Royals interested in Bruce?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Patrick Bateman

The difference I am seeing is the second year at a sub free agent rate. Cueto didn't have that, so that's a bit in Bruce's favour and helps close the gap in value some. Could also be dependent on whether the Reds are thinking about absorbing some of the remaining dollars to make him even more attractive. For example, 1.5 years of a discounted Bruce could be very attractive to a dollar conscious team like the Indians while they open up their window.

---

Well, if you starting throwing Reds money into the package, that changes the equation.

Frankly, I think the first thing the Reds want in this deal is to be free and clear of any financial obligation.

Hard to configure a trade in a vacuum, but I think it's Bruce's contract free and clear; one excellent prospect; and something else of decent value.

In effect, I think the third piece (the Cody Reed piece) is going to be the salary relief for the rest of this season.

Who knows, we'll see.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kc61

I don't think they get a Cueto package. There's nothing as valuable as a TOR starter in a pennant race.

They'll probably get two players. I'm not worried about the second one, the Reds have done a good job of identifying secondary trade players. (Schebler, Renda, etc.)

The issue is how good the top name will be. That's the negotiation, we'll see.

---

I agree totally. I think most of RZ is going to be disappointed at the return if Bruce is traded.
Now I think earlier in the year, I underestimated his trade value (Bruce has done a good job maintaining high production so far)
But Bruce is not getting a Cueto package.
He might get a Leake package if we are lucky.

If we do some role playing (everyone is invited to respond).. suppose we go back in time to the season that Ludwick ruined his shoulder on opening day. Suppose you are the GM of the Reds and know Ludwick is out for the year. You can trade for the 2015 Bruce (and have his option) to fill in LF. You have all the prospects we have today.
How high would a RZ armchair GM go? I am guessing no one would trade the crown jewels for 1.5 years of 2015 Bruce.. Reed, Stephenson, Winker, Garrett, etc. are off the table.
Some people might trade Mahle or Mella, but I'm guessing most wouldn't.

More than likely the RZ GMs would trade maybe Lorenzen, Weiss, Jag, YRod, maybe Peraza, maybe Blandino, Rookie Davis or just plain chaff.. the guys perceived as 2nd tier guys on the board.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Patrick Bateman

That was before Bruce started hitting again, and after his defense was already grading out as awful.

---

Not necessarily true on the defensive point. This year, the metrics are all unanimous. In 2015 they were not. BBRef had Bruce at plus 5 last year, and if you take a rolling 3 year average, which is sort of recommended with this sort of thing, even with this year's small sample minus 10, he's at minus 4.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kc61

Well, if you starting throwing Reds money into the package, that changes the equation.

Frankly, I think the first thing the Reds want in this deal is to be free and clear of any financial obligation.

Hard to configure a trade in a vacuum, but I think it's Bruce's contract free and clear; one excellent prospect; and something else of decent value.

In effect, I think the third piece (the Cody Reed piece) is going to be the salary relief for the rest of this season.

Who knows, we'll see.

---

The argument for the Reds kicking in some cash is similar to what they say they are doing with the savings of Frazier, et al. They talked about injecting the savings into foreign markets, the draft, analytics, etc. They claim they really aren't saving the money, just putting it in forward thinking initiatives.

Kicking in some cash on Bruce to enhance the prospect return package follows the same vein. Rather than injecting the savings into the draft, let's see some immediate return through a better return (unlike the Frazier trade where the return was underwhelming).

I love/ hate the idea of trading Cozart to the Pirates. While Austin Meadows is out of the realm of possibility, perhaps a Harold Ramirez or Reese McGuire deal would work for both sides.

I'd do backflips if Bruce and Straily turn into Bregman and a lottery ticket or two.

Fun fact on a stat that I never pay attention to: Bruce is leading all outfielders in RBIs, only Edwin Encarnacion, Nolan Arenado, and David Ortiz have more in the league.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WrongVerb

Keeping him, picking up the option, then making a QO after 2017 wouldn't be the worst thing in the world at this point.

Still think Cozart needs to go, though.

