[Brooks4Prez]

http://www.cincinnatireds.com
Wow, terrible move in my opinion.:redboxer:

[Ring'Em Up]

Unbelievable. Krivsky comes along and lets people start to think he is jus what was needed for Reds baseball to start moving up again, then pulls sumthin like this. Does anyone know if there is ANY Sports businessman in Cincy that has any sense at all? Could he be a lost relative of the Brown family? Hamilton's story alone brought hopes for Reds fans, then his unbelievable year only made the future look more exciting. Letting us think that there was maybe someone now that could take some gambles that would actually payoff for the Reds for a change. I really dont know what to say.
Its things like this that can drive a Reds fan to the bottle...AGAIN!:partyhard

[MVP2]

Terrible....All I can say......

[OffTheHook]

Same ole Reds. Terrible!

[BlackcatAlum]

Another trade that will kill them in the long run.

[MVP2]

Another trade that will kill them in the long run.

You got that right!

[Scotty doesn't know]

NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Just when I thinhk that they can not screw up a situation like this they go and blow it!!!!!! DANGIT, we just traded a future All-Star. So what we cna make room for Dunn's strike outs and Griffey's aging problems........... Freakin' Reds, they will never learn.

[More Cowbell]

I am going to disagree with everybody else on here who says this was a bad trade. Not saying it was a good trade either, but it could be. My reasons:

1) The Reds had a surplus of outfielders at the major-league level (Griffey, Dunn, Freel, Hopper, Hamilton) and Jay Bruce waiting in the wings. You can't start more than three outfielders, so someone needed to go. Did I want Hamilton to be the one to go? No, but Bruce is a future star, Dunn's got a no-trade clause, and you wouldn't get squat for Grifey or Freel in a trade. So Hamilton was the most marketable guy who wasn't untouchable like Bruce.

2) The Reds always need pitching, and this trade helps them on that front. Ed Volquez was the top pitching prospect in the Rangers' system, which is pretty impressive when you think about it. If he develops into a solid member of the Reds' rotation, this deal looks very good.

My one qualm with this deal is I think the Reds could have gotten more for Hamilton if he had played more than just one injury-plagued season in the majors. Certainly his inability to stay healthy hurt his trade value, and I had hoped the team would wait a year before trading Hamilton in order for him to prove to other teams that he can play an entire year. Of course, if he spent a big chunk of 2008 on the DL his trade value would've really dropped. So maybe we did sell high.

Anyway, I hate to lose him, but if there was any position where we could afford to give up a talent like Josh Hamilton, it was in the outfield. I wish him well in Texas, and hopefully Volquez will be a mainstay of our rotation for years to come!

[Playboy5]

Hamilton was a fan favorite in Cincy and a heckuva player when healthy! I SAY STUPID MOVE!!!!!

[FreakNasty]

I am going to disagree with everybody else on here who says this was a bad trade. Not saying it was a good trade either, but it could be. My reasons:

1) The Reds had a surplus of outfielders at the major-league level (Griffey, Dunn, Freel, Hopper, Hamilton) and Jay Bruce waiting in the wings. You can't start more than three outfielders, so someone needed to go. Did I want Hamilton to be the one to go? No, but Bruce is a future star, Dunn's got a no-trade clause, and you wouldn't get squat for Grifey or Freel in a trade. So Hamilton was the most marketable guy who wasn't untouchable like Bruce.

2) The Reds always need pitching, and this trade helps them on that front. Ed Volquez was the top pitching prospect in the Rangers' system, which is pretty impressive when you think about it. If he develops into a solid member of the Reds' rotation, this deal looks very good.

My one qualm with this deal is I think the Reds could have gotten more for Hamilton if he had played more than just one injury-plagued season in the majors. Certainly his inability to stay healthy hurt his trade value, and I had hoped the team would wait a year before trading Hamilton in order for him to prove to other teams that he can play an entire year. Of course, if he spent a big chunk of 2008 on the DL his trade value would've really dropped. So maybe we did sell high.

Anyway, I hate to lose him, but if there was any position where we could afford to give up a talent like Josh Hamilton, it was in the outfield. I wish him well in Texas, and hopefully Volquez will be a mainstay of our rotation for years to come!

I agree.... pitching is more important than an outfield bat at this point....

[Scotty doesn't know]

After a day or so to ponder this, I have came to the conclusion that this can potenially be a fantastic move and seeing the other opinions to get pitching (Bailey, Ceuto) was pretty unreasonable, trading Hamilton was teh most marketable. Especially when it will make the outfield situation one play less complicated.

