-
Re: Royals interested in Bruce?
When you have the replacement in AAA you have to ship out the more expensive option, it sucks as we have gone through several ups and downs with Bruce but that's small market reality.
-
Re: Royals interested in Bruce?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
kpresidente
Here's my assumptions that make me want to keep Bruce...
1. He'll perform well in the future. I know what regression to the mean is, both in terms of his BABiP in 14-15, and his UZR this year.
2. They won't get anything of value for him.
3. The money they save by trading him will go towards Dick Williams trust fund.
I don't think I'm wrong on #1, but I might be on #2 and #3, in which case, by all means trade him. Otherwise I'd rather suck less next year.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
OK, there are four possibilities with Bruce.
1. Extend him beyond his contract for three or four years @ around 30 or 40 Million. He's aging, he's expensive, his never been a model of consistency, his skills are deteriorating, yada, yada, yada...
2. You hold onto him and then buy him out at the end of the year. Why? He may or may not continue his resurgence, but the Reds are going no where. Time for youth to be served.
3. Hold on to him and pick up his option. See #2 (only doubly so). The Reds are going no where, yet you would owe him around $20M - sheer idiocy. A lot sooner than later, you're gonna have to find a replacement for him (probably even if you keep him). Right now you have Winker and Duvall as candidates for the OF corners. Are they sure bets? Hardly, but you need to find out and they're a heck of a lot cheaper.
4. Deal Bruce (and quite possibly a young arm or even two) for a useful return. Seems like the only sane option (but that's just me).
-
Re: Royals interested in Bruce?
But is his babip truely back to normal. It is know that with the shift left handed pull hitters have lower babip.
His numbers are bouyed by his recent hot streak since Mid May. Which he had a similiar hot streak from mid May to mid July last year
bruce is only 1 year younger than Cozart I would rather extend him than Bruce. Because Cozart bring D to a more important position where we do not have a good enough replacement and his offense is good for a short stop. I think you trade both since we will be rebuilding for 3-4 more years.
-
Re: Royals interested in Bruce?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
reds44
I'm really surprise there are people advocating to re-sign Bruce. I've never been a Bruce hater, but I thought we would have all learned this lesson by now. Bruce is due to go into a prolonged slump any day now. At the trade deadline last year, he was putting up good numbers (and I was against trading him) and he crashed and burned in August and September.
I'm not so sure Bruce is going to go into a huge slump all of a sudden although his career suggests that he will. What I'm concerned about is next year and the year after that and the year after that, etc. He's already regressed defensively enough that he's arguably a liability out there. Sort of like Junior in his last few years with the Reds. If his knee is still hampering him, it's not going to get any better even if he gets it scoped every off-season. I suspect that sooner, rather than later, his offensive skills will regress and his defensive skills will regress even further. Since the NL has no DH and Votto is entrenched at 1st, there will be fewer places to hide him. Even if his salary remains close to the same as it is now and next year, I don't want the Reds to pay that much for sentiment. Yeah, trading him while he's hot is going to make some angry fans even angrier but they will be just as angry 2-3 years from now when he's our Ryan Howard.
-
Re: Royals interested in Bruce?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
WVRedsFan
Trade. A few years ago, everyone wanted to trade Votto. Now, it's Bruce, Homer, Phillips, and Cozart. When will be satisfied? Apparently, RedsZone is never satisfied. When players are cheap, you keep them until they are no longer cheap and then you move them. Occasionally, you give a long term deal to a player who is special and then the fanbase gripes forever when they don't hit .400 and walk a lot and hit home runs and visit the sick children in the hospital. Just seems strange when anyone is successful, the trade talk starts. When they get the long term contract, everyone is looking for that great prospect that is going to save us. WE all worry about how much money the franchise is spending. It's not my money, so I don't care. The result is what we have now. Failure. Humor me. I really just want to win and winning without the players mentioned is near to impossible.
I was one of the ones who would have liked to see the Reds trade Votto a few years ago. And I'm one who would like to see them move Bruce, Homer, Phillips (if possible), and Cozart now.
It has nothing to do with "being satisfied" about the number of moves or the player affinities or any of that.
It has to do with my personal view of how the Reds should function as a small market team.
Yes, when players are quality and under team control, you keep them until a year or two before team controls runs out, and you deal them away for a quality package that might return even more than what you gave away. Or, you try to extend players while they are still cheap and have TC/Arb years remaining in order to hang onto them for a few extra seasons and pay them while also receiving somewhat of a bargain for their prime years. So, yeah, extend a guy who might be special at 23-26 or so, to keep them through their age-30 season (give or take a year or two). And then, either trade them for a package or give out the QO and take the pick.
I do not want to see the Reds give a deal out to anyone that goes well into the 30s or exceeds a valuation that is out of the Reds' realistic financial means. And, in my opinion, they did that with Votto, with Phillips, and with Bailey. The Bruce deal wasn't terrible at all, but it's going to expire now as he's around 30 and that's the time to move on.
Draft well, sign well, develop well, and deal well. Don't overpay and don't give into the sentimentality of older players.
You see the discussions of trading people as what's led to this "failure"? What's led to this failure is that the FO didn't do more in anticipation of this, and kept older/expensive players too long in false hopes of contending.
You say winning without the players mentioned is near to impossible. I would disagree. I would argue that freeing up the money owed to aging vets, coupled with the prospect packages and draft picks you might get in return, presents more flexibility and greater probability of acquiring a winning team. There is always risk - risk of bad signings, risk of prospects burning out, etc. But on the other hand, you have risk of injuries, extreme skill regression, etc. with aging vets?
Done well, a continuous cyclical system of draft-sign-develop-deal gives a higher probability of winning for a small market team than sign long-term and try to band-aid the weak areas (which is what we've been doing for several seasons).
But that's my view on it. Not everyone agrees. And none of us are GMs.
-
Royals interested in Bruce?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
corkedbat
OK, there are four possibilities with Bruce.
1. Extend him beyond his contract for three or four years @ around 30 or 40 Million. He's aging, he's expensive, his never been a model of consistency, his skills are deteriorating, yada, yada, yada...
2. You hold onto him and then buy him out at the end of the year. Why? He may or may not continue his resurgence, but the Reds are going no where. Time for youth to be served.
3. Hold on to him and pick up his option. See #2 (only doubly so). The Reds are going no where, yet you would owe him around $20M - sheer idiocy. A lot sooner than later, you're gonna have to find a replacement for him (probably even if you keep him). Right now you have Winker and Duvall as candidates for the OF corners. Are they sure bets? Hardly, but you need to find out and they're a heck of a lot cheaper.
4. Deal Bruce (and quite possibly a young arm or even two) for a useful return. Seems like the only sane option (but that's just me).
1. I'd limit it to 3 years. I don't see him as part of the rebuilt Reds, just ease the transition.
2. Agreed that this is pointless. I've already swallowed this season's pill but it was hard.
3. Maybe this. He could still be traded at next year's deadline. Or again if he has little return offer the QO and get a draft pick or another year where he can be moved at the deadline. So it's not like bringing him back means you get no return. You still get a return.
4. Useful is a word that's hard to pin down. The farm is already deep, so I don't want another middling prospect that projects as a backup or middle-reliever. I could go for a useful specialist, though, like a late-inning lefty or something. I'd also probably go for a high-ceiling, high-risk prospect at one of the weaker positions (RF, middle-infield). So I'm not out on trading him, just have a limited set of conditions. I do think they'll trade him, btw, and that only upsets me because I don't think they'll spend the money saved elsewhere, but that's a whole other topic.
-
Re: Royals interested in Bruce?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
corkedbat
I certainly wasn't talking about now or this year, but I believe Votto will right the ship and sometim in the next couple of years someone might make an offer.
Still incredibly stupid.
-
Re: Royals interested in Bruce?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
CRDB40
I was one of the ones who would have liked to see the Reds trade Votto a few years ago. And I'm one who would like to see them move Bruce, Homer, Phillips (if possible), and Cozart now.
It has nothing to do with "being satisfied" about the number of moves or the player affinities or any of that.
It has to do with my personal view of how the Reds should function as a small market team.
Yes, when players are quality and under team control, you keep them until a year or two before team controls runs out, and you deal them away for a quality package that might return even more than what you gave away. Or, you try to extend players while they are still cheap and have TC/Arb years remaining in order to hang onto them for a few extra seasons and pay them while also receiving somewhat of a bargain for their prime years. So, yeah, extend a guy who might be special at 23-26 or so, to keep them through their age-30 season (give or take a year or two). And then, either trade them for a package or give out the QO and take the pick.
I do not want to see the Reds give a deal out to anyone that goes well into the 30s or exceeds a valuation that is out of the Reds' realistic financial means. And, in my opinion, they did that with Votto, with Phillips, and with Bailey. The Bruce deal wasn't terrible at all, but it's going to expire now as he's around 30 and that's the time to move on.
Draft well, sign well, develop well, and deal well. Don't overpay and don't give into the sentimentality of older players.
You see the discussions of trading people as what's led to this "failure"? What's led to this failure is that the FO didn't do more in anticipation of this, and kept older/expensive players too long in false hopes of contending.
