutely brilliant!

at 10:57 PM

Unknown said...

Lots of revisionist history here regarding Hamilton. The guy had every chance in the world to play nearly everyday last year and yet he didnt even manage to get 300 AB's, 50 RBI's or 20 HR's. This is productive? You cant be serious. Volquez has already done more in a month to impress me than Hamilton did in an entire season.

The way The Reds handled Hamilton was textbook...they bought low and sold high. Looks like they have a potential top two starter for many years to come to show for it.

This really isnt debatable...one of the best moves in years by The Reds.

at 11:05 PM

robby said...

Late to the discussion, but at the time of the trade I thought it was a huge mistake by the Reds. Still think it was a mistake, because I think Hamilton has the skills to be one of the best everyday players in the game. Watching Patterson in center and realizing that next year it will likely be Jay Bruce, an unproven commodity, and two no-names in the outfield also leads me to believe it was a mistake. While Volquez has been very effective to date, I'm not convinced he is the real deal based on his previous major league experience and his pitch count has been high. I think he averaged just over 5 innings a start in his first 3 starts.

If Hamilton ends up being a star and Voquez ends up being a top of the rotation pitcher I still do not make the trade.

I find the comments about Hamilton not being the best guy in the clubhouse to be interesting, but not surprising given he didn't have to put his time in in the minors like most players. Jealousy is to be expected. Winning would have taken care of those issues. I can't imagine Phillips is that popular in the clubhouse but no one seems too concerned about him.

at 7:31 AM

JackBlueAsh said...

..it is way too premature to give the TRADE A GRADE.. When Volquez faces a team two or three times, then we can make a decision

Hamilton got injured, he did not purposefully attempt to blow any chance..Heck griffey has been hurt every year..there have been years when Griffey has only played 50 or 60 games

You look at the problems we have in centerfield on a daily basis , I am not so sure trading Hamilton was wise

at 2:30 PM

Rob Dicken said...

You look at the problems we have in centerfield on a daily basis , I am not so sure trading Hamilton was wise

He played 90 games last year and got injured for a whole month by spraining his wrist On Deck. How many players do that? Seriously answer that question, then get back with me.

Hamilton is injury prone, and the dynamics of trading consist of giving up quality in one area to get quality in another. Wayne-O did just that. If Volquez can't be judged on being 4-0 this year, then Hamilton shouldn't be judged on having 27 RBIs thus far this year either. Take it for what it's worth.

Previous Posts

Sunday, April 27, 2008

Would you make the deal?

123 Comments: