Re: Royals interested in Bruce?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
paulrichjr
Extend Jay Bruce at $13+ million each year or play Jesse Winker and pay him $600K? Honestly I'm not sure why there is debate on this. If the NL had a DH maybe. He just isn't good in RF anymore.
There is a debate because advanced defensive analytics are still in their infancy. Teams have access to the cutting edge defensive statistics, but we are using less advanced defensive statistics. I think it is justifiable to question the defensive stats that many are citing to say Jay is a terrible defender because those statistics have not been verified to the degree that the advanced offensive statistics have. I buy that Jay Bruce is not a good defender anymore. In fact, I will buy that Jay is a below average defender. But, I am very skeptical that Jay is such a bad defensive player that it wipes away all of the good his bat has done with a .280/.332/.591 line.
Re: Royals interested in Bruce?
I see people say the Reds should re-sign Bruce to a long-term contract and I can't tell if they're being sarcastic. I'll just assume they are.
Re-signing Bruce would go against everything the Reds are trying to do with this rebuild. His value is high. Now is the time to trade him. (By "now" I mean anytime between right this moment and the 2016 trade deadline.)
If the Reds would re-sign Bruce and his numbers then went into the tank, everyone would be saying, "See, should have traded him at the 2016 deadline." It won't be hindsight 20/20 for me when I say that though. I'm saying it right now. It makes 100 percent sense from the Reds' standpoint to trade Bruce as soon as they get a good offer for him. I'm certainly not saying the Reds should trade Bruce for a poor return. If a team isn't willing to pony up at least one legit prospect, forget about it. Reds can just hold on to him and pick up his 2017 option at the very worst. But I have to think with all the injuries we're seeing around MLB, plus more importantly the fact that Bruce is putting up excellent offensive stats, there will be/is a good market for him. If the Reds play their cards right here, they'll get a nice prospect in return for Bruce. That's a long way from the "salary dump" we were led to believe they were trying to pull off during the offseason.
Again, Bruce playing well offensively is one of the best things that has happened to the 2016 Reds because suddenly a guy who didn't have much trade value entering the season ... has a lot of trade value IMO. I also think his defensive metrics won't be nearly as important to AL teams because of the DH and because offense is valued over defense in general in that league.
Re: Royals interested in Bruce?
Steve Selsky was just recalled... :o
I realize this means nothing.
Re: Royals interested in Bruce?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Chuckie
I see people say the Reds should re-sign Bruce to a long-term contract and I can't tell if they're being sarcastic. I'll just assume they are.
Re-signing Bruce would go against everything the Reds are trying to do with this rebuild. His value is high. Now is the time to trade him. (By "now" I mean anytime between right this moment and the 2016 trade deadline.)
If the Reds would re-sign Bruce and his numbers then went into the tank, everyone would be saying, "See, should have traded him at the 2016 deadline." It won't be hindsight 20/20 for me when I say that though. I'm saying it right now. It makes 100 percent sense from the Reds' standpoint to trade Bruce as soon as they get a good offer for him. I'm certainly not saying the Reds should trade Bruce for a poor return. If a team isn't willing to pony up at least one legit prospect, forget about it. Reds can just hold on to him and pick up his 2017 option at the very worst. But I have to think with all the injuries we're seeing around MLB, plus more importantly the fact that Bruce is putting up excellent offensive stats, there will be/is a good market for him. If the Reds play their cards right here, they'll get a nice prospect in return for Bruce. That's a long way from the "salary dump" we were led to believe they were trying to pull off during the offseason.
Again, Bruce playing well offensively is one of the best things that has happened to the 2016 Reds because suddenly a guy who didn't have much trade value entering the season ... has a lot of trade value IMO. I also think his defensive metrics won't be nearly as important to AL teams because of the DH and because offense is valued over defense in general in that league.
I think the way some look at it is that save for the first week of the season and last week, the Reds haven't played well. One of the reasons for that was the loss of players like Frazier, Cueto and Chapman. All homegrown players and all popular. They seem to feel that if Bruce and/or Cozart are traded the team loses its most productive - not to mention popular and homegrown - players and will get even worse. Pretty much every Reds fan knew they would be bad but they don't want to be 1962 Mets bad. If either or both are traded, they think this team could live in infamy along with the 62 Mets and the 1899 Cleveland Spiders.
Re: Royals interested in Bruce?
I still think he will be traded before the all-star break. I think teams like SF, KC, and the White Sox are looking at OF or DH help. They will want the extra month to be able to stay in the playoff hunt. Ironically all 3 of these teams farm systems have been scouted by us in the past. Of the 3 SFrans is the weakest. I would target the best players I could get regardless of position.
Re: Royals interested in Bruce?
With Cuthbert hurt, KC is in need of an IFer, too.
Re: Royals interested in Bruce?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Chuckie
It makes 100 percent sense from the Reds' standpoint to trade Bruce as soon as they get a good offer for him.
I don't think many dispute this. It's just a question of whether that will happen. If it doesn't, I wouldn't completely rule out an extension.
Re: Royals interested in Bruce?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Cannon
So why is his data from 2011-13 not relevant anymore? Are we ignoring his pedigree as a player because he had an injury that created bad habits and sapped him of his power? As though he suddenly was coming into his prime and just 'lost it'? That seems a bit ignorant to me. He had one down year (where he almost hit 30 HRs anyway) and a year of injury (which probably affected his 2015 as well). We have a lot more data that suggests what he's doing right now is more in line with his career norms than what he did the past two seasons, even if he's a poor fielder now (though that seems correctable given his arm and athleticism seem fine).
