Winter revisited: Do you make the trade?

Erik W. · 06-21-2008, 09:34 AM

Although it didn't make too much noise at the time, the swap involving Josh Hamilton and Edison Volquez now looks very big indeed.

To this point:

Volquez (age 24) -

10-2, 1.71 ERA, 1.17 WHIP, 10.42 K/9, 2.44 K/BB.

Hamilton (age 27) -

.315/.361/.586 (.947), 19 HR, 74 RBI

And what about the intangibles? Hamilton has a history of injuries and is one backwards step from a lifetime suspension.

So, pretend you're the Rangers, it's December 21, and you're able to see far enough into the future to see today. Do you still pull the trigger?

Left-handed Badger · 06-21-2008, 04:55 PM

Well, looking at the 2 teams needs. I have to say the Reds got the better deal. No, knock on Hamilton. But, the Rangers were in as much dire need of pitching as the Reds.

But, then who is to say either of them would be having this type season if not for the trade.

kq76 · 06-21-2008, 05:31 PM

I'd still make the trade. Edinson has never been that good in the majors while Josh has. I'm still not convinced that Edinson will keep this up, but I think Josh will. Josh appears to have has less service time so he should be cheap for longer too. Yeah, he's got baggage, but maybe Edinson did as well that we don't know about. I don't like making batter-pitcher trades because it's so hard to determine which is really better, but this trade seems to have worked out great for both so kudos to them for pulling it off.

akw4572 · 06-21-2008, 05:40 PM

I'm not sure Volquez would have been near as good as a Ranger. The trade has worked out well for both teams. Look at the Rangers and their record, as compared to how they finished last year. Hard to argue that fact, and Hamilton has been a big part of it.

gmo · 06-21-2008, 07:07 PM

As a Texas fan my inclination is think the team should favor a good pitcher over a good hitter because the former have been less common than the latter. But I agree with the other comments that it would be hard to give up what they have now.

kq76 · 06-21-2008, 10:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gmo

As a Texas fan my inclination is think the team should favor a good pitcher over a good hitter because the former have been less common than the latter. But I agree with the other comments that it would be hard to give up what they have now.

I always kind of felt that there just must be something wrong with your stadium or elevation or climate or something which kept the Rangers from producing more good pitchers. Any thoughts on that? Maybe they're just not lucky with pitchers, but they've got such a bad rep for it that it makes me think it might be more than that, something that mngt can't really help.

gmo · 06-21-2008, 11:50 PM

The Ballpark in Arlington has a reputation as a hitter's park, which I guess the baseball-reference page supports at least overall. I think I have heard that the grass is cut really short these days, so pitchers are just done few favors. The stadium rep may hurt with free agents (not Chan Ho Park, though maybe at least helped save from Zito). Old Arlington Stadium was more neutral, but then the teams were just not very good in general back then.

Also the late summer heat was long cited as a problem as the Rangers had instances of being in the race into August but then fading.

Really I am not sure what it is. Seems to me the system has produced unusually few quality pitchers. Maybe some combination of bad luck and choices.

I cannot complain though too much. The first Rangers game I ever saw in person was the first year in Ballpark - Kenny Rogers' perfect game, the first ever for an AL LHP! That was a team draftee hitting it big. Texas may never win the Series, but I will have that forever as an all-time great life moment.

kq76 · 06-22-2008, 12:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gmo

The Ballpark in Arlington has a reputation as a hitter's park, which I guess the baseball-reference page supports at least overall. I think I have heard that the grass is cut really short these days, so pitchers are just done few favors. The stadium rep may hurt with free agents (not Chan Ho Park, though maybe at least helped save from Zito). Old Arlington Stadium was more neutral, but then the teams were just not very good in general back then.

Also the late summer heat was long cited as a problem as the Rangers had instances of being in the race into August but then fading.

Really I am not sure what it is. Seems to me the system has produced unusually few quality pitchers. Maybe some combination of bad luck and choices.

I cannot complain though too much. The first Rangers game I ever saw in person was the first year in Ballpark - Kenny Rogers' perfect game, the first ever for an AL LHP! That was a team draftee hitting it big. Texas may never win the Series, but I will have that forever as an all-time great life moment.

Ahh, you're probably right. You have some bad teams and/or some bad luck, you get a bad rep, and then what good pitching FA wants to come there which only makes the trend even harder to reverse.

Cool story!

I had the opposite experience with my first ever hockey game, a 0-0 tie between my two home town teams the Sens and Canucks. No wonder I don't like hockey that much.

rudel.dietrich · 06-22-2008, 12:21 AM

Hitters are so much easier to predict and safer than pitchers
Volquez could have arm trouble tomorrow and have his career more or less be over in an instant

For that reason alone I think Texas made the better deal

KurtBevacqua · 06-23-2008, 08:21 AM

Great trade for both teams and really not fair to knock the Rangers for making it.

Erik W. · 06-23-2008, 08:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KurtBevacqua

Great trade for both teams and really not fair to knock the Rangers for making it.

That was never my intent. It was an honest question because even after the discussion I'm not sure what I'd personally do.

I lean towards making the trade. If Volquez is still putting up similar numbers this time next year, then it would go the other way.

Slackker · 06-23-2008, 09:28 AM

Good deal for both teams, but Volquez has looked amazing this year. I'd rather take a risk on a young pitcher than play a safer bet on a hitter. Add to that.. I think the Rangers offense could withstand the loss of Hamilton and still put up very good numbers.

Overall still a nice deal for both teams - the Reds filling the gap left by Hamilton quickly. Jay Bruce is looking pretty good thus far.

View Poll Results: Ranger's GM for a day, do you still make the trade?
Yes	13	50.00%
No	13	50.00%
Voters: 26. You may not vote on this poll

06-21-2008, 09:34 AM	#1
Erik W. Global Moderator Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Rivière-du-Loup, Qc Posts: 4,615	Winter revisited: Do you make the trade? Although it didn't make too much noise at the time, the swap involving Josh Hamilton and Edison Volquez now looks very big indeed. To this point: Volquez (age 24) - 10-2, 1.71 ERA, 1.17 WHIP, 10.42 K/9, 2.44 K/BB. Hamilton (age 27) - .315/.361/.586 (.947), 19 HR, 74 RBI And what about the intangibles? Hamilton has a history of injuries and is one backwards step from a lifetime suspension. So, pretend you're the Rangers, it's December 21, and you're able to see far enough into the future to see today. Do you still pull the trigger? __________________ Free agent baseball fan. Let's go (insert team name here)!

06-21-2008, 04:55 PM	#2
Left-handed Badger Hall Of Famer Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: at the altar of the baseball god praying for middle infield that can catch the ball Posts: 2,036	Well, looking at the 2 teams needs. I have to say the Reds got the better deal. No, knock on Hamilton. But, the Rangers were in as much dire need of pitching as the Reds. But, then who is to say either of them would be having this type season if not for the trade. __________________ -Left-handed groundball specialist -Strikeouts are for wimps

06-21-2008, 05:31 PM	#3
kq76 Global Moderator Join Date: Nov 2002 Posts: 11,992	I'd still make the trade. Edinson has never been that good in the majors while Josh has. I'm still not convinced that Edinson will keep this up, but I think Josh will. Josh appears to have has less service time so he should be cheap for longer too. Yeah, he's got baggage, but maybe Edinson did as well that we don't know about. I don't like making batter-pitcher trades because it's so hard to determine which is really better, but this trade seems to have worked out great for both so kudos to them for pulling it off. __________________ My OOTP Wishlist \| My FAQ List OOTP Wiki \| Your Recommended Team Nicknames, By City (A Crowdsourced Project) For Beta/Devs: Full screen (1920x1080)

06-23-2008, 08:21 AM	#10
KurtBevacqua Hall Of Famer Join Date: May 2003 Posts: 2,968	Great trade for both teams and really not fair to knock the Rangers for making it. __________________ "The type and formula of most schemes of philanthropy or humanitarianism is this: A and B put their heads together to decide what C shall be made to do for D. The radical vice of all these schemes, from a sociological point of view, is that C is not allowed a voice in the matter, and his position, character, and interests, as well as the ultimate effects on society through C's interests, are entirely overlooked. I call C the Forgotten Man" - William Graham Sumner

06-21-2008, 05:40 PM	#4
akw4572 Hall Of Famer Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Kentucky Posts: 2,601	I'm not sure Volquez would have been near as good as a Ranger. The trade has worked out well for both teams. Look at the Rangers and their record, as compared to how they finished last year. Hard to argue that fact, and Hamilton has been a big part of it.

06-21-2008, 07:07 PM	#5
gmo Hall Of Famer Join Date: May 2002 Location: Longmont, CO Posts: 3,405	As a Texas fan my inclination is think the team should favor a good pitcher over a good hitter because the former have been less common than the latter. But I agree with the other comments that it would be hard to give up what they have now.

06-21-2008, 11:50 PM	#7
gmo Hall Of Famer Join Date: May 2002 Location: Longmont, CO Posts: 3,405	The Ballpark in Arlington has a reputation as a hitter's park, which I guess the baseball-reference page supports at least overall. I think I have heard that the grass is cut really short these days, so pitchers are just done few favors. The stadium rep may hurt with free agents (not Chan Ho Park, though maybe at least helped save from Zito). Old Arlington Stadium was more neutral, but then the teams were just not very good in general back then. Also the late summer heat was long cited as a problem as the Rangers had instances of being in the race into August but then fading. Really I am not sure what it is. Seems to me the system has produced unusually few quality pitchers. Maybe some combination of bad luck and choices. I cannot complain though too much. The first Rangers game I ever saw in person was the first year in Ballpark - Kenny Rogers' perfect game, the first ever for an AL LHP! That was a team draftee hitting it big. Texas may never win the Series, but I will have that forever as an all-time great life moment.

06-22-2008, 12:21 AM	#9
rudel.dietrich Hall Of Famer Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Zürich, Switzerland Posts: 8,608	Hitters are so much easier to predict and safer than pitchers Volquez could have arm trouble tomorrow and have his career more or less be over in an instant For that reason alone I think Texas made the better deal

06-23-2008, 09:28 AM	#12
Slackker All Star Reserve Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Connecticut Posts: 777	Good deal for both teams, but Volquez has looked amazing this year. I'd rather take a risk on a young pitcher than play a safer bet on a hitter. Add to that.. I think the Rangers offense could withstand the loss of Hamilton and still put up very good numbers. Overall still a nice deal for both teams - the Reds filling the gap left by Hamilton quickly. Jay Bruce is looking pretty good thus far.