Rangers Trade for Josh Hamilton

[Melmart1]

According to Evan Grant and Jamey Newberg of The Newberg Report:

Texas has traded righthander Edinson Volquez and minor league lefthander
Danny Ray Herrera to Cincinnati for center fielder Josh Hamilton, according
to Evan Grant of the Dallas Morning News.

Wow.

More in the next Newberg Report.

WHOA!!

Right off the top of my head, I love this trade. We needed a CF bad and Hamilton is miles and away better than I thought we could get.

I am glad they did this rather than overspend on overrated CFs like Torii Hunter or Andruw Jones. Volquez was much improved on his return to the majors and will do much better in the NL and out of Rangers Ballpark, I think. So its really win-win if you ask me.

I am actually a little surprised the Rangers didn't have to give up more, to be honest.

[TheTruth]

Good trade both ways, but as Red's fan I'm really like this trade more for us. The Rangers are gonna get a young CF with huge potential, but he's proven to be injury prone. And that isn't a good thing for someone with a past drug problem. He's gonna be playing hurt his whole career.

Volquez is another piece to the Red's '09 puzzle. He now gets clumped with Bailey and Johnny Cueto to give the Reds 3 B+ and higher pitching prospects.

This move also opens up an OF spot for the #1 prospect in all of baseball, Jay Bruce. The Reds have finally started to build through prospects, and it is starting to show returns. I'm very happy right now.

[monosylab1k]

from a pure talent viewpoint, Volquez was the best young pitcher we had. but even when he showed his ability to blow batters away, you could never really tell if he had it beween the ears, or if he really cared that much. I'm positive he'll be a great pitcher elsewhere, but I just don't know if he ever was going to play to his potential in Texas.

overall I sorta approve of this trade, but I hate that we had to give up Volquez.

[K-State Spur]

That's an example of the Reds selling high.

Could work out wonderfully for the Rangers, Hamilton's already a productive player with the upside to be even better, but he's going to have to fight that addiction (to crack!?!?) every day from here on out.

If he has any kind of a relapse his value drops to nothing, so the Reds got as much talent for him as they could.

[BeerIsGood!]

so the Rangers traded pitching for a crackhead CF? Seriously?

[atlfan25]

It's nice how Truth still has faith in his Reds to compete again one day. They better hope to their God that the Griffey has a great first half this coming season so they can sell him high for some solid players for this great '09 plan.

I hear some braves fans(not myself) are upset that Rangers got him so cheap. Only for a piece of lazy shit mediocre pitching prospect. Since the ATL has so many of those to shop around it seems.

So here is asking if anyone knows of this assclown(other than mel) if he is worth a damn? I am speaking of volosequez or whoever. I have forgotten his name already.

and yes, scrolling to see it is too hard

Hamilton may have been a crackhead but he is a hell of a player.

[K-State Spur]

i would take the Reds' farm system over Atlanta's right now in a heartbeat.

[atlfan25]

After attending 10 minor league games at each level next year for both the Reds and Braves, I will get back to you on that comment.

[timvp]

That's an example of the Reds selling high.Bingo. Josh Hamilton was a good feel good story ... but you don't trade away your top pitching prospect for an injury-prone reformed crackhead. If Hamilton is still in baseball in three years I'd be surprised.

Typical Ranger trade though. Never have good pitching because they always either trade away young pitching talent or let it walk.

[atlfan25]

After only watching a bullpen(of 5 pitches) of volsequezez on youtube and reading some stuff about him at a site that claimed his changeup to be one of his main pitches this would worry me because what I saw of his bullpen was he telegraphs his changeup somethin fierce. And he seems to have command problems. Command will improve but he will definitely need to improve his arm action off of what I saw to be a force for any long term.

[K-State Spur]

After attending 10 minor league games at each level next year for both the Reds and Braves, I will get back to you on that comment.

Bruce, Bailey, Votto, & Cueto are better than anybody in the Braves system.

I like Jordan Schaffer, but he wouldn't be in the Reds' top 4 prospects.

The Braves' system is as thin as its been in a long long time (maybe since Scheurholtz took over), but when you trade your top 3 prospects for Tex, few teams have the depth to take that hit and still maintain a good system.

That said, it's still probably a middle-of-the-pack group of farm hands, but the Reds have one of the best systems in baseball right now.

[TheTruth]

I've read the same things about his command Atl, but he's young. I have faith in the reds minor league pitching staff to correct whatever problems he has with his changeup. The dude drops 20 mph from his low 90s fastball. That is insane. His curveball is a negative pitch right now, hopefully he can get that fixed and bring a 3 pitch arsenal to the next leval.

'09!!!!!!

[Melmart1]

Bingo. Josh Hamilton was a good feel good story ... but you don't trade away your top pitching prospect for an injury-prone reformed crackhead. If Hamilton is still in baseball in three years I'd be surprised.

Typical Ranger trade though. Never have good pitching because they always either trade away young pitching talent or let it walk.
Volquez isn't even close to being our top pitching prospect. That would be Eric Hurley, who may compete for a spot in the rotation now with Volquez gone.

Even after the Roy Halladay treatment, he was still fairly inconsistent in his stint in September with the Rangers. His stay in Single-A was supposed to be 5 starts, but he ended up staying 2 whole months cus he got tossed from a game for arguing and had other issues. Then, two days before he was to be called up to the Rangers in August, he skipped a scheduled bullpen session and so had to wait till rosters expanded as punishment. His ERA in the majors is well over 7.00 despite the fact he finished September with an ERA in the fours, if I recall correctly.

So, he still has head issues. He has five pitches he can throw but has command issues as a result. If the Reds are smart, they will throw him in AAA and pick three of those pitches to work on. Five is apparently spreading it too thin for him.

Basically, you traded one question mark for another. I will miss Volquez but I don't mind this trade at all. I would rather an actual CF manning center field next year rather than a RF like Murphy playing out of position. Minus defense in CF in Arlington is not desirable.

And hey, atlfan ... why do you want to know from others besides me if Volquez is any good? What the fuck is the matter with my opinion?

[monosylab1k]

Volquez isn't even close to being our top pitching prospect. That would be Eric Hurley, who may compete for a spot in the rotation now with Volquez gone.
From what I've seen, Volquez had the best arm of all our prospects. By far. But his command & possibly mental issues hindered him. If he ever could figure that part out, he would be an incredibly good pitcher capable of a Cy Young Award season. But who knows if he would ever get his command right. If Hamilton can get on base and start playing ball the way Ron Washington wants, then this trade is definitely worth it.

[Horry For 3!]

Bingo. Josh Hamilton was a good feel good story ... but you don't trade away your top pitching prospect for an injury-prone reformed crackhead. If Hamilton is still in baseball in three years I'd be surprised.

Typical Ranger trade though. Never have good pitching because they always either trade away young pitching talent or let it walk.
I remember they had the rights to Johan Santana.... :lmao

[atlfan25]

And hey, atlfan ... why do you want to know from others besides me if Volquez is any good? What the fuck is the matter with my opinion?
BECAUSE I ONLY SKIMMED THROUGH YOUR FIRST POST I THOUGHT YOU ALREADY STATED YOUR OPINION OF HIM.

AFTER REREADING I WAS MISTAKEN.

LAZY IS AS LAZY DOES, YOU CAN TELL BY MY CAPS.