You say winning without the players mentioned is near to impossible. I would disagree. I would argue that freeing up the money owed to aging vets, coupled with the prospect packages and draft picks you might get in return, presents more flexibility and greater probability of acquiring a winning team. There is always risk - risk of bad signings, risk of prospects burning out, etc. But on the other hand, you have risk of injuries, extreme skill regression, etc. with aging vets?
Done well, a continuous cyclical system of draft-sign-develop-deal gives a higher probability of winning for a small market team than sign long-term and try to band-aid the weak areas (which is what we've been doing for several seasons).
But that's my view on it. Not everyone agrees. And none of us are GMs.
1. Stop saying the Reds are small market. You can regurgitate it all you want but it doesn't make it any more true.
2. Go be a fan of the Astros or A's if you enjoy being losers every other year. Man, I really hope this kind of groan inducing mentality doesn't infect RZ.
TRADE EVERYTHING BOLTED DOWN! ERASE THE DEFICIT! MAKE THE REDS GREAT AGAIN!
No.
-
Re: Royals interested in Bruce?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Wonderful Monds
Still incredibly stupid.
Hardly.
Stupid was a small market team giving a 30-year old 1B a 10-year contract that is still the 7th largest contract in baseball history (by total value).
-
Re: Royals interested in Bruce?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
CRDB40
Hardly.
Stupid was a small market team giving a 30-year old 1B a 10-year contract that is still the 7th largest contract in baseball history (by total value).
Quote:
. Stop saying the Reds are small market. You can regurgitate it all you want but it doesn't make it any more true.
S-T-U-P-I-D
You would make an awful GM, thank god you're just a nimby spouting BS on a fan forum.
-
Re: Royals interested in Bruce?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Wonderful Monds
1. Stop saying the Reds are small market. You can regurgitate it all you want but it doesn't make it any more true.
2. Go be a fan of the Astros or A's if you enjoy being losers every other year. Man, I really hope this kind of groan inducing mentality doesn't infect RZ.
TRADE EVERYTHING BOLTED DOWN! ERASE THE DEFICIT! MAKE THE REDS GREAT AGAIN!
No.
Losing only every other year? Shoot, I'm a Reds fan. We've had losing seasons in 7 out of the last 10. (And like 18 of 30 for my lifetime.) Every other year is only for the faint of heart!
The Reds tried to act like a larger market team in many ways the last few seasons. Didn't work. You can try to spin it like spending money and extending all the good players will equal success, but that doesn't make it anymore true.
If you read carefully, I never said trade everyone. Or erase the deficit. That would be stupid. And I'm pretty sure you can read and comprehend more intelligently than that. I have faith in you.
I stated my preference for how I wish the Reds would operate. Doesn't mean it's right and doesn't mean the Reds would work it correctly.
But it also doesn't mean that simply spending money is the answer either. Or keeping everyone that we like and extending them into their twilight years is the missing ingredient.
The common denominator of consistent winning teams is a well-run FO that utilizes their resources well and doesn't overextend themselves. In this case, I believe that trading players at certain points, not spending wastefully (which, in my opinion, several current contracts or possible extensions would fall under), and resisting holding on to sentimental favorites would be points in that approach.
But to each their own.
-
Re: Royals interested in Bruce?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Wonderful Monds
S-T-U-P-I-D
You would make an awful GM, thank god you're just a nimby spouting BS on a fan forum.
Thank you for your kind words, Mr. Internet-Tough-Guy.
I'm glad we could have a civil back-and-forth. It's nice to finally realize that a fan forum is not for discussion. I will keep that in mind. Life lessons, I tell you.
Please remember the small peons on this forum when you take the Reds to a WS three-peat.
-
Re: Royals interested in Bruce?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
CRDB40
I was one of the ones who would have liked to see the Reds trade Votto a few years ago. And I'm one who would like to see them move Bruce, Homer, Phillips (if possible), and Cozart now.
It has nothing to do with "being satisfied" about the number of moves or the player affinities or any of that.
It has to do with my personal view of how the Reds should function as a small market team.
Yes, when players are quality and under team control, you keep them until a year or two before team controls runs out, and you deal them away for a quality package that might return even more than what you gave away. Or, you try to extend players while they are still cheap and have TC/Arb years remaining in order to hang onto them for a few extra seasons and pay them while also receiving somewhat of a bargain for their prime years. So, yeah, extend a guy who might be special at 23-26 or so, to keep them through their age-30 season (give or take a year or two). And then, either trade them for a package or give out the QO and take the pick.
