Here's a sampling of the reader response:

Do you like the Hamilton for Volquez trade? Do you think they could have gotten a little more out of this?
-- Alex P., Binghamton, N.Y.

Why would the Reds trade a player like Hamilton for an unproven pitcher from the Rangers that was slotted as their fifth starter? The fact that he would be the fifth starter on the Rangers is not saying much. Since when have the Rangers produced a good pitching prospect?
-- Arron G., Columbus, Ohio

I loved the Hamilton trade. We all expected the Reds to make a move to bring in more young pitching. I'm still not happy, though. The two pitchers we got in the deal are still question marks, leaving us with still only two proven pitchers (really only one after Bronson Arroyo's season last year). Do you see us making another move?
-- Craig S., Cincinnati

Please just tell me what the Reds were thinking when they traded Hamilton? I don't understand. He put up some of the best numbers for a player who didn't even play a full season and we got, let's just say, not a top pitcher in return. I just simply don't understand.
-- Sam B., Finneytown, Ohio

What do you think of the Hamilton trade? The word down here is that the Rangers got the better end of the deal. You have to remember that they are hurting for pitching too, and if Volquez is that good, why would they give him up? They already have outfielders. I think we should have traded Norris Hopper and/or Ryan Freel before Hamilton. Your thoughts?
-- Carl I., Dallas, Texas

Back in October in response to a mailbag question, I wrote that I felt Hamilton was untouchable. Until the day he was dealt to Texas on Dec. 21, I still held that opinion. Sure, he had durability questions, but he also had tremendous five-tool upside. The guy barely lifted a bat for four years and he still hit 19 homers in 90 games. And, the club controlled his rights for five more years while only having to pay around the minimum salary for the next two years until arbitration eligibility.

On the other side of the argument, Hamilton's years of drug abuse led to speculation his body will be more susceptible to injury. (General manager Wayne Krivsky denied that he was concerned about durability). Some inside the clubhouse also privately complained of Hamilton having then-manager Jerry Narron's brother, Johnny Narron, as a personal coach and mentor. With both Narrons not back for the upcoming season, I don't think that distraction would have been as much of a factor.

Have a question about the Reds? E-mail your query to MLB.com Reds beat reporter Mark Sheldon for possible inclusion in a future Inbox column. Letters may be edited for brevity, length and/or content. First Name, Last Initial: Hometown: Email Address: Question:

This trade was clearly a case of buying low and selling high. The Reds took a low-risk chance on Hamilton when they nabbed him in the Rule 5 Draft in December 2006, and it paid off big. Now they're trying to parlay that into pitching help via a much riskier move. The deal also proved again how much teams value quality pitching and what it takes to acquire even a potentially good arm through a trade. And no, I don't think the Reds could have done better with the return based on that high demand.

I know the Reds weren't openly shopping Hamilton to other clubs, but his name certainly came up a lot when proposals were made to Krivsky. The cost of trading for a top-tier starter appeared extremely high, so Cincinnati went another route. Having another coveted young pitcher like Volquez to join prospects like Homer Bailey, Johnny Cueto and Matt Maloney appeared to the front office as being both a short- and long-term solution.

Before the trade, top prospect and outfielder Jay Bruce appeared locked to begin 2008 in Triple-A. Hamilton's departure is certainly an endorsement that the Reds are confident about Bruce's Major League readiness. I would not discount his chances at all if he has a good Spring Training.

One side note: Writing the Hamilton trade story was a truly unique experience for me. My family and I had just hit the road for a 600-mile drive east for the holidays when the call about the trade came. My wife took over driving while I rode shotgun to write and make phone calls. Later, while my wife and son were inside finishing dinner in Columbus, I listened in on Krivsky and Hamilton's conference call. Once back on the road, I continued writing while simultaneously helping my three-year-old put videos in his DVD player. I also accidentally spilled his sippy-cup of milk all over my laptop (sorry MLB.com IT department, but at least it's cleaned up now). We were near Akron when I sent the story via my Palm handheld device. Thanks to my family for putting up with a little pre-holiday work mayhem before we could relax and enjoy a little break.

OK, back to the mailbag.

What do you think the Reds' chances are to get pitcher Erik Bedard from the Orioles? What would the Reds have to give up to get a pitcher like Bedard?
-- Jordan M., Carmel, Ind.

I'd be surprised at this point if the Reds landed Bedard. The price would be too steep if Cincinnati had to send prospects like Bruce, Joey Votto, Bailey or Cueto to Baltimore in exchange. Bedard is certainly a superb lefty starting pitcher, but he will be a free agent after just two more seasons. And based on the ballooning salaries top-tier starting pitchers are receiving these days, the Reds would likely have a tough time retaining him. By that time, Bailey or Cueto could already be established and winning.

It'd be tough to part with several of the organization's elite prospects for that type of short-term benefit. Besides, the National League Central is wide open enough that the Reds could still contend without someone like Bedard. They do need a veteran for the middle of the rotation, however, since they still have just two proven starters. A free agent could probably be signed without spending a ton.

Has there been any updates on the progress of Bobby Livingston's recovery from shoulder surgery? Will he be ready for Spring Training to compete for a fifth-starter spot?
-- Ryan N., Fairfax, Va.

No. When I spoke with Livingston at Redsfest last month, he said he was progressing well in his rehabilitation. At that time, he hoped to begin throwing in January and targeted being ready by mid-May.

What are the chances that David Concepcion enters the Hall of Fame this time? His Gold Gloves and All-Star Game MVP should help him.
-- Diego B., Caracas, Venezuela

I'd like to tell you his chances are good, but it wouldn't be an honest answer. A player must receive votes on a minimum of 75 percent of the writers' ballots. Concepcion has never received more than 16.9 percent of the vote -- and that happened in 1998. Last year, he received just 13.6 percent of votes. It wouldn't be realistic to believe he could make such a huge leap in one year. But we'll know for sure when the results are revealed on Tuesday at 2 p.m. ET. This is Concepcion's 15th and final year on the writers' ballot. After this, it would be up to the veterans' committee.

Happy New Year to everyone. I hope you all have a great 2008.