[Brooks4Prez]

I am going to disagree with everybody else on here who says this was a bad trade. Not saying it was a good trade either, but it could be. My reasons:

1) The Reds had a surplus of outfielders at the major-league level (Griffey, Dunn, Freel, Hopper, Hamilton) and Jay Bruce waiting in the wings. You can't start more than three outfielders, so someone needed to go. Did I want Hamilton to be the one to go? No, but Bruce is a future star, Dunn's got a no-trade clause, and you wouldn't get squat for Grifey or Freel in a trade. So Hamilton was the most marketable guy who wasn't untouchable like Bruce.

2) The Reds always need pitching, and this trade helps them on that front. Ed Volquez was the top pitching prospect in the Rangers' system, which is pretty impressive when you think about it. If he develops into a solid member of the Reds' rotation, this deal looks very good.

My one qualm with this deal is I think the Reds could have gotten more for Hamilton if he had played more than just one injury-plagued season in the majors. Certainly his inability to stay healthy hurt his trade value, and I had hoped the team would wait a year before trading Hamilton in order for him to prove to other teams that he can play an entire year. Of course, if he spent a big chunk of 2008 on the DL his trade value would've really dropped. So maybe we did sell high.

Anyway, I hate to lose him, but if there was any position where we could afford to give up a talent like Josh Hamilton, it was in the outfield. I wish him well in Texas, and hopefully Volquez will be a mainstay of our rotation for years to come!

Good point, but out of all those guys, I would not have gotten rid of Hamilton. They pay Dunn way too much as it is, he's not worth having on a roster. Griffey is not going to be around that much longer. Norriss Hopper? You're kidding right. Freel is only good for about 30 games a year anyway, but a good guy to have in a clubhouse.
Bottom line, this is a stupid move!!!!!

[Braves_Fan_26]

You said it right Brooks. Dunn is paid way too much for all the strikeouts he has. Griffey is an all time great but is getting older and more injury prone. I have never heard of the Hopper guy and Freel stays injured alot too. So yeah this was a stupid trade. Why not trade Dunn or Griffey, im sure they could get some good players for one of those guys. Pitching is their weak spot I agree but to give up a talent like Hamilton who has came along way to get his career back on track is just stupid. I just hope he doesnt get around some bad elements in Texas or gets disheartened over this and goes back to his old life. The Reds next to the Braves have been a big disappointment over the last few years.

[FBALL]

The reds need pitching. I like Hamilton alot but it was a smart trade IMO.

[GodisAshlandTomcat41]

Ugh! This is crap! I met Josh at a Reds game this past season and Im sad to see him go! I would rather get rid of Griffey. They could have gotten more for Griffey and Griff only has a few years left while Hamilton may play 15 more years.

[Scotty doesn't know]

Good point, but out of all those guys, I would not have gotten rid of Hamilton. They pay Dunn way too much as it is, he's not worth having on a roster. Griffey is not going to be around that much longer. Norriss Hopper? You're kidding right. Freel is only good for about 30 games a year anyway, but a good guy to have in a clubhouse.
Bottom line, this is a stupid move!!!!!

I don't know why you are reacting like that towards Hopper. DID YOU SEE WHAT HE DID LAST YEAR? Yeah maybe not your typical home run outfielder but he is a fantastic player. He adds to the equation out in the outfield. Just he was not as marketable as Hamilton. Now if you look at each performance from last year, yea Hamilton is the one guy you would think that the Reds would hold on to but think..... Dunn can not be traded, no one wants Griffey, Hopper and Freel is not as marketable as Hamilton, and pitching is the missing key to a really good team........ I think they did what they could to make the team a contender NOW> yes Hamilton would have been a star but Bruce can not be kept down anymore. So I believe this was the only way to get a valuable pitcher.

[Playboy5]

So people who don't think this was a bad move actually think losing a talent like Hamilton ( who was compared to Mickey Mantle coming out and in which nobody has never seen the REAL JOSH HAMILTON when healthy) to Edinson Volquez, who went 36-27 IN THE MINORS is the answer...Edinson Volquez people...Plus Hamilton is a marketable player in which I would love to see the money the Reds made selling his shirts and jerseys. I know every game I went to, that is about all you seen this past year. It isn't like we were paying Hamilton $9,000,000 a year, and look what we got rid of him for.Although I do agree that the Reds need pitching, there are 500 Edinson Volquez's in the minors!