If a team is trying to bargain that the past two seasons are the 'real' Jay Bruce then why are they coming to the table in the first place? No, a team is coming to the Reds because they want the Jay Bruce outside of those two years of his career which spans about a decade. If they don't want to pay for that they can move on; right now the market should be pretty good for Bruce given how many teams seem to need a power hitting fielder.
After a player has two seasons of basically replacement level production, it really makes older data irrelvant.
Your theory is that an injury created bad habits.. Yet Bruce had a long streak in the first half of last year when he seemed to be healthy.. I think it was 10 weeks of good production, give or take a week or two. So did he get hurt again or did he fall back into bad habits.. He had almost no walks in the second half.
Why would teams be asking about Bruce in the first place? Well, we are assuming teams are asking about him now (which I don't know).. My guess is that it's similiar to the Reds last year, when they asked about Byrd.. They wanted a reasonably priced stopgap for LF to help them be competitive. They believe the Reds will eat some of Bruce's salary (which was offered in the spring) and only expect a modest prospect in return. That's attractive to teams that are willing to roll the dice on offense, and get the fans excited that they are going for it..
Sorry, but I can almost guarantee you that if Bruce is traded, you are going to be extremely disappointed in the return.
Based on what we know (which may not be 100% accurate), the Reds were willing to basically give away Phillips and Bruce for salary relief. They backed off their hard position on Chapman to cut payroll. They probably had an urgency to trade Fraizer too.. Not much has changed. We have to assume that if a semi-palatable offer for Bruce is made, the Reds will jump on it.. And for Bruce, I really can't blame them, given the position this club is in.. As KC says, they are retooling with youth.. A 30 year old Bruce next year on the last year of his contract isn't helping that.
An extension for Bruce is really out of the question and would be unwise, IMO.
Do you really think that 200 abs by Bruce this year has significantly changed other GM's opinion of him? Maybe that's the crux of our disagreement.
Because the Reds couldn't give Bruce away last spring, despite willing to eat 8 million of his contract. He's not suddenly worth a top 100 prospect after 200 ABs.
Re: Royals interested in Bruce?
http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/what-...ce-is-missing/
If teams are (including the Reds) are shortsighted enough to think that the knee surgery didn't affect his production in 14/15 then I'm just fine with keeping him. He'll continue to hit very well when healthy, and the ability is there for him to improve in the field again. I'm definitely not on board with giving him away for a cut price because he had a couple down seasons after knee surgery when his history and pedigree suggest the Jay Bruce we're seeing now is more 'real' than the 14/15 version.
Re: Royals interested in Bruce?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Cannon
http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/what-...ce-is-missing/
If teams are (including the Reds) are shortsighted enough to think that the knee surgery didn't affect his production in 14/15 then I'm just fine with keeping him. He'll continue to hit very well when healthy, and the ability is there for him to improve in the field again. I'm definitely not on board with giving him away for a cut price because he had a couple down seasons after knee surgery when his history and pedigree suggest the Jay Bruce we're seeing now is more 'real' than the 14/15 version.
Funny the article mentioned "bad habits" because Jay said the same thing in an extended version of his quote about feeling like himself again the other day.
"I feel like Jay Bruce. Not 2014 and 15, those were miserable years. I was injured and I think some of that stuff carried over and had some bad habits that I got rid of."
Re: Royals interested in Bruce?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
RedsManRick
Not all past performance is created equal when it comes to predicting the future. The further in the past the performance is, the less and less predictive of the future it is. Sure, we can talk about Bruce being injured in recent seasons and we can point out that he's in his physical prime and thus not likely to be experiencing age-related regression. But put simply, as a starting point, 2015 is more relevant than 2014 is more relevant than 2013 and so forth.
Yep.
My go-to back of the napkin way is to look back at the past 3 years. That's it. And I weight them 3,2,1 starting at the most recent year barring any unusual circumstances.
Re: Royals interested in Bruce?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Tom Servo
Funny the article mentioned "bad habits" because Jay said the same thing in an extended version of his quote about feeling like himself again the other day.
"I feel like Jay Bruce. Not 2014 and 15, those were miserable years. I was injured and I think some of that stuff carried over and had some bad habits that I got rid of."
Smoking. Hanging out at the pool hall. Staying up late playing Guitar Hero.
Re: Royals interested in Bruce?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
WrongVerb
The thing with Bruce this year is the lack of a white hot streak. He's been really, really consistent, and that consistency has lacked in his game since he arrived in Cincy. It bodes well for the next 4-5 years.
Bruce has been consistently spotty throughout his career. He'll have monstrous streak in both the front and back halves of the season where he can carry the whole team for a couple of weeks, but then he goes on arid streaks where he contributes next to nothing on offense. True, his current hot streak seems to be extending longer than any we've seen from him for a while.
Re: Royals interested in Bruce?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
marcshoe
Smoking. Hanging out at the pool hall. Staying up late playing Guitar Hero.
Man, a heel Jay Bruce would be so cool. Imagine him with his babyface and dad hair wearing a leather jacket with a Dusty chewing stick in his mouth?
Re: Royals interested in Bruce?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Tom Servo
I don't think many dispute this. It's just a question of whether that will happen. If it doesn't, I wouldn't completely rule out an extension.
The people calling for Bruce's contract to be extended dispute it.
