PDA

View Full Version : If Dunn isn't signed long term, Jay Bruce needs a long term extension



Ghosts of 1990
08-07-2008, 09:48 AM
I want to finally see this organization do the right thing. If they're going to let Dunn walk out the door, they need to take some money they didn't have to spend on Adam Dunn and lock Jay Bruce up long term right now.

This would be no different than what the Indians did with Grady Sizemore or the Rays did with Evan Longoria. Commit to Bruce and commit to us by saying "This is the face of the franchise."

The Reds current thing of going year to year with their young players isn't working. Try something different for a change it might bring about winning.

Anyone agree?

Nasty_Boy
08-07-2008, 11:40 AM
I would wait until he's arb eligible before I gave him a long term deal. Let him prove himself a little more, buy out his arb years, and try to extend him 3-4 past that. I don't think there's any rush, especially since you don't know about injuries and how other player contracts will be affected.

ChatterRed
08-07-2008, 11:48 AM
I want to finally see this organization do the right thing. If they're going to let Dunn walk out the door, they need to take some money they didn't have to spend on Adam Dunn and lock Jay Bruce up long term right now.

This would be no different than what the Indians did with Grady Sizemore or the Rays did with Evan Longoria. Commit to Bruce and commit to us by saying "This is the face of the franchise."

The Reds current thing of going year to year with their young players isn't working. Try something different for a change it might bring about winning.

Anyone agree?

Yeah, let's sign someone long term THAT WE DON'T HAVE TO.

Do you even understand why it's nice having young players? You have control of them for several years before you have to sign them to the big bucks.

Ghosts of 1990
08-07-2008, 12:04 PM
Yeah, let's sign someone long term THAT WE DON'T HAVE TO.

Do you even understand why it's nice having young players? You have control of them for several years before you have to sign them to the big bucks.

But then you risk losing them during the best years of their career and into their prime. Or, if you want to keep them, you will have to pay $18 million when they command it as free agents when they'd had settled for between $8-10 to do the deal years earlier.

If your theory is true, then why did Cleveland and Tampa Bay go this route with Longoria and Sizemore?

Ahhhorsepoo
08-07-2008, 12:27 PM
for once i agree with you jay..

i say sign him to a 8 year deal like the brewers did braun.. 8 years 50 mil is a good thing to keep him locked up.. and save money..

look bruce might not end up being the next HUGE superstar.. but there is little to no chance he is going to fall flat on his face and fail completely after what we have seen.. he will at LEAST be a good MLB player.. not ready to anoint him yet.. but 8 years 50 or 52 mil is a great idea..

you get a +1 from me jay..

Manut Bol
08-07-2008, 12:31 PM
I have no real doubt that Bruce is going to be a major superstar in this league. I say it'd be a good idea to lock him up now.

PTI (pti)
08-07-2008, 01:08 PM
But then you risk losing them during the best years of their career and into their prime. Or, if you want to keep them, you will have to pay $18 million when they command it as free agents when they'd had settled for between $8-10 to do the deal years earlier.

If your theory is true, then why did Cleveland and Tampa Bay go this route with Longoria and Sizemore?



I couldn't agree more, and in today's baseball I think small market teams *have* to do this with their young players. Ryan Braun was also signed to a similar contract. If you're confident enough in that player's ability - I say go for it. And Jay Bruce is THAT talented.

Even in a worst-case scenario (injury, epic slump, etc), that type of contract is "team friendly" enough, and Bruce is talented enough that you can always get rid of him.

nemesis
08-07-2008, 05:25 PM
Why exactly should we extend Bruce right now? We already have him in our control for 6 years and quite frankly who knows what kinda player he turns out ro be?

