|
|
Post by Lark11 on Apr 2, 2008 0:27:12 GMT -5
...crushed a J.J. Putz pitch for a two run homer to give the Rangers a 5-4 victory. Man, Putz is tough, but Hamilton is just a complete and total stud. It'll be very interesting to see if he can stay healthy this year and in the future. If he can, the Reds will be regretting that deal for a long time to come. Oh, what might have been, Reds fans.  |
|
|
|
Post by awnawboi21 on Apr 2, 2008 12:06:05 GMT -5
Hamilton is a great player when he's healthy.
But VolKs has some crazy sick stuff. He's looked damn good this spring. If he can maintain his control in the season....look out.
|
|
|
|
Post by GMBurchfield on Apr 2, 2008 13:40:04 GMT -5
If Hamilton is healthy he is going to have a monster year. My question is if the numbers break out something like this
Hamilton -> 270-290avg 25-35hrs 90-115rbis 150gms
Volquez -> 13-16 wins 5-7 losses 3.60 - 4.10 era 190k's
Do we consider the trade bad even though Volquez did very well also or do we consider it great since it gave us what we needed most and what is hardest to find or do we say it was a solid move?
I know the chances of both ending up like that arnt great with those exact numbers but I tried to space it out with best case scenario.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Duke on Apr 2, 2008 13:50:50 GMT -5
If Josh Hamilton plays 150 games, i'll crap my pants i'd be so suprised. Last year was the most he has ever played as a pro (and that only included 76 big league starts). The injures will come, they always do.
|
|
|
|
Post by bkleo504 on Apr 2, 2008 14:54:20 GMT -5
Even if Hamilton puts up those stats, we REALLY needed the pitching so I'd call the deal good for both sides.
|
|
|
|
Post by awnawboi21 on Apr 2, 2008 15:55:35 GMT -5
If Hamilton is healthy he is going to have a monster year. My question is if the numbers break out something like this Hamilton -> 270-290avg 25-35hrs 90-115rbis 150gms Volquez -> 13-16 wins 5-7 losses 3.60 - 4.10 era 190k's Do we consider the trade bad even though Volquez did very well also or do we consider it great since it gave us what we needed most and what is hardest to find or do we say it was a solid move? I know the chances of both ending up like that arnt great with those exact numbers but I tried to space it out with best case scenario. If those are the numbers, both sides win. We both got what we needed from the deal. |
|
|
|
Post by doublej86 on Apr 2, 2008 16:26:31 GMT -5
Hey good for Hamilton....
He doesn't play for the Reds anymore. I'm moving on.
|
|
jake2bake4
Brett Tomko
"I don't want to play golf. When I hit a ball, I want someone else to go chase it." ~Rogers Hornsby
Posts: 105
|
Post by jake2bake4 on Apr 2, 2008 16:29:59 GMT -5
Of all the fans in the world, we should know that pitching is more important than hitting. I'll take Volquez's numbers there than Hamilton's because we can find other players to do what he does. It is damn difficult to find pitching, especially the young pitching we have now.
Am I mad we had to give up Hamilton? Of course, you'd be crazy not to. But if Volquez is going to become the pitcher we know he can be, than I will be happy with the trade.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mousepad.Marauder on Apr 3, 2008 14:48:16 GMT -5
Paul O'Neill trade part II ?
|
|
|
|
Post by The Duke on Apr 3, 2008 15:34:06 GMT -5
I'll be there to say I told you so when Hamilton goes down for a month in July, and then misses the last month of the season.
Give Volquez a chance before you bash the trade.
|
|
|
|
Post by columbusbengal on Apr 4, 2008 21:45:44 GMT -5
Of all the fans in the world, we should know that pitching is more important than hitting. Am I mad we had to give up Hamilton? Of course, you'd be crazy not to. But if Volquez is going to become the pitcher we know he can be, than I will be happy with the trade. I agree with this, but the Reds took the bigger risk. We already know that Hamilton is legitimate to put up those numbers if healthy. We have no idea if Volquez can get major league hitters out. Plus, pitchers have problems staying healthy by definition. IF the numbers cited above are the ones actually produced, I'll agree that we got as good or better return on the trade. |
|
|
|
Post by Lark11 on Apr 5, 2008 3:02:09 GMT -5
Of all the fans in the world, we should know that pitching is more important than hitting. Am I mad we had to give up Hamilton? Of course, you'd be crazy not to. But if Volquez is going to become the pitcher we know he can be, than I will be happy with the trade. I agree with this, but the Reds took the bigger risk. We already know that Hamilton is legitimate to put up those numbers if healthy. We have no idea if Volquez can get major league hitters out. Plus, pitchers have problems staying healthy by definition. IF the numbers cited above are the ones actually produced, I'll agree that we got as good or better return on the trade. I agree with you, CB. Hamilton has the health risk, but Volquez has both performance and health risk. |
|
|
|
Post by powerofcincy on Apr 5, 2008 22:40:30 GMT -5
Our offense definitely didn't need as much help as our pitching staff. Although our offensive production and erraticity does concern me this year.
|
|
|
|
Post by border1 on Apr 6, 2008 13:19:51 GMT -5
uh, I had to sign up just to say that we should NOT be comparing Hamilton with Paul freakin' O'Neal
|
|
|
|
Post by Lark11 on Apr 6, 2008 13:20:46 GMT -5
uh, I had to sign up just to say that we should NOT be comparing Hamilton with Paul freakin' O'Neal Is that because you think it's unfair to Hamilton? Or, unfair to O'Neill? I'm sure different people would argue it different ways.  |
|