I do not want to see the Reds give a deal out to anyone that goes well into the 30s or exceeds a valuation that is out of the Reds' realistic financial means. And, in my opinion, they did that with Votto, with Phillips, and with Bailey. The Bruce deal wasn't terrible at all, but it's going to expire now as he's around 30 and that's the time to move on.
Draft well, sign well, develop well, and deal well. Don't overpay and don't give into the sentimentality of older players.
You see the discussions of trading people as what's led to this "failure"? What's led to this failure is that the FO didn't do more in anticipation of this, and kept older/expensive players too long in false hopes of contending.
You say winning without the players mentioned is near to impossible. I would disagree. I would argue that freeing up the money owed to aging vets, coupled with the prospect packages and draft picks you might get in return, presents more flexibility and greater probability of acquiring a winning team. There is always risk - risk of bad signings, risk of prospects burning out, etc. But on the other hand, you have risk of injuries, extreme skill regression, etc. with aging vets?
Done well, a continuous cyclical system of draft-sign-develop-deal gives a higher probability of winning for a small market team than sign long-term and try to band-aid the weak areas (which is what we've been doing for several seasons).
But that's my view on it. Not everyone agrees. And none of us are GMs.
I've been saying this for years. You're a fan after my own heart.
And from what I've seen out of this club, it feels like they're starting to transition to that philosophy. Their stumble out of the gate was not dealing Bruce, Frazier, and Chapman at the deadline last year and not dealing Cozart over the winter. They got middling return on Chapman and Frazier, and hopefully will do better with Bruce and Cozart (and hopefully Straily).
-
Re: Royals interested in Bruce?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
CRDB40
Thank you for your kind words, Mr. Internet-Tough-Guy.
I'm glad we could have a civil back-and-forth. It's nice to finally realize that a fan forum is not for discussion. I will keep that in mind. Life lessons, I tell you.
Please remember the small peons on this forum when you take the Reds to a WS three-peat.
Welcome to RedsZone. Sometimes you gotta get past the folks who are here just to score points in lieu of an actual discussion.
-
Re: Royals interested in Bruce?
Someone mentioned that this a business. It is, a major league baseball team. This isn't the local Kwik E Mart, but the that's the kind of service, products, and employees some of you are advocating. No one will have players to root for on the 3-4 year churn and burn. Not only will the product stink, no one will want to work for you for any legnth of time (FA).
Bruce had a mechanical change to his swing before the season that simplified and quickened the bat to the ball. He is finally being more selective at the plate. He's hitting the ball harder than ever, more line drives and power to all fields. Could he go into a slump, of course. Likely to be a trainwreck, no. There are a ton of Bruce fans, Phillips fans, and Votto fans that show up and keep the business afloat. Some of you keep beating the drum but gloss over the numbers. I'm not opposed to dealing him for something really special, but that certainly goes for Votto as well who's age to contract are scary, tbh.
-
Re: Royals interested in Bruce?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
mth123
I Still say the Reds should be talking to the Mets. With Wright, Duda and Legares all out, they have to be in the market for reinforcements (the Kelly Johnson deal is throwing a bucket of water at a raging fire IMO) . Add that even when healthy the MI there is pretty questionable defensively. Seems like a perfect spot for both Bruce and Cozart. Bruce plays 1B until Duda is back and gives them an extra bat when he is back (if Duda comes back. A stress fracture in the back may be something that keeps being aggravated with activity). Alternatively, they could put Bruce in LF with Conforto at 1B. Either way, it would solve a huge problem for the Mets. The LH pop missing with Duda out would be restored. Cozart would be a huge upgrade to the MI defense at SS and would allow Cabrera to slide over to 3B in Wright's place. IF and when Wright comes back, the depth will serve them well. He has lots of issues and will need frequent rest.
I'd ask for Gavin Cecchini who would provide the Reds all the things in the MI that Peraza lacks. He's a SS who hits, with on Base skill and no question about sticking at SS. He's also a bit light in the power department, but has more than Peraza. This would allow Peraza to stick to 2B or possibly some OF if needed. I'd also ask for Brandon Nimmo. He's another lefty hitting OF, but unlike Waldrop and Schebler he really can play all three OF spots and seems to have some decent on base ability. He probably doesn't have as much power as either of those guys, but the overall package probably makes him a better choice as a potential RF or 4th OF. To sweeten the deal, I'd ask for a couple of arms. Robert Gsellman is a control specialist type starting pitcher who is having a fine season in AA with a 2.71 ERA and a K:BB ratio in excess of 3:1 in 66 Innings. Finally I'd ask for Marcos Molina. He's a kid with a 60 FB, a 55 Slider and 55 Control. He's recovering from TJ which makes this a buy low opportunity, but he could be a high end reliever in a couple years or a decent starter if his change-up gets better.
