Re: who is leading the major's in RBI's...oh yea,Josh Hamilton!

On Fri, 09 May 2008 10:31:32 -0400, Kevin McClave
<kmcclave@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:

>On Fri, 09 May 2008 11:52:20 GMT, tom@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 (JustTom) wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 03 May 2008 17:45:25 -0400, Kevin McClave <kmcclaveSPAM
>>DIES@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>>Assuming for the sake of argument that Hamilton and Volquez are equally
>>>talented, of course you would want the pitcher. Pitching is much harder
>>>to find.
>>
>>I don't see this as a slam dunk.     Elite outfielders are just as
>>hard to find, and usually have much longer careers.    
>>
>>If it were such an easy decision, then why didn't we trade Bruce for
>>Bedard or Haren?
>
>Because Bruce isn't as risky (in non-developmental ways) as Hamilton and
>because Volquez is (or perhaps was) still a prospect (read "cheaper" to
>get).

But Haren or Bedard > Bruce if pitching is harder to find than OFers.


And it wasn't "cheaper".   Bruce is still just a prospect who hasn't
taken one swing at the MLB level.   Hamilton was already our best
offensive talent and our best OF defender at the MLB level.     That's
a pretty expensive price to pay for a prospect.

>
>Long time? That's the main reason they dealt him as far as I'm
>concerned. He couldn't be counted on (I realize nobody can in the most
>basic sense) to the same degree that a guy with less baggage and less
>rampant abuse of his body is concerned. He is also 27 years old, not 22.
>

27 means that he is under arbitration for his prime years.   

As for the drug abuse, I was as shocked as anyone when Krivsky pulled
him out of the hat last year, and thought we had hit bottom in the art
of dumpster diving, but instead he turned out to be the most talented
player on the roster.  

I've heard the speculation about abuse of his body, but c'mon, Kev, I
think you are as old as I am so you remember those coke dusted mlb
days of the 80's.  Hell, Dave Parker was a red.   And if my anecdotes
are right, ISTR Tim Raines saying he slid head first on steals so he
wouldn't break the vial of crack he had in his back pocket.   He was
so much of a  friggin' addict that he used before, DURING, and after
games in the 80's.   That's a pretty big problem, yet he played until
he was 42.   

More to the point with Hamilton.   The same risks existed this year
and beyond as they did when they picked him up, and the costs
(minimum) were exactly the same.  He exceeded everyone's expectations
last year beyond a wildest dream.  If you believe that was just a
career year mirage, then by all means, sell high.   I don't think it
was a fluke, though. 

>
>I'm pretty amazed at how some Reds fans are still not happy about this
>trade. Of course, it will be ultimately judged long term, but how can a
>fan of a team that has struggled for so long to find a legitimate
>starting rotation (I'm going to guess the flash in the pan 1999 staff is
>probably the last that we could say that about...and it had no real ace,
>bless Pete Harnisch's soul) can be upset about this one.

I didn't say I was upset.   I was responding to your remark about it
being so obvious to  choose Volquez over Hamilton.  

Volquez has his own warts.  Until this year, he has had consistent
control issues throughout his young career.   So, each had question
marks, but I still would've taken my chances with Hobbs relapsing or
getting hit by a bus over EV losing the plate again or blowing his arm
out before we get good enough to take advantage of him.  

I'd rather have kept Hamilton and found some other way to obtain
pitching.  Volquez isn't the only young pitcher around, and if we
couldn't swing a deal for him using other bait, try somewhere else on
a different one  who wouldn't have cost us so dearly in offensive
production.

Especially given the outlook for next year's team, I think this trade
was very expensive for us.  We went from a so called surplus of OFers
to the very real possibility of having none for next year.  Jr's gone.
Dunn's status is very questionable.  Bruce has never had a MLB at bat.
I think that leaves us with Freel and Hopper, at best a 4th and 5th
OFer.  So, it's Bruce or bust in 2009,  and the possibility of a
Patterson return trip is disgustingly possible.