[atlfan25]

Bruce, Bailey, Votto, & Cueto are better than anybody in the Braves system.

I like Jordan Schaffer, but he wouldn't be in the Reds' top 4 prospects.

The Braves' system is as thin as its been in a long long time (maybe since Scheurholtz took over), but when you trade your top 3 prospects for Tex, few teams have the depth to take that hit and still maintain a good system.

That said, it's still probably a middle-of-the-pack group of farm hands, but the Reds have one of the best systems in baseball right now.

UNTIL YOU HAVE ATTENDED 10 GAMES AT EACH MINOR LEAGUE LEVEL FOR

BOTH TEAMS YOUR OPINION IS SIMPLY HEARSAY.

[K-State Spur]

between their minor league stats (which are translatable to the majors) and baseball america's rankings (they have a pretty good track record), i'll stay with that opinion.

[atlfan25]

I know. I trust my eyes better though when it comes to baseball. It's why I have no opinion. I've seen none of these guys play.

[K-State Spur]

not to go too 'moneyball' on you. but minor league stats have proven to be a better a indicator of major league success than scouts' eyes.

(although, ideally you'd like a combination of both)

[atlfan25]

Funny enough I trust my eyes over scouts.

I agree, a combination is the best.

[FirebatMIV]

I remember they had the rights to Johan Santana.... :lmao

1) That's the Astros

2) I despise people who insist on commenting on events clearly out of their element, and that's what a lot of people are doing on this thread.

Firstly, the Reds minor league system is far and away better than the Braves. A good argument can be made that their minor league system is currently the 2nd best in Baseball, behind the Devil Rays and ahead of the Dodgers, Rangers and Red Sox. They make up for what they lack in depth for what they have in impact talent, and I'm pretty sure that most people will tell you Jay Bruce is the best prospect in Baseball right now.

Secondly, Volquez is not and has not been since 2006 the best prospect pitching or otherwise, in the Ranger's system. In fact, right now, a good argument can be made that he's not in the top 5 pitching prospects.

This was just a trade that had significant risk for both teams, but the thing that makes it a good deal for the Rangers is as follow. If Hamilton and Volquez both hit their absolute highest cielings, this trade will be a big win for the Rangers. If both hit their mid-tier 50th percentile cielings, the trade will still be a win for the Rangers. The only way this trade bites them is if Hamilton's injury history turns out to be big and Volquez reaches his highest cieling, something that is a possibility, but not a great one.

[atlfan25]

will you be my IBFF firebat??? please????????????????

[K-State Spur]

1)
Firstly, the Reds minor league system is far and away better than the Braves. A good argument can be made that their minor league system is currently the 2nd best in Baseball, behind the Devil Rays and ahead of the Dodgers, Rangers and Red Sox. They make up for what they lack in depth for what they have in impact talent, and I'm pretty sure that most people will tell you Jay Bruce is the best prospect in Baseball right now.




Hrmm, I don't think too many people would put Cincy's system ahead of the Dodgers.

LA can match the Reds at the top and have much better depth. Nothing against Stubbs, but you see a drop-off after the top 4 in the Reds' system.

[timvp]

Didn't Volquez have a sub two ERA in AAA last season? I'll admit to not following the Dallas Rangers minor leagues closely but I am pretty damn sure he was good in OKC last year. Plus he's Dominican which means he'll be a stud.

Either way, you don't trade a top pitching prospect for yet another bat. Especially a bat that is attached to a guy who is both injury prone and drug prone. Pitching has always been the Rangers problem. When is the last time they were in the top half of the league in ERA? 1990?

[FirebatMIV]

Hrmm, I don't think too many people would put Cincy's system ahead of the Dodgers.

LA can match the Reds at the top and have much better depth. Nothing against Stubbs, but you see a drop-off after the top 4 in the Reds' system.

Umm, yes they would. With the exception of Clayton Kershaw, there's not much too love about the Dodgers. Scott Elbert got hurt, Delwyn Young seems permenantly blocked, Andy LaRoche apparently has a nagging back injury, and they've already graduated the majority of their best players like Billingsby, Kemp and Lonely. There's not much left in the Dodgers minor league system, and I think you're either underselling the Bruce-Bailey-Cueto-Votto 4 some or you're giving edge to the Dodgers because their minor league system WAS great two years ago. There's really not much to like there now.

In fact, I'd ranked the Red Sox and the Rangers above the Dodgers now too. Both systems have more depth, and have more impact talent in the minor levels. If pressed, I'd probably rank the minor leage systems Rays-Reds-Red Sox-Rangers-Dodgers, with the Rockies coming in at a very close 6th.


Timvp - Out of the Rangers current lineup, who do you think is a threat to hit 30 HRs this year? Blalock - if he comes back completely healthy and that's it. The Rangers have no "other bats" and their best hitter is a 24 year old 2B with decent power, but certainly not a middle-of-the-order guy. Hamilton is a threat to hit 30 HRs a year right now while playing centerfield (and a good one, he graded out better than Aaron Rowand last year). That's a very valuable commodity.

You don't trade based on false, historical notions of need, you trade to get the best player. In this case, the Rangers not only got the best player, but they addressed a fatal flaw on their roster (CF and middle-of-the-order bat) while not having to give up one of their own top prospects. That's how great baseball GMs (Schuerholz, Beane et all) work.

[FirebatMIV]

Didn't Volquez have a sub two ERA in AAA last season? I'll admit to not following the Dallas Rangers minor leagues closely but I am pretty damn sure he was good in OKC last year. Plus he's Dominican which means he'll be a stud.

Either way, you don't trade a top pitching prospect for yet another bat. Especially a bat that is attached to a guy who is both injury prone and drug prone. Pitching has always been the Rangers problem. When is the last time they were in the top half of the league in ERA? 1990?

He also had a 7 ERA in A+ Bakersfield last season, and the problem with the walks still remain. That and it was his 3rd time at AAA in the last three years. You have to take both age and peripherals into account. Edinson has a great K rate and a good HR/9, but depending on a 24 year old to suddenly figure out his historically bad control seems very risky.

The last time the Rangers finished in the top half of the league in ERA was 2004, but their bullpen have always been top 5 for the last 2 years. They also already have 4 of their rotation spots filled up (Millwood-Padilla-McCarthy-Gabbard), and their upper minor league depth is good enough where they won't be hurting for arms if someone (inevitably) is lost to injury for any amount of time. They'll probably bring in a veteran to compete for a spot with the young players, and I'm really not sure how much worse their rotation is with Luis Mendoza or Freddy Garcia in it vs. it would be if it had Edinson Volquez. There's not much drop off in the major league roster post trade.

[K-State Spur]

Kershaw will likely be the top lefthanded prospect in all of baseball next spring.

Laroche does have the back problem, but he absolutely raked at AAA last year. (his back does raise a red flag, but so does Homer Bailey's statements that he is disinterested in baseball - one of the reasons I like Cueto more).

Chin Lung Hu is one of the top SS prospects in baseball. And maybe the only one of the group who will actually play SS in the big leagues.

I actually like James McDonald the best of the rest of their arms. That BA ranks him 8th or 9th in their system is a testament to the depth that they still have.

We'll see how the spring rankings come out - maybe i'm way off on this.