That deal would give the Reds the Mets number 3, 4, 8 and 12 prospects in exchange for a allowing the Mets to fill a couple of glaring needs with player performing at an All Star caliber
The 2017 Reds:
Cecchini SS
Winker RF
Votto 1B
Duvall LF
Mesoraco C (Hope)
Suarez 3B
Phillips 2B
Pitcher
Hamilton CF
The bench would include:
Nimmo 4th OF
Peraza Super Sub
Barnhart C
and a couple decent PH options that they could scrounge up. Selsky, Schebler and Waldrop would all be candidates but maybe somebody else.
The rotation would lack a number 1, but Desclafani, Bailey, Reed, Stephenson, Strailey, Finnegan and Lamb would be my main candidates.
Iglesias, Lorenzen and Cingrani along with two of those rotation guys would form a talented back of the bullpen along with guys like Moscot, Weiss, and other pen options.
In AAA Garrett, Gsellman, Stephens, Davis and Romano would all be pushing for a spot. Travieso's struggles suggest a need to repeat AA at least to start out with Mahle and Mella and maybe the Molina kid.
I really like this idea. My biggest question mark surrounding it is Duvall. I love the way he's playing right now, but do we really want to count on him moving forward this heavily? Clean-up hitter, starter and LF? This season could VERY EASILY be a mirage and he could be nothing more than a Chris Heisey.
-
Re: Royals interested in Bruce?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
'69 & Vine
Someone mentioned that this a business. It is, a major league baseball team. This isn't the local Kwik E Mart, but the that's the kind of service, products, and employees some of you are advocating. No one will have players to root for on the 3-4 year churn and burn. Not only will the product stink, no one will want to work for you for any legnth of time (FA).
Why?
The Cardinals (Jason Heyward, John Lackey, Joe Kelly, Pat Neshek, Jon Jay and more just over the past two years) practice this exact type of "churn and burn" ideology. So does Pittsburgh (Neil Walker, Russell Martin, Aramis Ramirez, Pedro Alvarez off the top of my head).
If the team can win, fans will follow. The more fans that follow, the more money the team will have. The more money the team gets, the more likely they can sign free agents to fill in gaps from a blossoming and productive minor league ladder. And the more money they can pour into that minor league system to help ensure its productivity.
Just win, baby.
-
Re: Royals interested in Bruce?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
_Sir_Charles_
I really like this idea. My biggest question mark surrounding it is Duvall. I love the way he's playing right now, but do we really want to count on him moving forward this heavily? Clean-up hitter, starter and LF? This season could VERY EASILY be a mirage and he could be nothing more than a Chris Heisey.
Count me as one who is enjoying his performance but also wanting to sell high as I do expect a regression. But as others have said, all the clubs have really smart people who know this so he isn't likely to bring much in trade.
-
Re: Royals interested in Bruce?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
_Sir_Charles_
I really like this idea. My biggest question mark surrounding it is Duvall. I love the way he's playing right now, but do we really want to count on him moving forward this heavily? Clean-up hitter, starter and LF? This season could VERY EASILY be a mirage and he could be nothing more than a Chris Heisey.
I'm still a skeptic as well. There is nobody else. It's why Nimmo is a guy to target in this deal. He might be a guy, but they'd need to add some pop. One idea might be Suarez as a fallback. He still seems a bit iffy in the IF, but probably has the arm for RF. Senzel may be the 3B soon. I'm really down on the minor league position guys. I like Winker and that's about it really. Senzel is my great hope. Duvall's emergence is the best hope moving forward, but I'm totally on board that he could be Kevin Maas or Bob Hamelin. I just don't see selling bringing back anyone to build around. Duvall has the hope that it continues. Dealing him probably doesn't bring a hope like that back.
-
Re: Royals interested in Bruce?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
WrongVerb
I've been saying this for years. You're a fan after my own heart.
And from what I've seen out of this club, it feels like they're starting to transition to that philosophy. Their stumble out of the gate was not dealing Bruce, Frazier, and Chapman at the deadline last year and not dealing Cozart over the winter. They got middling return on Chapman and Frazier, and hopefully will do better with Bruce and Cozart (and hopefully Straily).
I'm talking about getting a solid return for Votto. Anyone who wouldn't deal out from under that contract while getting talent in return before it gets really ugly is terminally stupid and has no business whatsoever blasting others.
-
Re: Royals interested in Bruce?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
corkedbat
I'm talking about getting a solid return for Votto. Anyone who wouldn't deal out from under that contract while getting talent in return before it gets really ugly is terminally stupid and has no business whatsoever blasting others.
Sure.
