Who was or is the better pick?

Hamilton. AL vs. NL is a HUGE difference. Volquez would have somewhere close to a 5.00 ERA in the AL.

Which team got the better bargain?

Too early to tell, but the hitter plays every day…advantage Rangers.

Did they trade only work with the swap of these two players?

Yep.

The real question, in my mind, is what did the Rangers need RIGHT NOW?

Bullpen help if it’s cheap….otherwise we need prospects and more prospects. Period. We aren’t going to win the division this year…and I think we all know that. Sell of pieces at the deadline and get more help in here…particularly with starting pitching. You can’t EVER have enough starting pitching. Too much starting pitching ends up being extremely valuable trade chips.

At the time of the trade it was a perfect trade to make. We had a glut of back of the rotation pitchers and they had a glut of outfielders. I challenge anybody to say they thought Edinson would turn out to be this good this year. We had Volquez, Mendoza, Galarraga, Hurley, Harrison, BMac, Gabbard, and Jennings all for the 3-5 spots in the rotation. Cincy had Freel, Hammy, Griffey, Dunn, and Bruce all for their OF positions. It was a perfect scenario.

Now could we use Volquez now…of course. But at the time he looked like a back of the rotation guy who wasn’t even guaranteed a spot in the rotation. Our offense without Hamilton is without question nowhere near as explosive. And our outfield defense would probably be way worse as well.

The thing that makes this trade a no brainer win for us is that based on what Hammy did last year you could kinda predict somewhat close to what he is doing this year. But you couldn’t say that about Volquez.

...most of the time.
But the Volquez-Hamilton trade is hard to denounce.
It’s worked out well for both teams…but a dangerous precedent for future trades.

I agree with you on this one, bigsteve.

Just because he is having great success for the red’s doesn’t automatically mean he would do the same for the rangers. I know he mentioned he went back to the arm slot he was comfortable with that the rangers tried to change.
which brings the question of, do the rangers need new pitching coaches?

But to answer the question , i do the deal over and over the same way. The rangers needed both pitching and outfield defense, and arguably needed a power bat with a good glove in the outfield far more than a potential ace. If they can now find that potential ace or even a solid 2/3 guy, and combine that with the good outfield D they have, then they are much better off.

Sometimes you can claim an advantage from a trade by comparing win shares over a season, or similar matchups. I don’t think there is an absolute template for making decisions when the results of the trade haven’t had time to play out, and how long that takes is pretty subjective.

About the only template I trust is the very old, never proven one about balance. That it takes six guys hitting and three starters winning solidly and two relievers excelling to expect to win out. And even that isn’t an everyday thing, baseball matchups and situational play tend to disrupt any real consistency in W – L effectiveness.

That said, I enjoy and appreciate Pythagorean W- L constructs, and year over year goodness of either hitters or pitchers. The challenge for the Rangers is, and has been, to maintain pitching goodness no matter what else is going on. And as rentz cited, a good enough defense to prevent unearned or situational decision runs.