[Melmart1]

Didn't Volquez have a sub two ERA in AAA last season? I'll admit to not following the Dallas Rangers minor leagues closely but I am pretty damn sure he was good in OKC last year. Plus he's Dominican which means he'll be a stud.

Either way, you don't trade a top pitching prospect for yet another bat. Especially a bat that is attached to a guy who is both injury prone and drug prone. Pitching has always been the Rangers problem. When is the last time they were in the top half of the league in ERA? 1990?
"YET ANOTHER BAT"

:lmao

Ohhhh, my. You not only don't pay attention to the farm, you obviously don't pay attention to the Rangers, either. THe last time the Rangers had decent power numbers was the fluke season in 2004. Michael Young hits singles now, his power seems to have gone. Teixeira is gone. Hank Blalock is a big question mark after his recovery. Our outfield (before Hamilton) was pretty much a joke.

The Rangers haven't hit the way that people seem to think they have in three years. They severely needed a bat in the middle of the lineup and + defense at CF. Those were the two biggest needs (yes, BEFORE pitching) and they got them both in one guy.

It's amazing the common misconceptions about the Rangers. I wish more people would stop letting Mavfan dictate who they cheer for and instead become a fan.

[FirebatMIV]

Kershaw will likely be the top lefthanded prospect in all of baseball next spring.

Laroche does have the back problem, but he absolutely raked at AAA last year. (his back does raise a red flag, but so does Homer Bailey's statements that he is disinterested in baseball - one of the reasons I like Cueto more).

Chin Lung Hu is one of the top SS prospects in baseball. And maybe the only one of the group who will actually play SS in the big leagues.

I actually like James McDonald the best of the rest of their arms. That BA ranks him 8th or 9th in their system is a testament to the depth that they still have.

We'll see how the spring rankings come out - maybe i'm way off on this.

McDonald is a 23 year old that just reached AA, if this was 2 years ago, he wouldn't be in the conversation. Heck, put his name in the Rangers or Red Sox systems, and I'm not sure he'd be a top 10.

As I said, they still have some decent prospects, but none of them save Kershaw is that really big head-liner prospect that they used to have. They also really have no depth, or at least, the depth that Tampa, Texas and Boston has. When you take that + the fact that their top 4 is nowhere close to the top 4 of the Reds, I don't see how you can say that their system is better.

[TheTruth]

Danny Dorn

[timvp]

"YET ANOTHER BAT"

:lmao:lol

Did you miss the part of my post where I was talking about the Rangers in historic terms? Check the same paragraph where I'm talking about "always" and the Rangers' team of 1990. Does it look like I was speaking of the Rangers of last year?


Ohhhh, my. You not only don't pay attention to the farm, you obviously don't pay attention to the Rangers, either. THe last time the Rangers had decent power numbers was the fluke season in 2004.Uhhhhh even though I wasn't talking about last season you do realize that only three teams in the AL had more homeruns than the Rangers, right? How the hell is finishing fourth in the AL in homeruns "not decent power numbers". Plus top five in the AL in runs. You really think batting was the reason the Rangers sucked again? Cleveland scored less runs than the Rangers and they were a choke away from winning the World Series.

And that 2004 squad you speak so highly of scored a whopping .2 more runs per game than last year's team.


The Rangers haven't hit the way that people seem to think they have in three years. They severely needed a bat in the middle of the lineup and + defense at CF. Those were the two biggest needs (yes, BEFORE pitching) and they got them both in one guy.No way. Pitching has been and still is need number one for the Rangers. Are you kidding me? When Kevin freakin' Millwood is the ace of your staff, pitching -- specifically starting pitching is your biggest need. There's a good chance that every member of the staff will finish with an ERA north of 5. And for some of the pitchers, even an era of 5.00 will be a vast improvement.

It's pretty crazy to me that a Ranger Fan can say that starting pitching isn't the team's number one need. They were faaaaar and away last in the AL in starting pitching ERA. Not to mention last in wins and fewest innings pitched, which might actually be the most damning stat of all. And you want to tell me that getting CF is a bigger need than starting pitching? Really?

Volquez is far from a sure bet but he has a live arm and could still develop into a decent starter. I don't think he's the second coming but I do think he could develop into a player that fits a need.

You can always trade for a bat or pickup some scrub to man center like they did with Otis Nixon or Cecil Espy or Gary Matthews. However, good pitching isn't as easy to find and the Rangers are going to continue to suck until they get a real starting rotation.


It's amazing the common misconceptions about the Rangers. I wish more people would stop letting Mavfan dictate who they cheer for and instead become a fan.I used to like the Rangers until the internet came around and their forums were filled with a bunch of delusional fans. I didn't have a name for them back then but yeah now that I think of it they do act like Mav Fan. I remember being pissed about the Chris Carpenter trade because I though Robb Nen had potential. Ranger Fan of course bashed Nen calling him an old prospect with control problems he wouldn't be able to ever fix due to his advanced age. Sound familiar?

I mean damn how long can one franchise have the same flaw and all their fans be blind to it? They finish top five in runs with the worst starting pitching and then their fans are rubbing one out to a trade in which they trade a young starting pitching prospect for an injury prone, reformed crackhead who is obviously being sold high by a franchise who would have found room for the fan favorite if they thought his longterm potential was half as good as Ranger/Mav Fan thinks it is.

[BeerIsGood!]

I agree with you that trading pitching for a crackhead wasn't the best thing to do, but did you just say that dumbass fans on the Internet are the reason you quit being a fan? No offense, but that's pretty weak. How long before SpursDynasty drives you to becoming a Pistonfan?

[timvp]

I agree with you that trading pitching for a crackhead wasn't the best thing to do, but did you just say that dumbass fans on the Internet are the reason you quit being a fan? No offense, but that's pretty weak. How long before SpursDynasty drives you to becoming a Pistonfan?I said I liked the Rangers but I was never a true fan. I liked them mostly because they were on TV a lot.

I grew disenfranchised by the Rangers due to a lack of lack of direction, lack of common sense, lack of a good fan base and lack of direction. The mid-90's Rangers were even dumber than they are now, if that's humanly possible.

[dallaskd]

Nice! best of luck to edinson. i think the dfw media put a little to much pressure on him early.

[dallaskd]

No update if they've reached a deal with Eddie Guardado yet?

[Melmart1]

If you want to talk last season, fine. Let's talk about it.

The Rangers were a completely snakebitten team. Everytime they started to get it together, a key player was injured and it completely threw them out of sync. A good majority of those injuries were starting pitching. We have no idea how good this team could be if thier rotation were relatively healthy for a year. Yeah, they won't be lights-out or have a legit 'ace' but I think they are better than most might imagine.

As for the offense, it was completely inconsistent all year. There was generally one hot bat holding the team together and a lot of slumping. This is why I say they haven't hit. Ian Kinsler was a madman at the beginning of the season. Then it was Marlon Byrd. Then it was Tex right before his injury. Problem is, nobody else was hitting while these guys were. Catalonatto, Young, Cruz, Botts, Wilkerson, Vazquez and particularly Laird all sucked it up either the entire season or more than half. The stats don't tell the whole story.

What they lacked all year was a consistent bat to anchor the offense. Hamilton serves that role. He also is a CF, which means no more Kenny Lofton-like stopgaps for the next four years until Julio Bourbon or Engel Beltre who are both just kids (literally with 17 yr old Beltre) are ready.

