It's likley never bad getting premium players signed only to the age 35. Those last 5 years is what generally kills the value of FA.
Not unless it's very generous on the Reds' terms..
Realistically, he's going to expect a bump from the 13 million he's going to make in the last season of his current deal.
Not sure I want to risk that. We already have Bruce locked down for a long time. Why add risk at this point? Even though position players are less likely to get injured, all it takes is a hamstring injury like Jr had.
I don't think I'd sign Jay to an extension this offseason unless it was a really good deal from the Reds perspective but I love hearing that he wants to be a Red for his whole career and that Joey is in his wedding. That's true friendship right there! Weddings can be a pain in the behind for the attendants. I've been in eight of them myself (all of them were totally insane) and I'm not even married so none of them were mine, LOL :laugh:
That headline makes me giddy. It definitely adds unnecessary risk to an already team friendly team friendly contract, but we're also talking about sustaining a pretty impressive amount of goodwill towards the organization. If Jay Bruce wants to hang up the wishbone C at the end of his career, I'd be more than happy to let him do it at a fair contract.
Things have changed in the last 3 or 4 years. I think our perception that a player could continue to produce at a high level was clouded by the use of steroids. Players are starting to lose a lot of their value at age 32 again. 32 was always considered the age cliff - steroids changd that and guys produced into their upper 30's. This is not occurring near as often anymore. Anything past 32 and the risk sky rockets (maybe that's why the mlb didn't do much about the steroid problem -it brought continuity/stability to a payroll and allowed the front office one less thing to have to worry about).
Signing a player past the age of 32 now has a major risk assigned to it. I think i'd pass and gather more data.
While I agree players can't play for as long as before, I don't mind 32 years old. It's 37 when I expect players to completely empty out. I think 32-37 are years where there might well be decline, but it's acceptable and still substantial enough to justify.
You pick 10 average major leaguers at age 32....by age 34 half of them are out of the league. The other 5 lose 30-50% of their peak value. Keep in mind that pre- and post steroid era. They just don't hold up well and the ones that do lose an awful lot of value.
This next part is a guess - you pick 10 average major leaguers age 30 ...by age 37 i would venture to guess all of them except 1 would be gone and out of the major leagues.
With the advent of better testing re: steroids - guys are dropping of the radar much sooner than they were- steroids make you young. Without them old man time gets ya.
They're not going to do it, and the reason is Joey Votto's contract.
Interesting news this morning that would seem appropos to Bruce's situation. The Rays have extended Evan Longoria's contract, $100M over five years with an option for the 2023. His current contract ran through 2016 with the final three years of that having been club options. I'm not suggesting the Reds rethink their present position, although my guess is they'll revisit it next year or the year after.