Debate: Volquez/Hamilton vs. Lee/Quentin

Well, Hamilton won't win the Triple Crown and Volquez probably won't win the Cy Young, but there's no doubt this trade had its ramifications.

With reports that the Diamondbacks considered trading Quentin for Lee, I started thinking how big of a blockbuster that would be considering how well they've both played. Then, I wondered which trade would be better: Volquez for Hamilton or Lee for Quentin. Here are there stats up to today:

Edinson Volquez (Cin)
16-5, 170 IP, 174 K, 77 BB, 3.12 ERA, 1.32 WHIP

Josh Hamilton (Tex)
.301/.363/.542, 31 HR, 121 RBI, 30 2B, 80 R

Cliff Lee (Cle)
20-2, 194.1 IP, 149 K, 27 BB, 2.32 ERA, 1.05 WHIP

Carlos Quentin (Chi)
.288/.394/.571, 36 HR, 100 RBI, 26 2B, 96 R

So as you look at it, you see two MVP candidates and two Cy Young candidates. I guess I'd give Lee the advantage as for this season (especially due to his walks and WHIP), but Volquez is cheaper and controllable for longer. As for the hitters, Hamilton and Quentin are pretty similar except that Quentin is two years younger. Both have had issues (drugs and injuries, respectively), but both seem to be coming into their own. If I had a choice between the two, I'd take Quentin with his better OBP, SLG, and youth. So, which will have/has had/would have had the most impact? It's hard to say. In the end, I'd say the Volquez/Hamilton mainly due to Volquez being so much younger than Lee. At age 29, Lee is getting to the point where he could be "the man" for a couple more years, but Volquez is already "the man". Between Hamilton and Quentin, I don't think there's enough difference between them to give the advantage to either side, especially what Volquez could mean to Cincy.

Still, imagine a rotation of Webb, Haren, and Lee. Wow. Also, would the Indians have been better with that power-hitting outfielder they desperately need?