Rangers Trade for Josh Hamilton

[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
other link

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.

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/st...tName=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/archi...l_of_range.php

The legitimate concern is the health concerns, specifically, the amount of damage centerfielders not named Kenny Lofton tends to ac ulate. 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?

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.