---

Last year, the QO was 15.8 million. In two years, it could be 17 million or more.

I don't think it makes economic sense to pay Bruce the rest of 2016, and 2017 and risk being on the hook for maybe 17 million in 2018 just to pick up an extra draft pick.
Especially since Bruce can probably be traded right now for talent that is better than a compensation pick. I mean, a B prospect is better than most compensation picks.
Sure some Comp picks become stars, but most wash out and don't even make the major leagues.

IMO, it only makes sense to keep Bruce if you think the team can contend in 2017. You have to assume the club will not want to extend him and you have to assume they will not want to risk the QO in 2017 offseason .. All signs point that way.

This should be a sign in every GMs office in big bright bold red letters that would make Jojo jealous: "Do not pay a player in his 30s for the production he gave in his 20s."

That said, some team will overpay for Bruce after his age 31 season and wind up owing a considerable amount while he puts up good numbers but nothing that matches his production from age 22-26 and age 29 (and maybe 30) seasons.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gilpdawg

Not necessarily true on the defensive point. This year, the metrics are all unanimous. In 2015 they were not. BBRef had Bruce at plus 5 last year, and if you take a rolling 3 year average, which is sort of recommended with this sort of thing, even with this year's small sample minus 10, he's at minus 4.

---

You are right about that, I was purely looking at UZR. I think your point better illustrates that there is a lot of noise going on with the defensive stats. Things don't point to Bruce grading well out there, however, I could definitely see teams grading him out to a point where the amount he is giving back on defense can be somewhat mitigated, and/or a more secondary consideration to his current hitting value.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by REDREAD

I agree totally. I think most of RZ is going to be disappointed at the return if Bruce is traded.
Now I think earlier in the year, I underestimated his trade value (Bruce has done a good job maintaining high production so far)
But Bruce is not getting a Cueto package.
He might get a Leake package if we are lucky.

If we do some role playing (everyone is invited to respond).. suppose we go back in time to the season that Ludwick ruined his shoulder on opening day. Suppose you are the GM of the Reds and know Ludwick is out for the year. You can trade for the 2015 Bruce (and have his option) to fill in LF. You have all the prospects we have today.
How high would a RZ armchair GM go? I am guessing no one would trade the crown jewels for 1.5 years of 2015 Bruce.. Reed, Stephenson, Winker, Garrett, etc. are off the table.
Some people might trade Mahle or Mella, but I'm guessing most wouldn't.

More than likely the RZ GMs would trade maybe Lorenzen, Weiss, Jag, YRod, maybe Peraza, maybe Blandino, Rookie Davis or just plain chaff.. the guys perceived as 2nd tier guys on the board.

---

In 2013, the Reds top prospects were:

1. Hamilton
2. Stephenson
3. Travieso
4. Ervin
5. Winker
6. Lorenzen
7. Corcino
8. Holmberg
9. Wright
10. Buckley

Nobody on that list I wouldn't hesitate to trade if the Reds had a real shot at winning the World Series.

If you're talking top prospects today, well, the only one I wouldn't trade is Reed. Anyone else on the Reds' 2016 list is fair game as far as I'm concerned.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kingspoint

Trading him can get you that player, and we're talking about trying to win a World Series in 2018 at the very earliest. Bruce will be productive, but he'll also be very expensive. We'll need Bruce's money to pay for new contracts as our current young players come into and out of arbitration.

---

Really? Given how much salary we just cut and with Phillips coming off the books how much money is really tied up in the team? Why would he be 'very expensive' anyway? He'll be 30 and he won't have a ton of leverage because of his injury riddled seasons and on top of it he supposedly loves Cincinnati and wants to stay. I don't see him getting a ridiculous contract and he'll likely be worth what we could pay him.

With that said if we got a player back for Bruce that could 'beat down the door' so to speak and be ready to replace his production in a year or two I'd be fine with that. But that's an A grade prospect and most people here don't think teams would be willing to give that up for Bruce, and in that case it's better to keep him. He's a premium bat and that's not so easy to replace.

