POLL:Who got the better deal the Reds or Rangers in the Volquez for Hamilton deal?

Question

POLL:Who got the better deal the Reds or Rangers in the Volquez for Hamilton deal?

Answer 1

it depends on what the team needed.  Both teams got a great player. The reds had an abundance of outfielders so they decided to part ways with hamilton. and the rangers needed an outfielder and had enough pitching.  Both teams came out of the trade a better team. in my opinion

Answer 2

push

Answer 3

definatly the rangers hamilton has the rangers still contending for the playofs wile the reds suk like always

Answer 4

I  would say the reds they needed pitching and they got it but it was good allaround trade

Answer 5

Close call,  Rangers get the prodigal son, potential to be the best player in MLB for a while....Reds get an immediate gap filler in Volquez who will be a servicable starter for years.  Here is the rub....Hamilton has ignited the fan base, but it would be great to have Volquez in Arlington in August.  Rangers get the better deal only because Volquez was under-performing at Arlington Stadium/Ballpark at Arlington/Ameriquest Field whatever they call it. (Just remember that we had the best player in Baseball for a while and did nothing with him)

Answer 6

Actually I think both teams did in their own right and for the long run. Volquez, if he is capable of continuing his success next season will only become even more valuable for The Reds. With a couple of more moves, I could see them seriously competign in a year or two. Hamilton no doubt has been huge for The Rangers and in my eyes the MVP, not just for the team but allof baseball. Texas definitely benefits with his arsenal bat, and wouldnt even be where they are ( in the thick of WC hunt), without him. Despite all the other offense on that team. Oddly enough though Texas needs pitching badly, always has, and would have been really awesome if Volquez was there. Would be something if 2 years from now its Texas vs Cincy in WS.

Answer 7

Rangers. Why? Great defensive plays and a GREAT hitter. h**l..he brought this organization and fan base a live. Rangers got the better deal no question.

Answer 8

Both teams got a great player. Sorry I'm not making a pick, I'll edit tommorow, but its too late and I am tired.

Answer 9

Rangers

Answer 10

Reds did. Rangers need pitching   they have the best offense in baseball and thw worst pitching in baseball     rangers needed Volquez more.

Answer 11

I Believe the Rangers.

They have a great slugger.

Possible Triple Crown-er.

Though the Reds got Volquez.

Which isn't bad. :D

Answer 12

I say the Rangers did.  Hamilton is a stud and will be for a long time to come.  Just imagne if this guy never had the problems he did and started playing in the bigs 6-8 years ago.

Answer 13

Position players are generally more valuable than "equivalently good" pitchers, but the Rangers' strategy of forsaking pitching for a potent offense has always failed them, and it will continue to fail them. You can't win without pitching. Overall, I think it was a pretty even trade, but the Rangers need to change their philosophy if they ever want to compete. As for the Reds, I question why they hold on to players like Dunn and Griffey for so long.