Here is some food for though:

J Bruce at 21
63 243 38 67 11 0 11 32 111 17 62 2 4 .326 .457 .276 OPS of .783

A Dunn at 21
66 244 54 64 18 1 19 43 141 38 74 4 2 .371 .578 .262 OPS of .949

Same amount of at bats he scored 16 more runs had 3 less hits, 7 more doubles, 1 more triple, 8 more homeruns 21 more walks, 12 more K's and OMG 2 more stolen bases. We didn't extend Dunn at the time who was obviously a better player at this stage so why take the chance with Bruce? The good news is, if he has a great year of improvement next year, you still have 4 yrs to get a deal done.

P.S. This was still while hitting at Cinergy not Lefty friendly GABP.

BLEEDS
08-07-2008, 06:40 PM
wait until he hits arbitration - then you buy out his arb years.

Similar to what they did with BP.

The ENTIRE REASON they waited to bring him up late was to protect his Super 2 status.

He hasn't exactly had Ryan Braun type success yet, or Grady Sizemore for that matter.

IF they don't resign Dunn, I think Bruce's agent would be reluctant to sign him long-term anyway. 3-5 years from now he might OPS .900, hit 35 HRs a year with 100 RBI's and 100 BB's and have fans and radio heads wanting to run him out of town.

PEACE

-BLEEDS

GoReds33
08-08-2008, 12:18 AM
The only way I sign somebody like him longterm is if it has a few select parts to it. I have no problem giving him 8 years and 50 million, like Braun, because it may save us countless millions in the future. However, to limit it's potential detriment to the team, I would make it a base 5 year 25 million dollar deal, with 25 over the last three as a club option.

Ghosts of 1990
08-08-2008, 07:31 AM
The Braun deal was a stroke of genius. Something similar would end up being for Bruce as well. And to the poster who brought up Dunn's #'s at 21 being better and him not getting signed to a contract..... who's to say that was the right move? Do you realize the incompetence that was in this front office in 2001-2002 and Dunn's early career? They missed on 99.9% of other stuff during that time, that was one of the things; signing Dunn to a contract early that would have saved us big bucks for the #'s he put up. That argument doesn't hold water with me, (that b/c Dunn wasn't signed LTC as a 21 year old with good numbers, bruce shouldn't be signed either).

markymark69
08-08-2008, 10:09 AM
I see your point and there is certainly a precedent (Braun. Longoria), but as someone else wrote, the Reds don't have to do that at this time, Bruce is under their control for six years, there is no need to rush.

Spend the money elsewhere, let Bruce continue to blossom and then lock him in.

Ghosts of 1990
08-08-2008, 11:08 AM
They were actually talking on FOX Sports Radio last night about how the Braun deal is a total bargain for the Brewers and how Brewers are really only paying him 1/3 of what he is worth or will be worth. They did it at the right time with the right player who wants to be a part of something. I think we have a VERY similar player and situation here with Bruce.

BLEEDS
08-08-2008, 11:16 AM
I'm not TOTALLY against it at all JB32, I just think our FO isn't smart enough to think in those terms, plus they are "trying to win now" (ALLEGEDLY) so locking up a guy who's going to make league minimum for the next 3 years, and then 3 years of Arbitration probably isn't in their gameplan.

They'll probably throw that money at some fly-ball tendency middle reliever instead.

Personally, I think this "WINDOW OF OPPORTUNITY" is the time to take advantage of the cheap young guys on our roster to complement our pricey veteran SP's. I don't think increasing the payroll - for players who will be here cheaper regardless - is in our best interest. Use it to ADD more good quality players to our roster.

PEACE

-BLEEDS

nemesis
08-08-2008, 12:45 PM
The Braun deal was a stroke of genius. Something similar would end up being for Bruce as well. And to the poster who brought up Dunn's #'s at 21 being better and him not getting signed to a contract..... who's to say that was the right move? Do you realize the incompetence that was in this front office in 2001-2002 and Dunn's early career? They missed on 99.9% of other stuff during that time, that was one of the things; signing Dunn to a contract early that would have saved us big bucks for the #'s he put up. That argument doesn't hold water with me, (that b/c Dunn wasn't signed LTC as a 21 year old with good numbers, bruce shouldn't be signed either).