CF is arguably the most important defensive posistion on the field. Singles turn into doubles and triples and a whole lot of RBIs if your CF sucks. The cards are already stacked against your pitchers because of the ballpark itself. You don't need to exacerbate the situation by having a crappy defensive outfield.

When you make a trade for a glaring need like CF, you do so from a strength of position. Young prospect pitchers is a position of strength in the system, arguably the biggest strength. Center Field is not. The big talent at CF is in the rookie or low-A short season level right now. They won't be ready for at least four years. In those same four years, you can make a case for any of a dozen good arms (several with as much or more potential as Volquez) being ready.

Hamilton is cheap and under Rangers control for five years. he has proven that he can hack at the major league level, something that Volquez has failed to do. Considering that CF is more of an issue than pitching right now, you do this trade. Is it a risk? Absolutely. But like I said before, you are trading one question mark for another that has the potential to be win-win.

[Melmart1]

I mean damn how long can one franchise have the same flaw and all their fans be blind to it? They finish top five in runs with the worst starting pitching and then their fans are rubbing one out to a trade in which they trade a young starting pitching prospect for an injury prone, reformed crackhead who is obviously being sold high by a franchise who would have found room for the fan favorite if they thought his longterm potential was half as good as Ranger/Mav Fan thinks it is.

I take great offense to this. If you bothered to come in here and read my takes on the Rangers more often, you will see that I am hardly blind to their flaws. Which is exactly why I know CF has been a fatal flaw for many years now.

And what fans are rubbing one out? I am happy we have a potential stud CF for the first time in ages but I am hardly orgasmic over it. I am surprised but pleased they took the risk and though I am sorry to see Volquez go if the franchise is going to turn itself around risks like these are necessary.

And how can the Reds have "found room" for Hamilton when they have the absolute best CF prospect in all of baseball ready to go? With a guy like Bruce waiting in the wings, he is your everyday guy. You don't "find room" to do anything with any other player. You get what you can for that player and you play Bruce. This is a no-brainer. So Cincy has a CF to spare and the Rangers have a young pitching prospect to spare. You trade from a posistion of strength to acquire a fix for a position of weakness. This is what they both did. Its text book.

[TheTruth]

Jay Bruce is projected to be a corner outfielder.

And to think that ANY team has young pitching prospects to spare is laughable. How is the Rangers pitching staff a position of strength?

[Melmart1]

Jay Bruce is projected to be a corner outfielder.

And to think that ANY team has young pitching prospects to spare is laughable. How is the Rangers pitching staff a position of strength?
There are a lot of prospects in the Rangers system that can be as good as Volquez. The problem is, they are all prospects, which is still what Volquez is. Considering there is nobody at CF who is even close to being ready for the majors, you do what you can to get that position filled.

Hamilton has at least proved he can play in the majors, something Volquez has not. That is the problem with prospects, they don't always pan out. This was a risky move but you have to do it to fill a spot that can not be continued to be filled with stopgaps.

[Melmart1]

Here, Keith Law said it better than I did. Maybe you will understand him better than you did me:


There's some risk involved, but there's a very good chance the Rangers just picked up a middle-of-the-order bat who's about to enter his prime years in exchange for a hard-throwing young pitcher with more risks around his future.
* * *

The Rangers' system is full of pitching prospects, and they have a good number of infield and catching prospects, but they're light in the outfield, with 2007 draftee Julio Borbon probably the best of that group. Josh Hamilton immediately becomes the best centerfielder the Rangers have had in a decade -- all apologies to Laynce Nix, Tom Goodwin, and Damon Buford -- and has a good chance to be the best hitter in the Rangers' 2008 lineup.

http://insider.espn.go.com/espn/blog/index?name=law_keith&action=login&appRedirect=http%3a%2f%2finsider.espn.go.com%2fesp n%2fblog%2findex%3fname%3dlaw_keith

[TheTruth]

Here, Keith Law said it better than I did. Maybe you will understand him better than you did me:



http://insider.espn.go.com/espn/blog/index?name=law_keith&action=login&appRedirect=http%3a%2f%2finsider.espn.go.com%2fesp n%2fblog%2findex%3fname%3dlaw_keith
Keith Law is terrible.

[Melmart1]

Keith Law is terrible.
No matter what you think about him in general, he is dead on about the Rangers' system. I agree with him completely except on one point -- I think Engel Beltre is a better prospect than Bourbon, but only because he has a higher cieling. Still way too rough around the edges to be completely sure though.

Either way, I am not jizzing over this trade and I think its a risk. But we can't keep plugging up holes in the outfield with geriatrics or journeymen. I don't necessarily like giving away Volquez but its a calculated risk that I think will pay off well for the Rangers.

I don't like getting into pissing contests so I am done. I obviously won't convince any of you of my side, and that is fine. But I genuinely hope this is win-win for both sides, which it has the potential to be.

[TheTruth]

I'm just not one to advocate trading away young (potentially top line) pitchers for anything but a sure thing. Prospects are at a premium right now, and the Rangers made a questionable trade.

As a Reds fan, I really hate to see Hamilton leave. He was a great great story, and he has 40 hr potential. But the guy's body has been ravaged by drugs, and he gets hurt a lot. His addiction keeps him from taking any pain pills. Just not a recipe for success. I hope he reaches his potential and tears the league up.

[timvp]

If you want to talk last season, fine. Let's talk about it.

The Rangers were a completely snakebitten team. Everytime they started to get it together, a key player was injured and it completely threw them out of sync. A good majority of those injuries were starting pitching. We have no idea how good this team could be if thier rotation were relatively healthy for a year. Yeah, they won't be lights-out or have a legit 'ace' but I think they are better than most might imagine.The problem with the starting pitching is that the starting pitchers suck. I mean Millwood is a decent workhorse as a third or fourth starter but when he's your ace, there's some major problems. Padilla sucked last year and no way he should be a team's second starter. McCarthy and Gabbard are pretty good up-and-comers but it's not like there's a guarantee either one or both will succeed. As it stands, the Rangers probably have the weakest staff in the AL ... yet again.


As for the offense, it was completely inconsistent all year. There was generally one hot bat holding the team together and a lot of slumping. This is why I say they haven't hit. Ian Kinsler was a madman at the beginning of the season. Then it was Marlon Byrd. Then it was Tex right before his injury. Problem is, nobody else was hitting while these guys were. Catalonatto, Young, Cruz, Botts, Wilkerson, Vazquez and particularly Laird all sucked it up either the entire season or more than half. The stats don't tell the whole story.So a "completely inconsistent" offense ranked fourth in homeruns in and fifth in scoring? It sounds like with a little bit of consistency they'd be pretty damn well off.

Like I said, hitting has rarely been a problem with the Rangers. You completely scoffed me about "YET ANOTHER BAT" and it turns out that the Rangers were one of the better offensive teams in the AL. With the way you reacted you would have thought I was speaking about the Royals.

But that's just it. Ranger Fan is used to scoring runs. Finishing fifth in runs is nothing for a Ranger Fan. If pitching didn't exist, the Rangers would have rings galore.

In the last 30 years, the Rangers have finished in the top half of the AL in ERA probably only a handful of times. I'd bet they haven't finished in the top half of baseball in ERA in over 15 years.