:rolleyes:
-
Re: Royals interested in Bruce?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
WrongVerb
Count me as one who is enjoying his performance but also wanting to sell high as I do expect a regression. But as others have said, all the clubs have really smart people who know this so he isn't likely to bring much in trade.
We should trade Cody Reed and Robert Stephenson too before anybody figures them out! DONT WANNA BE TOO LATE, BRO.
-
Re: Royals interested in Bruce?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Wonderful Monds
We should trade Cody Reed and Robert Stephenson too before anybody figures them out! DONT WANNA BE TOO LATE, BRO.
No. I just don't want to pay them in their 30s for production they gave in their 20s.
-
Re: Royals interested in Bruce?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Wonderful Monds
We should trade Cody Reed and Robert Stephenson too before anybody figures them out! DONT WANNA BE TOO LATE, BRO.
If they're blowing up an get into their second or third year of Arb and they show no sign of interest in an extension, then yeah, you do start seriously listening to offers, Spanky. A team with a market and budget like the Reds needs to either get an extension that buy's a year or two of FA and two or three years of FA or they need to start looking for a return. They also need to be keeping the farm healthy on both sides (Arms and bats).
-
Re: Royals interested in Bruce?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Wonderful Monds
We should trade Cody Reed and Robert Stephenson too before anybody figures them out! DONT WANNA BE TOO LATE, BRO.
I would suggest four years in a Reds uniform, then let them graduate to the big leagues. Stevenson has already used up his freshman year of eligibility this season, so they need to get the best offer they can by the 2019-20 offseason, because by Opening Day 2020 he needs to be out the door.
Four years. No exceptions.
-
Re: Royals interested in Bruce?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
CRDB40
I was one of the ones who would have liked to see the Reds trade Votto a few years ago. And I'm one who would like to see them move Bruce, Homer, Phillips (if possible), and Cozart now.
It has nothing to do with "being satisfied" about the number of moves or the player affinities or any of that.
It has to do with my personal view of how the Reds should function as a small market team.
Yes, when players are quality and under team control, you keep them until a year or two before team controls runs out, and you deal them away for a quality package that might return even more than what you gave away. Or, you try to extend players while they are still cheap and have TC/Arb years remaining in order to hang onto them for a few extra seasons and pay them while also receiving somewhat of a bargain for their prime years. So, yeah, extend a guy who might be special at 23-26 or so, to keep them through their age-30 season (give or take a year or two). And then, either trade them for a package or give out the QO and take the pick.
I do not want to see the Reds give a deal out to anyone that goes well into the 30s or exceeds a valuation that is out of the Reds' realistic financial means. And, in my opinion, they did that with Votto, with Phillips, and with Bailey. The Bruce deal wasn't terrible at all, but it's going to expire now as he's around 30 and that's the time to move on.
Draft well, sign well, develop well, and deal well. Don't overpay and don't give into the sentimentality of older players.
You see the discussions of trading people as what's led to this "failure"? What's led to this failure is that the FO didn't do more in anticipation of this, and kept older/expensive players too long in false hopes of contending.
You say winning without the players mentioned is near to impossible. I would disagree. I would argue that freeing up the money owed to aging vets, coupled with the prospect packages and draft picks you might get in return, presents more flexibility and greater probability of acquiring a winning team. There is always risk - risk of bad signings, risk of prospects burning out, etc. But on the other hand, you have risk of injuries, extreme skill regression, etc. with aging vets?
Done well, a continuous cyclical system of draft-sign-develop-deal gives a higher probability of winning for a small market team than sign long-term and try to band-aid the weak areas (which is what we've been doing for several seasons).
But that's my view on it. Not everyone agrees. And none of us are GMs.
Man... one of the best posts ever. Completely agree. The Reds play in a system that is inherently unfair. MLB does not share revenue to the extent all teams have an even playing field, and there is no cap. The Dodgers, Yankees, etc. can outspend us by vast amounts. So the Reds can't operate the way those teams do. They have to maximize every dollar of revenue.
They have to concentrate on those areas where they do have an equal chance, such as the draft and international free agency. And that's been the frustrating thing about the Reds. They have been so poor at the area they need to excel at. (I am encouraged by the first 3 picks of this years draft however). In the minors, except for a few starting pitchers it looks like the cupboard is bare. A minor league system should be producing a flock of young arms that can fill the bullpen at minimal cost. One of those minimal cost guys should turn into the closer, and when he gets expensive, he need to be flipped to another team and replaced by another young cheap arm. You don't sign the Aroldis Chapman's of the world to a big deal and then make him a closer.