No what I am saying is that half the people in this town is trying to run him (Dunn) out of Cincinnati. All the man does is put up 40 100 100 100 and a .900 OPS. But a guy who has yet to prove anything at this time and hasn't even come close to duplicating the same #'s at the same age you want sign long term...? So we commit $50 million to a kid who still hasnr proved he can hit big leauge pitching consistantly yet? What happens if he just tanks? Then we have drove of people ***** we tied money up in a kid that we shoulda never. Like I said end of next year he puts up .280 30 120 and a .850 OPS hell yeah give him 8yrs and 60 or 70 million. But not now.

Ghosts of 1990
08-08-2008, 01:38 PM
I'd love to sign Adam Dunn long term nemesis. I've wanted them to do it since 2002. Every once in a while you need to take a shot. Go for the downs, swing for the fences, etc. They didn't do it with Dunn and now they're going to lose a valuable commodity. You can just tell when a guy is going to be a commodity. I could with Dunn and I can with Bruce. They don't come along often. It's ironic that their paths cross. Either one of them could be a face of this franchise, something we've lacked for a LONG LONG time, since Larkin in the early to mid 90's.

They've missed the boat on keeping Dunn. They need to take a chance and make Bruce the guy they build around. Solidify the main piece, then go and get everything else. Why is that so hard for Castellini and Company?

BLEEDS
08-08-2008, 02:38 PM
I'd love to sign Adam Dunn long term nemesis. I've wanted them to do it since 2002. Every once in a while you need to take a shot. Go for the downs, swing for the fences, etc. They didn't do it with Dunn and now they're going to lose a valuable commodity. You can just tell when a guy is going to be a commodity. I could with Dunn and I can with Bruce. They don't come along often. It's ironic that their paths cross. Either one of them could be a face of this franchise, something we've lacked for a LONG LONG time, since Larkin in the early to mid 90's.

They've missed the boat on keeping Dunn. They need to take a chance and make Bruce the guy they build around. Solidify the main piece, then go and get everything else. Why is that so hard for Castellini and Company?

Again, IF they had any idea on how to build a nucleus of a team, they wouldn't be letting Dunn go in the first place.
What makes you think they would have the wherewithall to sign Bruce to an extension?!?!

As much as I rail on BP for his flaws, I DO think that was a pretty decent extension they signed him too. Even if he NEVER is able to hit RHP better than Corey Patterson, as long as he continues to sport a Gold-Glove Caliber 2nd base, his contract is not going to be out of line until 2011:

09:$4.75M, 10:$6.75M, 11:$11M, 12:$12M club option ($1M buyout)

His 08-10 numbers are probably what he would have received in Arbitration if he didn't improve one iota.
He does get accelerators if he wins awards - like Gold Gloves

If he's winning Gold Gloves and still OPS's .700 against RHP, 2011 will be his last year in a Reds uni, IMO. HOPEFULLY he can improve and be worth it.

Of course, this contract was done under WK's watch. I haven't seen Jocketty do one darn thing yet, which in and of itself is grounds for questioning his value. Unless you want to give him credit for keeping Bruce out of the bigs until he surpassed his Super 2. Other than that, what's he done to give you a warm and fuzzy?!?!

PEACE

-BLEEDS

redsfanmia
08-08-2008, 03:54 PM
The Reds control Bruce for the next six years, why sign him to long term deal now?

Ghosts of 1990
08-08-2008, 04:11 PM
The Reds control Bruce for the next six years, why sign him to long term deal now?

Well I think we've already went over that in this very thread. :thumbup:

redsfanmia
08-08-2008, 05:09 PM
Well I think we've already went over that in this very thread. :thumbup:


Thanks for the heads up I didnt read the whole thing.

Ghosts of 1990
08-08-2008, 06:27 PM
Thanks for the heads up I didnt read the whole thing.

no problem my friend

Ahhhorsepoo
08-11-2008, 09:57 AM
those stats didn't show the much better defensive range for bruce over dunn...