When it comes to homeruns, the Rangers have led all of baseball this decade in homeruns in 2001, 2002, 2003 and 2005. How did having YET ANOTHER BATs help them those years? The answer is they didn't even crack .500 in any of those years.

So another year comes, the Rangers suck again and what's the answer? Ah, yes, obviously it's the need of a bat. Who cares about a pitching prospect? What the hell is pitching anyways? We needs some mo' homers. This formula has worked so well before . . .


What they lacked all year was a consistent bat to anchor the offense. Hamilton serves that role. He also is a CF, which means no more Kenny Lofton-like stopgaps for the next four years until Julio Bourbon or Engel Beltre who are both just kids (literally with 17 yr old Beltre) are ready. An offense which admittedly underperformed and still finished fifth in runs needs anchoring?


CF is arguably the most important defensive posistion on the field. Singles turn into doubles and triples and a whole lot of RBIs if your CF sucks. The cards are already stacked against your pitchers because of the ballpark itself. You don't need to exacerbate the situation by having a crappy defensive outfield. You almost hit on the Ranger take I hate the most: "Well we play in a hitters park so who cares about pitching we might as well just try to out-slug everybody". That is like the Ranger Fan official mantra. The thing is it simply doesn't work. Look at the World Series teams this year. Boston and Colorado play in two of the most hitting friendly ballparks in all of baseball. Both have always traditionally been good offensive teams. However, it wasn't until both teams concentrated on stockpiling starting pitching did they start winning games. Instead of pulling the classic Ranger "woe is me we play in a hitters ballpark" BS they concentrated on pitching and it wasn't until their pitching turned around that either team ever did anything.

Oh and Josh Hamilton isn't a very good fielder at all. As a CF he's below average. Good arm but he doesn't have that much range. He's really more of a RF because his range won't be as much of a factor, you can keep him healthier and his arm could be more of a factor.


When you make a trade for a glaring need like CF, you do so from a strength of position. Young prospect pitchers is a position of strength in the system, arguably the biggest strength. Center Field is not. The big talent at CF is in the rookie or low-A short season level right now. They won't be ready for at least four years. In those same four years, you can make a case for any of a dozen good arms (several with as much or more potential as Volquez) being ready. The Rangers have claimed to have great starting pitching prospects for the last three decades. I'll believe when I see it. And there's no such thing as having too much starting pitching talent in the pipeline. Especially when you are the Rangers and your starting pitching always sucks year in and year out. The first step is to actually field a halfway competent pitching staff and maybe THEN you can start trading away prospects to fill other gaps. But until then, the Rangers are still the Rangers. You don't post a near 6.00 starting pitching ERA one season and then begin trading away starting pitching the next offseason because it's suddenly a strength :lol


Hamilton is cheap and under Rangers control for five years. he has proven that he can hack at the major league level, something that Volquez has failed to do. Considering that CF is more of an issue than pitching right now, you do this trade. Is it a risk? Absolutely. But like I said before, you are trading one question mark for another that has the potential to be win-win.:rolleyes @ trading for a RF to play CF is more of a need than starting pitching.


I take great offense to this. If you bothered to come in here and read my takes on the Rangers more often, you will see that I am hardly blind to their flaws. Which is exactly why I know CF has been a fatal flaw for many years now.I didn't say you were blind to their flaws. I'm talking about Ranger Fan as a nation. Ranger Fan always thinks the next bat is the bat that is going to put them over the top.

And saying that CF has been a fatal flaw is being a bit dramatic. It's not like CF has kept the Rangers from winning. Heck, the Red Sox last year would have loved to have gotten the production the Rangers got out of CF. Their fatal flaw wasn't exactly fatal.


And what fans are rubbing one out? I am happy we have a potential stud CF for the first time in ages but I am hardly orgasmic over it. I am surprised but pleased they took the risk and though I am sorry to see Volquez go if the franchise is going to turn itself around risks like these are necessary.I still read over a couple Ranger forums now and again and I saw them celebrating this trade. I actually came in the baseball forum to post about it when I saw this thread. Again, "rubbing one out" wasn't directed at you. Can females really rub one out? :)


And how can the Reds have "found room" for Hamilton when they have the absolute best CF prospect in all of baseball ready to go? With a guy like Bruce waiting in the wings, he is your everyday guy. You don't "find room" to do anything with any other player. You get what you can for that player and you play Bruce. This is a no-brainer. So Cincy has a CF to spare and the Rangers have a young pitching prospect to spare. You trade from a posistion of strength to acquire a fix for a position of weakness. This is what they both did. Its text book.If the Reds thought that Hamilton was the stud that Ranger Fan thinks he is, the Reds could have easily traded someone like Griffey to make room. Hamilton was a fan favorite, cheap and was a former number one overall pick. This doesn't strike you as the ultimate sell high? You don't want to take another look at this gift horse?

Like I said, the Reds could have made room. It not only would have made financial sense, it would have made baseball sense.


This was a risky move but you have to do it to fill a spot that can not be continued to be filled with stopgaps.Why not? World Series champions are littered with teams with stopgap CF's. CF might actually be the easiest position to find a stopgap for.


There are a lot of prospects in the Rangers system that can be as good as Volquez. The problem is, they are all prospects, which is still what Volquez is. Considering there is nobody at CF who is even close to being ready for the majors, you do what you can to get that position filled.

Hamilton has at least proved he can play in the majors, something Volquez has not. That is the problem with prospects, they don't always pan out.Exactly. That's why you don't start thinning your crop of starting pitching prospects before you actually have halfway decent starting pitching. You especially don't do it when you have far and away the worst starting rotation ERA in the bigs.

Pitching wins. Real pitching. Not "we have some great arms in the minors" pitching. I've heard that for the last twenty years from the Rangers and their fans. I don't care who you have in the minor leagues, starting pitching isn't a strength to deal from when you are coming off of a season in which your team had the worst starting pitching in all of baseball.

I guess we'll see if the Rangers ever get a clue on how to ever build a winning team. To me it looks like they are clueless as ever.

[T Park]

After watching Hamilton play the Cardinals alot hes the protypical Ranger player.

Good power, good hitter, decent to bad fielder.

Trading pitching for him continues the time honored stupid tradition.

Till the Rangers from the top down learn

Pitching = winning

not offfense,

they will continue to flounder and be stiffs.

[FirebatMIV]

QUick things

1)Josh Hamilton graded out as an well above-average center fielder last year, better than Aaron Rowand, Torii Hunter, Vernon Wells, and right on par with guys like Grady Sizemore. He's not Coco Crisp, but he is FAR from a bad fielder. He had a good runs avoided, good zone rating, good range factor and good rate2 stats. So if you want to claim that he is a bad fielder TImvp, please put a link up to something that shows he's a bad fielder. The only reason Hamilton would ever play corner OF is because of health concerns, not because he is unable to handle the position.


2) The Rangers are an average offensive team, at least they were last year. Keep in mind, though, that they'll lose a lot of power with the departure of Sosa and Wilkerson, as well as the absence of Teixeira wholesale. Also, if you look at the Rangers home-road splits, you'll see the problem. The Rangers are incredibly bolstered by a home park that inflates HR 24% last year. Even then, they were solely middle of the pack in slg, HR, and one of the last in the league in on-base-percentage. When we take their road numbers only, they are among the last in the AL. The reason for their high # of runs last year was because of one big anomoly of a game (30-3 vs. Baltimore) and comparative luck in hitting with runners in scoring position. Those aren't sustainable types of offense, so when you have the opportunity to add a guy that provides both power and OBP, while playing above average defense in a position where you almost never get offense, it is a no brainer.