I'm in favor of seeking the best possible deal for Bruce, but the talk about age 30 here compels me to say that the justification given for trading the best Reds player I have seen in my 61 years as a Reds follower was that he was "an old 30."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cooper

Kingspoint: turning 30 is the beginning of the decline phase. You are completely wrong headed re: tha analysis. 75 to 80% of a players value comes before his age 31 season (after his age 30 season).

---

That is not true anymore. I read every Bill James Abstact from cover to cover over and over again when they started coming out in the 70's. I have all his research memorized that supports what you're saying. His analysis that included every player since 1900 showed that 28 was the peak season, which coincides with the natural peak in physical maturity of a man. The ages of 27 and 29 were generally a 15-20% drop from age 28. Ages 26 and 30 were another 15-20% drop. That 5-yr period were the prime years. Then, as you say, after 30 they would have a steady decline.However, there was always a resurgence year five years after their prime, where they would, for one seson, match numbers from their prime years. Then, the following year, they would fall off a cliff and resemble a shell of their former selves. Great players were exceptions, in that they had a lot more years after 30 where they could be respectable.

But, that was a long time ago. What happened with careers from 1900-1980 doesn't apply today. From the mid-80's to about 10 years ago, a span of 30 years, steroid usage was rampant. The careers of players didn't follow anythinglike the previous 85 years. It's a completely different measurement, as reality and facts didn't come into play. You could change both reality and facts with steroid usage.

B.S. (before steroids) was a period where baseball players had jobs in the off-season. They never worked out in the off-months. Weight training was considered to be detrimental to your play believing it would tighten up your muscles. Players ate like crap, smoked, drank heavily, but didn't have the convenience of fast foods, so they wouldn't over eat. In other words, their physical makeup was the same as the average Joe, but they could either pitch a ball better or hit a ball better, or could afford the opportunity to skip "real work" and play baseball for a job. Only the best made a lot of money. Most baseball players in the United States eaked out a living on the diamond for a very long time. These are the people that Bill James used to pool the results and come up with his average career trajectory.

But, we're talking about today. My wife and I have daily conversations about probiotics, good bacteria, and every possible chemical makeup, good and bad, that we could possibly be exposed or expose ourselves to (she's a pharmacist, but she would be interested in this even if she hadn't gone to medical school.) Our bathroom scale at home measures our fat percentage. Weight is unimportant. We get our dairy from a farm. We don't use microwaves because it changes the chemical makeup of the food or beverage, let's just say in a negative way, but you can do the research (I highly encourage it for you, and those around you). We don't buy processed foods. We filter our water to remove the Chlorine at the street level, so that it's not going through your skin when you wash and bathe. We exercise both weights and aerobic. She gets her sleep. I fail miserably there and I'm paying for it.

This is just a small sample of all of the studying we do when it comes to our, and our child's health. Today's athlete has this information while also having the luxury that it's their job to be in peak physical shape. There is no "decline at 30" anymore. Not even close. My wife and I, as well as athletes in every sport, talk a lot about cells, it's makeup, what scientifically makes them healthy or unhealthy. Athletes have nutrionists, team doctors educated in sports medicine, yoga instructors. Yoga is an unbelievable tool for keeping the mind and body in top shape. Flexibility that players would start losing at 29-30 still happens if you treat your body the way everyone did during the 20th Century. But, with yoga, you can have better flexibility and a healthier body at 50 than you did during your 20's.

You can see examples throughout all sports of players who pay better attention to the science available and try to keep up with all of the new information that continues to be discovered. Sugar is a killer. Monsanto is evil (and now Bayer will own them). You have to be proactive about your body and community. If you just sit back and take what those in power try to feed you, you'll be unhealthy and die miserably and way too soon.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HokieRed

I'm in favor of seeking the best possible deal for Bruce, but the talk about age 30 here compels me to say that the justification given for trading the best Reds player I have seen in my 61 years as a Reds follower was that he was "an old 30."