[Ring'Em Up]

Dont think it could have been better said, PB5. So, people that say Hamilton was the one with the most market value of the OF's, how could they be happy with receiving a middle of the pack "prospect" (24 yrs old, 3-11 & 7+ ERA at highest level) for a possible future All-star caliber player that HAS proven himself in his first real shot at doing so? Will we be able to eat some crow about this one in a few years? Possible, of course. Probable, no. And thats IF the Reds even stick with Volquez long enuff to have a chance at justifying this trade. I will guess that he will be given part of one season in the rotation, then dissapear either into the minors or dealt to another team. Dont the Reds have a knack for this with young pitching?
Nice mention of the comparison to Mantle, also, PB5. One of Hamilton's nicknames is "The Natural"
Hamilton is always mentioned now in discussions of the All-Time greatest Rule 5 Draft pick-ups. Make a great move in picking him up for cash only, then blowing a "once-in-a-million" flash of greatness by the Reds organization by pulling anothe bonehead...IMO.

[Scotty doesn't know]

Dont think it could have been better said, PB5. So, people that say Hamilton was the one with the most market value of the OF's, how could they be happy with receiving a middle of the pack "prospect" (24 yrs old, 3-11 & 7+ ERA at highest level) for a possible future All-star caliber player that HAS proven himself in his first real shot at doing so? Will we be able to eat some crow about this one in a few years? Possible, of course. Probable, no. And thats IF the Reds even stick with Volquez long enuff to have a chance at justifying this trade. I will guess that he will be given part of one season in the rotation, then dissapear either into the minors or dealt to another team. Dont the Reds have a knack for this with young pitching?
Nice mention of the comparison to Mantle, also, PB5. One of Hamilton's nicknames is "The Natural"
Hamilton is always mentioned now in discussions of the All-Time greatest Rule 5 Draft pick-ups. Make a great move in picking him up for cash only, then blowing a "once-in-a-million" flash of greatness by the Reds organization by pulling anothe bonehead...IMO.

Okay now, out of the people who understand the situation and why Hamilton was traded (I don't like the trade but I do COMPLETELY understand the motive and actions behind the trade) what do you think could have happened with the outfielder situation. I mean, you have to keep 4-5 different players satisfied and playing regularly. Dunn can not be traded (I wish he could have), Griffey is old but( still has to play to get the moneys worth), Hopper is another up and coming star, Bruce is a better future player than anyone in the league and you have Freel to add another wrench to the situation. How could Hamilton have fallen in there with two fixtures already occuping spots (Dunn, and Griffey) with Bruce who NEEDS TO PLAY NOW? I loved Hamilton as much as anyone else and he was actually my new favorite player but I do understand why he was traded.

[Ring'Em Up]

I understand what you're trying to say. Yeah, someone in the group was bound to be dealt. I'm not arguing that. Actually, not arguing anything. Haha. I jus wonder how fans could be happy with the return on such a minimal investment that had already proven to have such a high upside. Do you not think Hamilton, or Norrie, or Freel, were worth more than what was received? Thats the only point I trying to make.
My take on the OF situation...yeah, at least one needed to be dealt, sit on the rest and let them have their normal utility/rest day starts for, what, another year or 2 at the max until Griff proves to no longer be productive enuff to justify his money.

[jammin' jamey]

I am going to disagree with everybody else on here who says this was a bad trade. Not saying it was a good trade either, but it could be. My reasons:

1) The Reds had a surplus of outfielders at the major-league level (Griffey, Dunn, Freel, Hopper, Hamilton) and Jay Bruce waiting in the wings. You can't start more than three outfielders, so someone needed to go. Did I want Hamilton to be the one to go? No, but Bruce is a future star, Dunn's got a no-trade clause, and you wouldn't get squat for Grifey or Freel in a trade. So Hamilton was the most marketable guy who wasn't untouchable like Bruce.

2) The Reds always need pitching, and this trade helps them on that front. Ed Volquez was the top pitching prospect in the Rangers' system, which is pretty impressive when you think about it. If he develops into a solid member of the Reds' rotation, this deal looks very good.

My one qualm with this deal is I think the Reds could have gotten more for Hamilton if he had played more than just one injury-plagued season in the majors. Certainly his inability to stay healthy hurt his trade value, and I had hoped the team would wait a year before trading Hamilton in order for him to prove to other teams that he can play an entire year. Of course, if he spent a big chunk of 2008 on the DL his trade value would've really dropped. So maybe we did sell high.

Anyway, I hate to lose him, but if there was any position where we could afford to give up a talent like Josh Hamilton, it was in the outfield. I wish him well in Texas, and hopefully Volquez will be a mainstay of our rotation for years to come!

Excellent post...Guys you have to see the bigger picture here. Hamilton is prone to injury, in case you don't know there's a guy at Triple A by the name of Jay Bruce that will help you forget about Hamilton, plus...you have to give to get. The Reds gave up a talented player in Hamilton and hopefully Volquez will be a contributor to the Reds starting pitching staff immediately and that it's a win-win situation for both teams because I wish Hamilton the best in Texas.