3) I'm amazed at the idea that Edinson Volquez would have suddenly brough stability to the rotation. As I said, I don't see much of a performance drop off between Volquez and Mendoza, and probably lesser performance relative to a guy like Freddy Garcia (if healthy), so I'm not really sure how your argument that the Rangers have a bad rotation have any merit. Here's the thing about this trade: the Rangers traded someone imminently replacable by both internal sources (your Mendozas, Gallaraggas, and, perhaps, top prospects like Matt Harrison and Eric Hurley) and external sources (Freddy Garcia, Bartolo Colon, Jason Jennings, etc), for someone who has no equal value on the free agent market. I think, if Hamilton stays healthy (and that's quite an if), he will be the best centerfielder, and perhaps the best position player to change teams this winter. That's why the trade was good value, because you deal from a position of strength in order to meet two positions of weakness. In doing so, you also got the player with the highest current level of performance, the highest potential and most likely to reach that potential. THat's why it's a good trade. And let's face it, if Hamilton didn't have the spectre of the drug issue, everyone would be estatic with the trade. Of course, if he didn't have that spectre, he would have required a Mark Teixeira package.


4) THe Rob Nenn trade occured in 1993, I wasn't aware there were big numbers of Rangers web communities at the time, but I'm sure if there were, they would have long since died.

Both Melmart and I frequent lonestarball, which is the best site for genuine Rangers coverage on the web (it's also frequented by players like CJ Wilson, Brandon McCarthy, as well as analysts like John Sickles, John Dewon and Keith Law). There's also a source for Rangers minor league news in the for of the Newberg Report. So yeah, there are geniunely good Rangers communities on the web, so that idea that all Rangers fans are idiots have as much merit as claims saying all Spurs fans are represented by Spurs_Dynasty_21.

[dallaskd]

just owned the shit out of this thread

[monosylab1k]

The Rangers put up the most empty scoring numbers there are. They're the kings of getting shut out for 6 innings, falling behind 9-0, then scoring 6 runs against shitty bullpen pitchers to look like they have decent offensive output.

Anybody who says the Rangers have been a good offensive team since Juan Gonzalez finished his first stint with the team probably hasn't watched the Rangers since....well, since Juan Gonzalez finished his first stint with the team. Pointing to their rankings doesn't tell the story when you see this team 100+ times every year.

If Hamilton can stay healthy & keep his on-base percentage in line with what he did last year, this is a great deal. Volquez has incredible "stuff" but he doesn't have the command to ever be successful, especially in Arlington.

[sribb43]

Volquez played well the last 2 months of the season and was finally showing what he could do....can Hamilton pitch as well? didnt think so

[timvp]

1)Josh Hamilton graded out as an well above-average center fielder last year, better than Aaron Rowand, Torii Hunter, Vernon Wells, and right on par with guys like Grady Sizemore. He's not Coco Crisp, but he is FAR from a bad fielder. He had a good runs avoided, good zone rating, good range factor and good rate2 stats. So if you want to claim that he is a bad fielder TImvp, please put a link up to something that shows he's a bad fielder. The only reason Hamilton would ever play corner OF is because of health concerns, not because he is unable to handle the position. Where did I say he was a bad fielder? Below average != Bad. And I'm not the only one who has noticed a lack of range at times:


Hamilton is probably playing out of position. His range is decent, but best suited to right field, where his arm can continue to help win the occasional game.

link (http://jinaz-reds.blogspot.com/2007/06/may-2007-reds-review-part-2-defense.html)
other link (http://jinaz-reds.blogspot.com/2007/07/junejuly-uzr-splits-check-out-eddie.html) Granted, his defense was better toward the end of the season but health concerns alone could warrant a position change. If he's half the hitter Ranger Fan is claiming, it'd be best to put him at a position that will has a chance of keeping him somewhat healthy.



2) Also, if you look at the Rangers home-road splits, you'll see the problem. The Rangers are incredibly bolstered by a home park that inflates HR 24% last year. Not really. The Rangers hit .13 more homeruns per game at home compared to on the road. To say that was bolstered by more than anything other than a normal home/road variance is a stretch. The Rangers in the past have definitely been helped by their home park but last year it wasn't a huge difference.


Even then, they were solely middle of the pack in slg, HR, and one of the last in the league in on-base-percentage. When we take their road numbers only, they are among the last in the AL. It's simply not that drastic. Sixth in homeruns at home. Fifth on the road. Sixth in runs at home. Seventh on the road. It's safe to say that offensively the Rangers were in the upper half of the AL offensively either at home or on the road.


when you have the opportunity to add a guy that provides both power and OBP, while playing above average defense in a position where you almost never get offense, it is a no brainer.That's a pretty simplistic way to look at it. There's a lot more to consider in the equation than simply if a guy gets on base and hits for power you add him no matter what.


3) I'm amazed at the idea that Edinson Volquez would have suddenly brough stability to the rotation. As I said, I don't see much of a performance drop off between Volquez and Mendoza, and probably lesser performance relative to a guy like Freddy Garcia (if healthy), so I'm not really sure how your argument that the Rangers have a bad rotation have any merit. You could say the same for any pitching prospect in the majors. A young pitcher can be replaced by an old veteran without much of a drop off no matter who the young pitcher is. However, that's missing the point. The point is the Rangers have struggled for year because of lack of pitching. Last year, their starting pitching was an even bigger disgrace than usual. And while Volquez isn't Nolan Ryan Reloaded, he has the stuff to be better than any of the current starters in the Rangers rotation.


I think, if Hamilton stays healthy (and that's quite an if), he will be the best centerfielder, and perhaps the best position player to change teams this winter.That's a hefty statement. And you might want to add the additional qualifier of "if Hamilton can lay off the crack".


That's why the trade was good value, because you deal from a position of strength in order to meet two positions of weakness.:lmao

Here we go again. Starting pitching is not a position of strength for the Rangers. There are no sure fire stud starting pitching prospects in the minors for the Rangers. The Rangers always seem to have plenty of pitching prospects ... but rarely if ever do they pan out.

So saying that starting pitching is a position of strength to be dealing from is beyond laughable. And since you are so keen to the home/road splits, you can look for yourself and see that the Rangers pitching problems had nothing to do with where they played. The Rangers pitching was much better at home and was simply horrible on the road. That suggests a much bigger problem than simply "we play in a hitters ballpark" type crybaby BS I typically hear from Ranger Fan.

That Rangers pitching is putrid. Volquez, for as bad as he suddenly is in the Ranger Fan circle, was penciled in as a starter next year. And if he would have just kept his production from last year, he'd probably end up the ace of that weak staff. And yet the Rangers were dealing from a position of strength.

Classic.


In doing so, you also got the player with the highest current level of performance, the highest potential and most likely to reach that potential. THat's why it's a good trade. Using this line of thinking, then it would always make sense for a team to trade a pitching prospect for a young hitter. Hitting is always going to be sexier than good pitching. However, I think you undervalue how much a good pitcher is worth. If Volquez becomes a second or third guy in a quality rotation, Hamilton would have to be an all-star caliber stud to make this trade look good. Right now, a second or third pitcher in virtually any other rotation would be better than anyone the Rangers have.