---

I think that had less to do about his age and more to do with his other intrinsic qualities.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cannon

Really? Given how much salary we just cut and with Phillips coming off the books how much money is really tied up in the team? Why would he be 'very expensive' anyway? He'll be 30 and he won't have a ton of leverage because of his injury riddled seasons and on top of it he supposedly loves Cincinnati and wants to stay. I don't see him getting a ridiculous contract and he'll likely be worth what we could pay him.

With that said if we got a player back for Bruce that could 'beat down the door' so to speak and be ready to replace his production in a year or two I'd be fine with that. But that's an A grade prospect and most people here don't think teams would be willing to give that up for Bruce, and in that case it's better to keep him. He's a premium bat and that's not so easy to replace.

---

He'll have leverage because he is 2nd in the league in RBI's, 3rd in Slg, 10th in OPS, and all signs point to him staying that way for the next year and a half. This isn't a hot streak.

2018 and 2019 Bruce will be better than any prospect we could get for him, but we could get someone who could be a solid starter by 2019 for $20M less than what Bruce will be earning. We would also have that player's prime years at the same time as all of our current and best prospects.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kingspoint

How can they not? What pitcher in our organization could pitch well enough to win a League Champioship Game (keep in mind who his opposing Ace will be, in addition to the opposing Lineup), yet alone a World Series game?

---

I tend to agree, but my main point is... we're going to find out what they really think, which is what matters. They can't possibly believe they're going to win in '17 without Jay Bruce. It makes no sense to hold Bruce if you think you're not a playoff team next year. The only 2 things that make sense are trading Bruce if you think it'll be at least another year or 2 ... and keeping Bruce if you think you can make the 2017 playoffs.

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/ar...articleid=9933

Quote:

---

Conclusion

I began my investigation into how baseball players age in order to address some potential problems with past studies. It turns out that after correcting for those flaws that the peak age of baseball players appears to be around 29, and possibly 30 for hitters in modern times. Of course, some players will peak earlier and others later, but this is a general benchmark.

I find it interesting that despite his unwavering pronouncement of when players peaked when the article opened, James's tone was tempered in his general conclusion:

Good hitters stay around, weak hitters don't. Most players are declining by age 30; all players are declining by age 33. There are difference in rates of decline, but those differences are far less significant for the assessment of future value than are the differing levels of ability (James, 1982, p. 205).


And that's probably about as technical as we need to get.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WrongVerb

In 2013, the Reds top prospects were:

1. Hamilton
2. Stephenson
3. Travieso
4. Ervin
5. Winker
6. Lorenzen
7. Corcino
8. Holmberg
9. Wright
10. Buckley

Nobody on that list I wouldn't hesitate to trade if the Reds had a real shot at winning the World Series.

---

Oh I was just using today's list to make it easier and so we don't have the benefit of hindsight. But this is fair list to use too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by westofyou

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/ar...articleid=9933

---

It's my suspicion that Joey's slow April was a pothole on his road of decline. He got straightened out, of course, but it's going to prove harder and harder for him to do that and more of those stretches are going to creep into his game. Given how strong of a hitter he is, though, his decline will be gradual. Arguably his peak season was 2012. Five years after will be 2017. Expect a resurgence next year then a steeper decline.

Bruce might be having his peak season now, so 2021 is 5 years hence when he's 34 years old for his resurgence year.

BTW, I keep bringing up the Cardinals, but a cursory glance at their rosters over the past 10-15 years shows a lot of players in that 27-30 age range, after which the team dumps them unless they're strong hitters (Holliday, Molina). They play the age game very well.

So, the million dollar question, or for Bruce, almost $200M question, has he the same mindset as his father and grandfather regarding taking care of his body and mind, or has he embraced the new athlete, where you rarely find them eating fast food, for starters. Will he begin the "normal" decline at 30 or will he study the information that's out there and live a healthy lifestyle in as many ways as possible. Money's no object for him, as it's the biggest detriment to putting healthy food into most people's bodies.

So if the Indians won't trade Zimmer or Frazier, what do people realistically expect the Reds can get for Bruce?

Brandon Nimmo's name has been mentioned, but until a hot start in the offense-happy PCL this year, he was widely viewed as a 4th OF type. I'd be looking for something more for Bruce given his performance this year. I'm not sure Bregman is a great target unless the Reds are convinced he or Peraza can stick at SS. Does anyone think Benintendi could be had for Bruce and someone like Strailey?

