I saved screen shots from C. Trent's blog and John Fay's blog from bloggers, some who posted anonymously and some who post here on LotD now (you know who you are), who decried the trade of Josh Hamilton for Edison Volquez. How could Krivsky make such an awful deal for a pitcher who stinks, one blogger noted. Another pointed out Volquez' propensity to walk batters and said he's nothing more than a kid with a good fastball. Well, yes indeed, Volquez does have a good fastball, but he's also got a filthy curve ball that keeps batters guessing. He changes speed and is more than a one-trick pony. In fact, one can argue that Volquez has shown that he's infinitely more valuable than YET ANOTHER left handed outfielder.

Now, granted Hamilton is tearing it up for the Rangers, with 27 RBI and well over .300 BA, so kudos to him. But could he have won 4 games for the Reds on this team with no Volquez-caliber pitcher in the rotation? I don't think so. Volquez' numbers are just ridiculously good at 4-0 with a 1.23 ERA and 33 Ks. That's flat out ace-like. And yes, Hamilton's 27 RBIs, good defense and solid bat would come in handy for this impotent, do-nothing offense, but honestly where would Hamilton play on this team? Bench Griffey (I wish)? Trade Dunn (I wish)?

In an ideal world, we'd have Hamilton AND Volquez AND Jay Bruce, but if you made me pick between those three, right now, I'd take Volquez and Bruce over Hamilton. And yes his history and injury-risk comes into play in my decision making.

I mean no ill-will toward Hamilton. He's a great story. I wish him well. I hope he thrives with no other "issues" (they better keep Johnny Narron close to him at all times) and no more injuries. But, I'd like to hear from all those naysayers who thought Krivsky didn't get enough for Hamilton. Where are you now?