Poll: Hamilton Volquez trade
What do you think? It is a tough trade to weigh out with the upside and downsides of both players. I feel like if everything Wayner has said in his reports is true than its a pretty even deal, unless Hamilton gets hurt then it is our favor. There is a chance Edinson stays wild and Hamilton performs the way many Reds fans though he would next season.
0 recs |
18
comments
Comments
It's a little early...
We'll have a better indication in a year or so, but whether it turns out or not, I think this is a reasonable deal. There's risk on both sides. Sure, maybe Hobbs will be an all-star next year. But maybe he'll be on the DL, in rehab, or struggling to adjust to a league that has figured him out.
And maybe next year, Volquez will be a proven starter, and much more expensive.
There's a saying about Wall St.: "Bulls make money, bears make money, but hogs get slaughtered." It means "don't get greedy." The Reds are selling high. I'm not going to worry about whether they could sell higher if they waited. They have a surplus of outfielders and a shortage of pitching. And Texas needs a big bat a lot more than the Reds do. This deal fills a need on both sides.
by BubbaFan on Dec 22, 2007 7:24 AM EST 0 recs
something that has yet to be clarified
by Charlie Scrabbles on Dec 22, 2007 8:02 AM EST 0 recs
status
by Red Menace on
Dec 22, 2007 10:33 AM EST
up
0 recs
that's what i thiought. thanks for clearing it up
by Charlie Scrabbles on
Dec 22, 2007 12:55 PM EST
up
0 recs
Same situation as Hamilton I believe.
by Geki on
Dec 22, 2007 3:30 PM EST
up
0 recs
lets talk about it in 3 years
by justin0070000 on Dec 22, 2007 5:26 PM EST 0 recs
not good enough for a diary but
by shortstopv2 on Dec 22, 2007 8:44 PM EST 0 recs
Because...
- Griffey and Dunn have say in where they are traded to. I don't think either of them were going to go to Texas. Also, Hopper and Freel wouldn't have gotten us near as much in return.
- I bet they tried to deal Hamilton to Baltimore and other places and nobody was willing to take him ... injury/addict risk. There's a lot to be said about the addiction risk, as well. Many coke addicts do relapse -- this definitely made him expendable.
- Volquez may be the missing piece or the replacement piece in a potential deal for Bedard. It seems the O's are wanting young talent more than the Reds right now. The Reds already have good young SP prospects as you pointed out, and it seems that the Reds are playing more for 2008 than 2009 or later.
by artvandelay on
Dec 22, 2007 9:39 PM EST
up
0 recs
if it was just a piece of the bedard puzzle
by shortstopv2 on
Dec 22, 2007 10:03 PM EST
up
0 recs
What do I think?
I think Bedard would be a great fit for this team over the next two seasons and I hope that one of the Reds' young green righties can be swapped for the more proven lefty. Yes, I said proven. No, he hasn't won any Cy Young Awards and in fact he's never won more than twelve or fifteen games and never helped his team finish any higher than fourth in their division but the dude did strike out more fuckers (221) last year than our man Harang ever has and he did it in six fewer starts than what Harang has averaged since '05.
I think Bedard will want to test free agency when his contract is up (and by "test free agency" I mean go pitch in the Yankees' new stadium and get paid with loads of gold bricks dumped out of platinum wheelbarrows) so I don't think I wanna buy his jersey or anything.
And I think that even with Bedard on the staff the Reds have only a 68-84% chance of winning the weak-ass Central once or twice over the next two seasons but I also think that Bedard could be flipped for some pretty tasty prospects if and when the time is right.
Ultimately, I think the trade was a trade. We got a nearly-Major League-ready pitcher who can't throw a curve ball and the Rangers got a nearly-top-third-of-the-lineup-ready slugger who can't hit lefties.
And... I think that Garth Marenghi's Darkplace is the funniest thing I've seen on television since February 10, 2006 and I can't wait to see another episode next Friday night (Emerald and Texas Bowls be damned!). Unless Barnes & Noble has that shit on DVD when I finish my Christmas shopping Monday night.
by Fat Vegas Alan on
Dec 22, 2007 11:30 PM EST
up
0 recs
lowest value?
by Slyde on
Dec 22, 2007 9:57 PM EST
up
0 recs
Nah
by BubbaFan on
Dec 22, 2007 10:18 PM EST
up
0 recs
ok not lowest value
by shortstopv2 on
Dec 22, 2007 10:43 PM EST
up
0 recs
unless
by boobs on
Dec 22, 2007 11:07 PM EST
up
0 recs
re
And I'll just add that your characterization of Dunn is... somewhat inflammatory.
by Red Menace on
Dec 23, 2007 1:28 AM EST
up
0 recs
when have ss's..
by andromache on
Dec 23, 2007 8:18 AM EST
up
0 recs
When they are...
- Inane;
- Unintelligible;
- Ungrammatical;
- Rife with malapropisms;
- Typographically challenged;
- Illogical; or
- All of the above.
by Paul Householder on
Dec 24, 2007 10:36 PM EST
up
0 recs
Allow me...
I think it's important to remember that we have to evaluate trades ex ante (i.e. from before) on the basis of, well, the players' expected value to the team and the risk involved in those players. It's not so helpful to evaluate things ex post, since then we have all this information about how the players actually performed that we didn't have when we made the trade. Sure, we can argue about whether, knowing what we know now, that was a good move to make, but how useful is that?
These players are all pretty risky, so it's particularly hard to evaluate their expected value. I see Hamilton as a $1000 investment that maybe has a 10% chance of paying a hundred thousand dollars, a 25% chance of paying $10,000, a 15% chance of paying $2,000, and a 50% chance of being a total loss. Maybe my numbers are different from what you'd estimate, but going with those, his expected value is $12,800. Would you trade a player with a possible $100,000 upside straight up for a player worth $12,800, guaranteed? Would you trade him for one worth $10,000 guaranteed (i.e. you're risk averse), or would you value that possible upside even more and insist on $20,000 for him?
It's even harder to estimate these things when all players involved are pretty risky. And then of course the two teams could have very different values on the players (which seems the very best type of trade). In particular, the value of Hamilton to the Reds is his value over his replacement. If that's Bruce, we could be looking at no drop in output at all. If it's Freel/Hopper, it could be different, but still...
If we gave up a potential All Star but replace him with an All Star, we've given up very little. To me, the payoff of the trade rests mostly on what our outfield will be. If it's Dunn/Hopper/Jr., with a high risk of Jr. going down and being replaced by Freel, this trade isn't nearly as good as if we plan on Dunn/Bruce/Jr. with Hopper and Freel as possible replacements.
by Gray on Dec 23, 2007 5:03 PM EST 0 recs