Personally, my targets given the contenders and the assumption that the Indians wouldn't move their two OF prospects, would be as follows:

1. Andrew Benintendi OF Red Sox - the local kid would be my #1 target and Dombrowski may just have the stones to deal him
2. Trea Turner SS Nationals - fits like a glove and currently not being utilized by division leading Nats. Would allow Reds to deal Cozart for a younger OF prospect (2013-2015 draftee)

3. Lewis Brinson CF Rangers - slow start in 2016 could make him available
4. Jurickson Profar SS Rangers - this would be an interesting swap of former #1 prospects in the game, so long as Reds liked his glove at SS
5. Alex Bregman 2B/3B Astros - would be higher if not for positional backlog (Peraza, Suarez, Senzel, etc.) or Reds believed one of them could stick at SS

6. Joey Gallo 3B/LF Rangers - might be redundant if Duvall keeps slugging like he has, but his power would be nice behind high OBP Votto/Winker/Senzel
7. Gleyber Torres SS Cubs - something doesn't feel right about Bruce helping the Cubs win a championship
8. Lucius Fox SS Giants - might be a little light for the top bat on the market, so might look for a little more to come along with him; Reds must believe he can stay at SS


I would be willing to add any prospect outside of the Reds top 5 (Reed, Garrett, R.Stephenson, Winker, Senzel) to get 1 or 2 on this list. 3-5 could include an additional piece like Straily/Lamb or a prospect other than T.Stephenson or Ervin. 6-8 would require the other team adding a second piece- someone like Tyler Beede from the Giants or Eloy Jimenez from the Cubs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by westofyou

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/ar...articleid=9933

---

James did a lot of leg work for a lot of people. He opened up avenues of thought that no one had before. It was enlightening.

I would have to wait until we can get a 20-yr period post-steroids to gather the evidence for how players have embraced the improved knowledge for taking care of the body and it's effect on career paths. You would almost have to have a thorough and complete questionaire into the lifestyles of each person as everyone embraces healthcare to a different degree. If each person was then given a proactive health score, some great information could be gleaned.

Trading Bruce for a 4th outfielder type or a utility infielder type would be absolutely awful. Again, if there's not a top end prospect coming back he shouldn't be moving. It might be questionable, but I would much rather take my chances with a compensation pick from him walking than get some kind of middling prospect that likely won't be an impact player for a guy of Bruce's quality at the plate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cannon

Trading Bruce for a 4th outfielder type or a utility infielder type would be absolutely awful. Again, if there's not a top end prospect coming back he shouldn't be moving. It might be questionable, but I would much rather take my chances with a compensation pick from him walking than get some kind of middling prospect that likely won't be an impact player for a guy of Bruce's quality at the plate.

---

Do you get a comp pick, if there is an option?

We should be able to get someone whose upside is solid starter for four years, even if those four yyears are five years from beginning.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kingspoint

How can they not? What pitcher in our organization could pitch well enough to win a League Champioship Game (keep in mind who his opposing Ace will be, in addition to the opposing Lineup), yet alone a World Series game?

---

This year none but for a 2017 playoff game there are many options- none are sure things but Bailey, Reed, Disco, Garrett and Iglesias could all be the sort or arm to dominate a game (or not). If you get to the playoffs, there is no guarantee the best team wins which the Reds know all too well. So you get there, hope your pitching is rested and lined up and hope for the best.

If the Reds are not planning on competing in 2017 and move Bruce and Cozart, they should also shop Duvall and Disco.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by klw

This year none but for a 2017 playoff game there are many options- none are sure things but Bailey, Reed, Disco, Garrett and Iglesias could all be the sort or arm to dominate a game (or not). If you get to the playoffs, there is no guarantee the best team wins which the Reds know all too well. So you get there, hope your pitching is rested and lined up and hope for the best.

If the Reds are not planning on competing in 2017 and move Bruce and Cozart, they should also shop Duvall and Disco.