As far as long term deals for hitters, you need to make Evan Longoria/Anthony Rizzo type of deals, where you identify a guy super early as a guy to make a long term deal and buy him out of arb and free agency at a reasonable price. That way you're signing a guy for 8 years that run from 24-32 for example. And pray that your judgement was correct. I'd essentially never give out a long term deal on a pitcher. They simply blow up too often.
-
Re: Royals interested in Bruce?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
WrongVerb
I've been saying this for years. You're a fan after my own heart.
And from what I've seen out of this club, it feels like they're starting to transition to that philosophy. Their stumble out of the gate was not dealing Bruce, Frazier, and Chapman at the deadline last year and not dealing Cozart over the winter. They got middling return on Chapman and Frazier, and hopefully will do better with Bruce and Cozart (and hopefully Straily).
Incorrect. Cozart didn't have much trade value during the offseason after getting his knee shredded. The Reds made the right decision to keep him, hope he had a good first half of the 2016 season, and then theoretically dealing him before the deadline for a legit prospect. For once, the Reds played their cards right in the Cozart case.
One could argue they played their cards right with Jay Bruce too -- since his value is higher now than it was during the offseason. However, that was just dumb luck. The Reds tried to trade him and even had a deal in place, but it fell through when a Blue Jays prospect failed his physical.
Anyone who thinks the Reds are a well-run operation, ask yourself this: Is there a single neutral observer who covers MLB for a living that would say: "The Reds are one of the smartest organizations in baseball"? I highly doubt it. Some of our divisional rivals would be mentioned, but not us.
-
Re: Royals interested in Bruce?
-
Re: Royals interested in Bruce?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
CRDB40
I was one of the ones who would have liked to see the Reds trade Votto a few years ago. And I'm one who would like to see them move Bruce, Homer, Phillips (if possible), and Cozart now.
It has nothing to do with "being satisfied" about the number of moves or the player affinities or any of that.
It has to do with my personal view of how the Reds should function as a small market team.
Yes, when players are quality and under team control, you keep them until a year or two before team controls runs out, and you deal them away for a quality package that might return even more than what you gave away. Or, you try to extend players while they are still cheap and have TC/Arb years remaining in order to hang onto them for a few extra seasons and pay them while also receiving somewhat of a bargain for their prime years. So, yeah, extend a guy who might be special at 23-26 or so, to keep them through their age-30 season (give or take a year or two). And then, either trade them for a package or give out the QO and take the pick.
I do not want to see the Reds give a deal out to anyone that goes well into the 30s or exceeds a valuation that is out of the Reds' realistic financial means. And, in my opinion, they did that with Votto, with Phillips, and with Bailey. The Bruce deal wasn't terrible at all, but it's going to expire now as he's around 30 and that's the time to move on.
Draft well, sign well, develop well, and deal well. Don't overpay and don't give into the sentimentality of older players.
You see the discussions of trading people as what's led to this "failure"? What's led to this failure is that the FO didn't do more in anticipation of this, and kept older/expensive players too long in false hopes of contending.
You say winning without the players mentioned is near to impossible. I would disagree. I would argue that freeing up the money owed to aging vets, coupled with the prospect packages and draft picks you might get in return, presents more flexibility and greater probability of acquiring a winning team. There is always risk - risk of bad signings, risk of prospects burning out, etc. But on the other hand, you have risk of injuries, extreme skill regression, etc. with aging vets?
Done well, a continuous cyclical system of draft-sign-develop-deal gives a higher probability of winning for a small market team than sign long-term and try to band-aid the weak areas (which is what we've been doing for several seasons).
But that's my view on it. Not everyone agrees. And none of us are GMs.
Excellent post
-
Re: Royals interested in Bruce?
Bruce just keeps crushing the ball. His homer today... :eek:
-
Re: Royals interested in Bruce?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Cannon
Bruce just keeps crushing the ball. His homer today... :eek:
Yeah, listen I'm for rebuilding; I think the Reds were too willing to hold onto expensive stars and should have gradually started to reduce payroll earlier; I'm on record with that; and I fully expect a Bruce trade.
But I don't know, this guy is just raking. He was the top minor league prospect in baseball and currently is hitting with that kind of prowess. He's now at .911 OPS.
Sure, sell high, but are the Reds really going to get a haul worthy of such a hitter?
This is tough. The approach must be to insist on guys like Frazier of Cleveland or other top 50 prospects who the Reds really like. And if that return isn't forthcoming, exercise Jay's option for one more season at $13 million.
It's risky and expensive to hold him even for a year, I know, but it would be a shame to drop this guy and watch him put up All Star numbers for another club. Been there, done that, it stinks. This one is getting tough.
-
Re: Royals interested in Bruce?
If what these contending teams isn't a good return I'd be inclined to exercise the option for next year.