Told you guys back in October Hamilton was going to be traded! Nobody believed me. Sorry, but other teams aren't going to take our junk (Griffey, Freel for example) and give us something great in return.

This trade tells me that the Bedard trade for Bailey isn't happening either. The Reds front office made it clear two weeks ago that they would make a move to sure-up the pitching staff without spending big bucks on subpar talent from the FA market.

I say good move for the Reds.

[Playboy5]

Play one of the outfielders at first..If Hamilton is injury proned..Play him at first..or Dunn. Play Freel at 3rd or 2nd.

[jammin' jamey]

Good point, but out of all those guys, I would not have gotten rid of Hamilton. They pay Dunn way too much as it is, he's not worth having on a roster. Griffey is not going to be around that much longer. Norriss Hopper? You're kidding right. Freel is only good for about 30 games a year anyway, but a good guy to have in a clubhouse.
Bottom line, this is a stupid move!!!!!

OK...Who's gonna give up a pitching prospect like Volquez for Dunn who's got one year on a contract and have to pay over the top to keep him in a bigger market? Hopper isn't costing the team anything and he's contributing - keep him...he's the best lead off man on the roster. Freel was given a contract extension too soon in my opinion, but anyone can second guess moves after players suffer injuries so I'll overlook that mistake. Griffey will be offered something to small to stay with the ballclub after this season and depending on the kind of year he has, he'll probably stay and sign a Larkin type deal for 2-years and retire.

[jammin' jamey]

Play one of the outfielders at first..If Hamilton is injury proned..Play him at first..or Dunn. Play Freel at 3rd or 2nd.

Phillips is at 2nd...Votto/Hatteberg are at 1st and both are lefthanded so adding a third lefty bat like Hamilton wouldn't help there...Freel is not an everyday player at any position period.

[Scotty doesn't know]

I understand what you're trying to say. Yeah, someone in the group was bound to be dealt. I'm not arguing that. Actually, not arguing anything. Haha. I jus wonder how fans could be happy with the return on such a minimal investment that had already proven to have such a high upside. Do you not think Hamilton, or Norrie, or Freel, were worth more than what was received? Thats the only point I trying to make.
My take on the OF situation...yeah, at least one needed to be dealt, sit on the rest and let them have their normal utility/rest day starts for, what, another year or 2 at the max until Griff proves to no longer be productive enuff to justify his money.

Okay man! I am glad that there are some Reds fans on here that actually know what they are talking about. Thanks for the discussion.
Regarding your post on Griffey. I think that is the MAIN reason for these problems, he is no longer going to produce up to his billing. and IMO Dunn will not either. It is a crying shame that the most talented m=one of the the three had to be dealt.

[jammin' jamey]

It is a crying shame that the most talented m=one of the the three had to be dealt.

The most talented guy is Bruce and the Reds are clearing the way for him. Dunn has improved the last 2 seasons and I'm glad he's still a Red. You're stuck with Griffey, he's a liability at times, but you have to make the best of it. This was a good move.

[Redneck]

Bad move IMO....

[Scotty doesn't know]

The most talented guy is Bruce and the Reds are clearing the way for him. Dunn has improved the last 2 seasons and I'm glad he's still a Red. You're stuck with Griffey, he's a liability at times, but you have to make the best of it. This was a good move.

Oh no... I was not including Bruce in that particular point. I meant out of Dunn, Griffey and Hamilton. He has the most talent. You see I completely agree that Bruce is the most talented. I think I even mentioned later on in the paragraph that I thought Bruce was probably the most talented young player in the league. :Thumbs:

[blackcat_mvp6]

I think this was a bad move for the Reds. They should got rid of Dunn. He either hits a home run or strikes out and the Reds need some to be consistent. But if this pitcher can contribute then it could turn out to be a good move, but other than that it was a bad one.

[jammin' jamey]

I think this was a bad move for the Reds. They should got rid of Dunn. He either hits a home run or strikes out and the Reds need some to be consistent. But if this pitcher can contribute then it could turn out to be a good move, but other than that it was a bad one.

I was all for trading Dunn before the deadline during this past season, but once I saw that the front office was willing to pony up some salary, I had no problem with him staying around. Especially after the way the front office has upgraded the team from the bullpen to the starting rotation and there will be more moves to come with the team probably adding another veteran starter from the FA pool...

I'll defend Dunn since he's obviously not here to defend himself and has better things to do, but consider this:

• Dunn has hit 40 or more homeruns per season the last 4 years...
  
• Dunn has driven in no less than 92 RBI's per season the past 4 years...
  
• Over 100 walks drawn in 5 of his 7 big league seasons...
  
• Cut down his K's by 29 this season and raised his SLG% to .554...