And even last year with the Rangers supposedly poor offense, they still finished only 12 games under .500 and that was with the worst starting pitching in the majors. Give the Rangers just a couple of B or C grade starting pitchers and they are a hugely upgraded team. Give the Rangers a stud all-star hall of fame centerfielder and they still would have sucked because no one is going to win anything with the starting pitching they had.


And let's face it, if Hamilton didn't have the spectre of the drug issue, everyone would be estatic with the trade. Of course, if he didn't have that spectre, he would have required a Mark Teixeira package.My hyperbole detector just exploded. If you want to say that if Hamilton went into a time machine and went back before the drugs and was once again a 20 year old prospect, then maybe that'd be more realistic. But even then, he wouldn't (and didn't) command a Tex like package.

And now after seeing that Hamilton hits lefties about as well as you do, it'd probably be wise to cool the jets before you accidentally put him in the Hall of Fame before he even plays 100 games.


4) THe Rob Nenn trade occured in 1993, I wasn't aware there were big numbers of Rangers web communities at the time, but I'm sure if there were, they would have long since died.You'd be surprised.


Both Melmart and I frequent lonestarball, which is the best site for genuine Rangers coverage on the web (it's also frequented by players like CJ Wilson, Brandon McCarthy, as well as analysts like John Sickles, John Dewon and Keith Law). There's also a source for Rangers minor league news in the for of the Newberg Report. Can you link me up to the Chris Young trade thread? I may need to quote the celebrating Ranger Fans within. Thanks :)

[FirebatMIV]

Where did I say he was a bad fielder? Below average != Bad. And I'm not the only one who has noticed a lack of range at times:

Granted, his defense was better toward the end of the season but health concerns alone could warrant a position change. If he's half the hitter Ranger Fan is claiming, it'd be best to put him at a position that will has a chance of keeping him somewhat healthy.

http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/stats/players/index.php?lastName=Hamilton

Rather than relying on analysis done during July, let's take a look at his seasonal numbers shall we? Hamilton doesn't necessarily pass the eye test for being a good fielder, but all the data shows that he is. Not only Hardball Time's UZR, but the probablistic model of range as well as all BP secondary stats. As a CF, he's neither bad nor below average.
http://www.baseballmusings.com/archives/cat_probabilistic_model_of_range.php

The legitimate concern is the health concerns, specifically, the amount of damage centerfielders not named Kenny Lofton tends to accumulate. The thing is, even if he ends up in the corner outfield, he has the bat to stick, so it doesn't really matter where you stick him, since he's an asset regardless of where he is on the field.



Not really. The Rangers hit .13 more homeruns per game at home compared to on the road. To say that was bolstered by more than anything other than a normal home/road variance is a stretch. The Rangers in the past have definitely been helped by their home park but last year it wasn't a huge difference.

It's simply not that drastic. Sixth in homeruns at home. Fifth on the road. Sixth in runs at home. Seventh on the road. It's safe to say that offensively the Rangers were in the upper half of the AL offensively either at home or on the road.


In all areas of repeatable performance save linedrive percentage, the Rangers were far better hitters at home than they were on the road. The Home run differential is explained by a comparatively high HR/FB on the road, and a lower one at home. Just as a few examples

In Batting Average
Home: 12th at .277
Away: 27th at .249

In on-base percentage
Home: 11th at .341
Away: 28th at .315

Slugging %
Home: 9th at .451
Away: 22nd at .402

OPS
Home: 11th at .792
Away: 25th at .717

Don't let the large runs scored total (relatively) fool you, the Texas Rangers were very much a product of abnormally high BA /w RISP. If it just falls to league average, an event that's likely to occur, then the runs scored goes more to the way of the Tampa Bay and Minnesota. In the face of such a giant disparity, are you really going to argue that Texas isn't significantly bolstered by its home park?



That's a pretty simplistic way to look at it. There's a lot more to consider in the equation than simply if a guy gets on base and hits for power you add him no matter what.

Simplistic? Yes. But it also happens to be true. It's been statistically proven that teams that gets people on base and teams that hits for power are the teams that have the best offenses. Teams that are able to maintan a good OPS are also the highest scoring offenses in the league. There's really all there is to it. When you get down to the core contention, teams that get guys on base and hits for power scores runs consistantly.



You could say the same for any pitching prospect in the majors. A young pitcher can be replaced by an old veteran without much of a drop off no matter who the young pitcher is. However, that's missing the point. The point is the Rangers have struggled for year because of lack of pitching. Last year, their starting pitching was an even bigger disgrace than usual. And while Volquez isn't Nolan Ryan Reloaded, he has the stuff to be better than any of the current starters in the Rangers rotation.

I'm sure on the terms of pure stuff, Volquez is better than anyone currently in the rotation not named Vincente Padilla, but in terms of control? Not so much. The problem with Volquez has always been with control issues, and even if you replace him with a guy who doesn't throw quite as hard but has better secondary pitches and has better control, you'll likely get a similar performance. Hence, if you replace the 24 year old Edinson Volquez with the 24 year old Luis Mendoza, I'm not sure there's a big difference in performance.

And also, no you can't say that for most young pitchers. I doubt if you replace Clay Bucholz or Matt Garza or Philip Hughes or Jered Weaver or whatnot with a veteran, there won't be a big drop off in performance. The fact that it could be said for Volquez brings the point of the deal to the forefront - Edinson was imminently replacable not only by external sources, but by internal options as well. He wasn't among the greatest pitching prospects in the system, so I'm not sure where you see this loss. In order to get anywhere near his potential, he'll have to cut his BB/9 by more than 1.5. There's simply no precedence for that kind of behavior. If anything, you take into account his Pitcher per plate appearance and his comparatively high Swinging strike %, it suggests that he should be walking MORE people if stats trend towards normal. Right now, I would wager that there's a higher chance that Josh Hamilton stays off the crack than Edinson Volquez keeps guys off base.



That's a hefty statement. And you might want to add the additional qualifier of "if Hamilton can lay off the crack".


Ok, let's back it up then. I feel confident that Josh Hamilton is the best centerfielder to change teams this winter, and might be the best positional player period (when factoring in defense). We'll use Winshares and EQA to make the determination. How confident are you that he won't be?



:lmao

Here we go again. Starting pitching is not a position of strength for the Rangers. There are no sure fire stud starting pitching prospects in the minors for the Rangers. The Rangers always seem to have plenty of pitching prospects ... but rarely if ever do they pan out.

The Rangers have NEVER had a pitching crop like this since the days of Kevin Brown and Bobby Witt. They have never had as much depth as they have now, and they have NEVER had so much pitching talent in the upper and lower minors. To claim that they do is ignorant of both their pitiful history of minor league development and a disservice to the current system. When guys like Jim Callis, Keith law, John Sickles et all are calling it a top 5 class whose strength is starting pitching depth, it means it's a good system for pitching. Furthermore, it's a system to which Edinson Volquez was a part of, not one where he was above and beyond the best pitcher. Here lies the crux of the argument: What in the world is wrong with dealing a flawed prospect for a flawed player of higher ability? Especially when you have better prospects in the pipeline?