-
Re: Royals interested in Bruce?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Kc61
Y
But I don't know, this guy is just raking. He was the top minor league prospect in baseball and currently is hitting with that kind of prowess. He's now at .911 OPS.
So, do you think there is a chance that it's simply just "simply clicked for Bruce now" at the age of 29?
-
Re: Royals interested in Bruce?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
PuffyPig
So, do you think there is a chance that it's simply just "simply clicked for Bruce now" at the age of ?
If you go back to 2010-13, this year's Bruce isn't that dramatic an increase. And I don't think he'll stay at .911, so maybe he'll "slump" to say .850-875. So maybe it's clicked to the tune of a slightly better Jay Bruce at the top of his offensive game.
Sometimes we can all underestimate the impact of an injury. Jay's 2014 was a disaster and his power was just sapped by injury. That's the obvious, most reasonable explanation.
Last year? Lot of possible explanations. Still injured? Bad habits from injury? Pressing to compensate for 2014? I can't tell you exactly what.
But if you discard those two seasons, Jay's at age 29, a very experienced hitter, feeling healthy again, actually building on his 2010-13 numbers.
Of maybe it's a lucky two months. LOL, I can't tell you.
But here's the thing. If I'm GM, I take the risk. If I can't get top dollar, then no trade and exercise one year option.
It may turn out to be a colossal disaster and I as GM I may get panned on RedsZone for years to come. I'd take that risk in this case. We've cut payroll already. Time to play some hardball.
-
Re: Royals interested in Bruce?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Kc61
If I can't get top dollar, then no trade and exercise one year option.
Should he continue to hit as he has, that option looks like a relative bargain.
You could move Duvall to 3B, slide Bruce to LF, and put Winker in RF. With Hamilton's Gold Glove in the middle, that makes sense. Of course, you're then making Suarez a utility guy playing SS, 2B, 3B, and elsewhere as needed.
So you don't have to move him this season.
-
Re: Royals interested in Bruce?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Bourgeois Zee
Should he continue to hit as he has, that option looks like a relative bargain.
You could move Duvall to 3B, slide Bruce to LF, and put Winker in RF. With Hamilton's Gold Glove in the middle, that makes sense. Of course, you're then making Suarez a utility guy playing SS, 2B, 3B, and elsewhere as needed.
So you don't have to move him this season.
Should Bruce continue to hit like this, the option also provides excellent leverage in trade negotiations. It becomes 1.5 years of Bruce at a very affordable rate, which could hypothetically change the return from a 2015 Zobrist/Cespedes return to a 2015 Gomez return.
-
Re: Royals interested in Bruce?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Plus Plus
Should Bruce continue to hit like this, the option also provides excellent leverage in trade negotiations. It becomes 1.5 years of Bruce at a very affordable rate, which could hypothetically change the return from a 2015 Zobrist/Cespedes return to a 2015 Gomez return.
Good point.
-
Re: Royals interested in Bruce?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Plus Plus
Should Bruce continue to hit like this, the option also provides excellent leverage in trade negotiations. It becomes 1.5 years of Bruce at a very affordable rate, which could hypothetically change the return from a 2015 Zobrist/Cespedes return to a 2015 Gomez return.
Exactly. And since Jay is raking this year, I bet most MLB teams will look at his 2014-15 seasons as aberrations (especially since there were injury issues during that span). His 2010-13 and '16 seasons is the norm for him. Teams had their chance to get him for pennies on the dollar. No longer. The Reds need at least one legit prospect (top 100 in MLB) or teams that are interested in Bruce can pound sand. He's the best bat on the trade market and is under team control through 2017 (including the option) at a very reasonable rate. Add it all up and someone is going to have to pony up to get Jay Bruce.
If no one does, it becomes a no-brainer for the Reds to pick up Bruce's 2017 option and then try and deal him in the offseason, or sometime before the 2017 deadline. What I do not want to see happen is Bruce extended to a long-term contract ... and I doubt we will. But the Reds should absolutely hold on to Bruce until a team is willing to part with a top prospect.
-
Re: Royals interested in Bruce?
No one is giving up a top 50 prospect for Jay Bruce.
Now I know why redszone gets so disappointed with trade returns.
-
Re: Royals interested in Bruce?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
RedTeamGo!
No one is giving up a top 50 prospect for Jay Bruce.
Now I know why redszone gets so disappointed with trade returns.
Under the right conditions it's possible:
1. He keeps hitting
2. The Reds cover a portion of his costs for this year and next
A team that can hide Bruce's defensive limitations could get a lot of a value from a cost controlled Bruce for this season and next. Few players that will be available are hitting like Bruce at the moment.