---

Don't they still have 4+ years of control for Disco?

I forgot about Bailey. Haven't thought of him as a RED in a long time.

- - - Updated - - -

When does Duvall start to get expensive?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by klw

This year none but for a 2017 playoff game there are many options- none are sure things but Bailey, Reed, Disco, Garrett and Iglesias could all be the sort or arm to dominate a game (or not). If you get to the playoffs, there is no guarantee the best team wins which the Reds know all too well. So you get there, hope your pitching is rested and lined up and hope for the best.

If the Reds are not planning on competing in 2017 and move Bruce and Cozart, they should also shop Duvall and Disco.

---

I understand the sentiment, but IMO that's not the kind of rebuild this team is doing.

The Reds are trading "expensive" salaries for inexpensive young talent. As the team gets readier, they will add veterans to try and cap off a contender.

They likely are not going to trade inexpensive, performing players like Duvall and Disco.

As a business matter, the Reds want to avoid any appearance of total capitulation. This is a terrible year, but they have kept a number of familiar veterans.

As the Reds' core of expensive regulars dwindles, successful young players like Disco and Duvall become important in selling the team to fans. The Reds will not trade them IMO even if they aren't competing in 2017.

They would sooner trade from minor league depth. The fans have no investment in most minor leaguers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Z-Fly

Do you get a comp pick, if there is an option?

---

If he doesn't get dealt, picking up the option is a no-brainer at this point.

Yeah, 13 million is a deal, particularly seeing what the QO amounts have become.

Kingspoint: James may have run the numbers and come up with differing data. I think players did stay on longer and were more productive during the PED era, but since 2010 things have reverted back to pre-1992 comps.

I do agree that players are probably healthier than they were 50 years ago...i do agree with that. I also agree with the taking better care of their bodies. I agree that there's better medicine.

I think you're forgetting that there's competition --if your opponent is life and bad health. You and you're wife (along with society) is winning some battles. We live longer. The issue with MLB players is not their good health -it's a younger guys better health.

Name 10 players .....any 10 batters. Their most valuable years come pre-age 31 (after their age 30 season). 75-80% of their WAR value comes in those years (pre-age 31). Frank Robinson (as someone alluded to)- 69% of his value came before the age 31 season...31% after.

Someone throw out 10 names -hitters. We can run a some samples -hell...just look at the WAR numbers and you'll see it. The only guys who don't fit are the PED guys....everyone else 1900 to 1992 and from 2010-to today fits within the 80/20 after 30 rule.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HokieRed

I'm in favor of seeking the best possible deal for Bruce, but the talk about age 30 here compels me to say that the justification given for trading the best Reds player I have seen in my 61 years as a Reds follower was that he was "an old 30."

---

Frazier is the best Reds' player you've ever seen?

(Kidding, I know you're talking about Frank Robinson.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cooper

Kingspoint: James may have run the numbers and come up with differing data. I think players did stay on longer and were more productive during the PED era, but since 2010 things have reverted back to pre-1992 comps.

I do agree that players are probably healthier than they were 50 years ago...i do agree with that. I also agree with the taking better care of their bodies. I agree that there's better medicine.

I think you're forgetting that there's competition --if your opponent is life and bad health. You and you're wife (along with society) is winning some battles. We live longer. The issue with MLB players is not their good health -it's a younger guys better health.

Name 10 players .....any 10 batters. Their most valuable years come pre-age 31 (after their age 30 season). 75-80% of their WAR value comes in those years (pre-age 31). Frank Robinson (as someone alluded to)- 69% of his value came before the age 31 season...31% after.

Someone throw out 10 names -hitters. We can run a some samples -hell...just look at the WAR numbers and you'll see it. The only guys who don't fit are the PED guys....everyone else 1900 to 1992 and from 2010-to today fits within the 80/20 after 30 rule.

---

http://www.fangraphs.com/leaders.asp...ter=&players=0

Even if that split were true (which sounds completely arbitrary anyway) that doesn't mean that a player can't still be useful and productive after 30. Guys like Nelson Cruz and Matt Holliday among others alone shirk your percentage split of WAR. Bruce can be another -- the tools are there, and he missed two of what should have been his most productive years because of injury (most likely).