So saying that starting pitching is a position of strength to be dealing from is beyond laughable. And since you are so keen to the home/road splits, you can look for yourself and see that the Rangers pitching problems had nothing to do with where they played. The Rangers pitching was much better at home and was simply horrible on the road. That suggests a much bigger problem than simply "we play in a hitters ballpark" type crybaby BS I typically hear from Ranger Fan.


To say that the depth in starting pitching prospect is not a position of prospect is what is truly laughable about this conversation. No where did anyone claim that the current Rangers staff was "good" or even 'acceptable". What people were saying is that they weren't sure if Volquez could have made a difference. The difference between then and now was no room for a guy like Mendoza and room for a guy like Mendoza. So the only difference is that you replace a question mark of a pitcher with another question mark. I'm failing to see the impact of this trade on a bad staff, especially when the said traded player could be replaced with someone in house with little loss of performance. Currently what you're arguing vs. what people are saying are completely different.




That Rangers pitching is putrid. Volquez, for as bad as he suddenly is in the Ranger Fan circle, was penciled in as a starter next year. And if he would have just kept his production from last year, he'd probably end up the ace of that weak staff. And yet the Rangers were dealing from a position of strength.

Classic.


I'm a big fan of peripheral stats in general because I believe they are indicative of the true problems that are often masked by counting stats like runs scored and ERA. The peripheral stats suggests that the problem with the Rangers staff was that they allowed too many fly balls, too many home runs and too many walks while pitching too few innings. So your solution to this, of course, is to keep a guy who walks too many people, pitches too few innings and allows a league average amount of flyballs?

I would have liked to see Edinson in the staff because I believe he gets strike outs, and those are the easiest way to neutralize the air currents in the ballpark, but let's not be stupid and pretend like he didn't have obvious warts. The one that worried me was his high BB/9 and his high pitches per AB. Those stats aren't conducive to the ballpark, and while once in a while, someone bucks the trend, the fact is that those stats are rarely correctible stats. I think at best, Edinson was Miguel Batista, with a lower GB:FB ratio. That's a fine pitcher, but that's a pitcher I'm willing to give up for a chance with the better player.




Using this line of thinking, then it would always make sense for a team to trade a pitching prospect for a young hitter. Hitting is always going to be sexier than good pitching. However, I think you undervalue how much a good pitcher is worth. If Volquez becomes a second or third guy in a quality rotation, Hamilton would have to be an all-star caliber stud to make this trade look good. Right now, a second or third pitcher in virtually any other rotation would be better than anyone the Rangers have.


Umm no, not even close. What I'm saying here is that all of Hamilton's peripherals lineup with his expected performance, that he's still one of the most athletic guys in the league despite his drug problem, that he has both the natural swing and ability to be a far better player. That's why he's the better player, the better bet and the better prospect, for I still view him as very much a prospect. And at the very core level, all of Hamilton's problems are behavioral. All of Edinson's problems are mechanical. I'd rather take my chances with a 27 year old with behavioral problems than a 24 year old with mechanical issues. Maybe you disagree, and that's fine, but let's not pretend that Edinson offered any more than any other Rangers upper minor prospect, or that he is somehow a better bet than guys like Mendoza, and certainly not guys like Eric Hurley.



My hyperbole detector just exploded. If you want to say that if Hamilton went into a time machine and went back before the drugs and was once again a 20 year old prospect, then maybe that'd be more realistic. But even then, he wouldn't (and didn't) command a Tex like package.

And now after seeing that Hamilton hits lefties about as well as you do, it'd probably be wise to cool the jets before you accidentally put him in the Hall of Fame before he even plays 100 games.


Tune it then. Hamilton at 2001 was a better prospect than Teixiera, and considering he did what he did last year after 3 years out of the game, I'd very much say that he would have gotten a better set of prospects than Teixiera. Even if you extrapoalte his numbers just last year, he's still a guy that's comparable to Jim Edmonds at his prime, an arguably better player than Teixeira at his prime, and certainly one that is playing at a more defensively important position.



You'd be surprised.

Can you link me up to the Chris Young trade thread? I may need to quote the celebrating Ranger Fans within. Thanks :)

http://www.lonestarball.com/story/2005/12/20/185859/73

Yeah, that's a lot of celebrating right there.

Here's the bottom line for this trade: either tell me how adding Volquez to a bad rotation would make it a better rotation than one with Mendoza or tell me how Volquez was the best pitching prospect in the minors for the Rangers. You may have hangups about Hamilton's ability to stay healthy or his ability to lay off drugs, and so do I, but to pretend that Volquez has any more of a chance to conquer his control problems that were prevalent in every step of the upper minors is just as wishy washy and foolishly optimsitic. Both players involved had warts, but I'll take my chances with the guy that plays the position that is the ultimate area of weakness for the Rangers (the next legitimate CF on the depth chart? Engel Beltre, in A- Spokane).

So in summary: The Rangers pitching sucks, but their outfield sucks as well and will continue to suck until players are brought into the system to address the situation. Right now, their best outfield prospect (German Duran) is playing second base and their best center field prospect is a 17 year old that weighs 165 lbs currently playing in short season Spokane. Their best pitching prospect before the trade was Eric Hurley in AAA Oklaholma and their best pitching prospect after the trade was still Eric Hurley in AAA Oklaholma. The Rangers have pitching PROSPECT depth, and no OF depth. They got an OF for one of their many pitching prospects. Seriously, where is the disconnect?

[AFBlue]

I'm not gonna comment on what the Rangers need or don't need because I don't follow them on a regular basis, but I can definitively tell you they got a STUD in Josh Hamilton.

For those naysayers about Josh Hamilton....

- People manage drug and alcohol addiction on a daily basis and Josh finally has the support structure around him (solid wife and family) to make sure he doesn't relapse. Also a bit of history, it's not like he was always addicted to the hardcore drugs or had serious character questions. To the contrary, Hamilton was billed as a high-character good kid coming out of high school. It wasn't until he got injured and got addicted to pain killers that the addiction elevated to a higher level.

While it's certainly a risk because he does have the addictive gene and past problems, I think the whole "crackhead" thing is an overstatement and a diservice to the comeback he's made.

- The outright numbers Hamilton had last year before his injury were extremely impressive. BUT, what makes them more impressive is the fact that this guy hadn't played organized baseball (save for a few games in Short Season A - Hudson Valley) in three years. Think about the numbers this guy could put together if he gets a full season of major league pitching under his belt.

- Even with the injury history, Hamilton still projects as an adequate defensive CF. Impressive since he stands at 6'4 230lbs. This guy has more natural ability than almost any prospect in a decade. People may or may not know that he actually threw 95MPH off the hill in HS as well. The nagging injuries may rob him from ever becoming the complete package that he could be, but even at 90% he's more impressive than most any other outfield prospect in baseball.

From a guy that lives in the Southeast and watched this kid go through his struggles, I'm telling you this kid is special. Rangers got a STEAL with this guy.

[AFBlue]

My prediction for Hamilton next year....

.300 BA/30 HR/10 SB in 120 games


On the trade....

I actually like this for the Reds. Despite giving up a monster talent, they still have one of the top outfield prospects in all of baseball who is close to MLB-ready and will anchor the outfield for YEARS. They also still have outfield depth currently at the major-league level with Freel.

Still....IMO, Hammy will be BIG for the Rangers.