I'm sure this is available somewhere, but what would it look like if you divided a player's years into smaller chunks, say under 23, 23-27, 28-32, 32-36, over 36? There are so many ways to look at this.

Well that list above only shows production from 31 and on. Still lots of players with a lot left to give after that time. Still plenty who are playing now 31 and beyond who are producing nicely. Bruce doesn't have to be a 5+ WAR player every year after 31 to still be worth a decent contract, and be helpful to the Reds.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cannon

Well that list above only shows production from 31 and on. Still lots of players with a lot left to give after that time. Still plenty who are playing now 31 and beyond who are producing nicely. Bruce doesn't have to be a 5+ WAR player every year after 31 to still be worth a decent contract, and be helpful to the Reds.

---

Bruce kind of does need to be a 4-5 WAR player to be worth it to the Reds though at the salary he's getting though.

Here's a random example I pulled. Rajai Davis was readily available last winter, he was coming off a 1.6 WAR season in only 341 ABs.
He got paid 5.25 million in the offseason.
Point being that if a front office is motivated, it should not be that difficult to find 1.5-3 WAR OF fairly inexpensively on the free agent market without surrendering a draft pick. (3 WAR might be pushing it, but in the 1.5-3 WAR range is reasonable)

Bruce has to be a difference maker, let's say 800 OPS or better, plus adequate defense to be worth what he is being paid. He's earning that money this year, and may earn it in the next 3 years as well.. My point is that Bruce actually does need to be a 4 WAR player to be worth what he's being paid. We already have a lot of money tied up in Homer and Votto long term. We can only give long term contracts out to impact players. We can't pay the going free agent rate of 8 million per WAR point or whatever it is (It's very high).

Now the Yankees could afford to pay Bruce 12-20 million per year to be a 2-3 WAR player and not blink an eye, but the Reds can't.

Cannon: How much more specific can one get? After age 30 season 75 to 80% of a players value has already occurred. Why did i pick after the age 30 season? Because that's when the data shows that players go into their decline phase of their career. With Matt Holiday -70% of his value occurred pre-age 31 season.

Can a player still be valuable --sure ....if his baseline is high enough and if he is farther along to the left of the defensive spectrum...he has farther to decline...he can still be productive. Speedier players who started their careers at a young age tend to sustain their careers longer.

Have any of you guys grown older? Have you somehow gotten younger over the years? This concept is so fundamental that i'm having difficulty understanding why it's hard to grasp on to it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cannon

Well that list above only shows production from 31 and on. Still lots of players with a lot left to give after that time. Still plenty who are playing now 31 and beyond who are producing nicely. Bruce doesn't have to be a 5+ WAR player every year after 31 to still be worth a decent contract, and be helpful to the Reds.

---

Let's take a look at this year

Carlos Beltran - age 39 - .286/.323 19 HRs, 51 RBIs - OPS .986
Daniel Murphy - age 31 - .352/.395 12 HRs, 46 RBIs - OPS .978
Ryan Braun - age 32 - .316/.375 12 HR, 38 RBI - OPS .910
Ben Zobrist - age 35 - .308/.414 9 HR, 41 RBI - OPS .891
David Ortiz - age 40 - .339/.421 18 HR, 59 RBIs - OPS 1.120
Victor Martinez - age 37 - .325/.374 12 HR, 38 RBI - OPS .900
Miguel Cabrera - age 33 - .305/.380 15 HR, 43 RBI - OPS .917
Dustin Pedroia - age 32 - .304/.359 7 HR, 28 RBI - OPS .813
Robinson Cano - age 33 - .301/.359 19 HR, 53 RBI - OPS .921
Ian Kinsler - age 34 - .301/.355 14 HR, 46 RBI - OPS .865
Nelson Cruz - age 35 - .282/.366 16 HR, 46 RBI - OPS .870

Plus others who have had success in other seasons after 31 like Adrian Gonzalez, Alex Rodriguez, Adrian Beltre etc.