Royals interested in Bruce?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tom Servo

He has 5 doubles on the year, hasn't hit one in over a month.

Kind of blows up the "Just keep him until the trade deadline to rebuild his value from last year's second half!" argument.

---

I don't think Todd's ever left the derby. All he can seem to hit are HRs

I am unclear: are the Royals interested in Bruce?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rojo Rijo

I don't think Todd's ever left the derby. All he can seem to hit are HRs

---

I actually laughed out loud. Was this post inspired by The Hangover squeal?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rojo Rijo

I don't think Todd's ever left the derby. All he can seem to hit are HRs

---

It does seem that way. In 146 games (622 plate appearances) since the 2015 ASB/HR Derby, Todd has hit 31 HRs, but is slashing just .210/.288/.419

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Z-Fly

I actually laughed out loud. Was this post inspired by The Hangover squeal?

---

My hangover squeal is usually "UUUHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHOOOWWWWWOOOOOUUUHHHHHHH" :beerme:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sea Ray

I wouldn't say most of the time. The Frazier deal sure doesn't look too good. Nor does the Chapman deal

---

Too soon to tell. If Rookie Davis becomes a servicable pitcher (even if just in the pen), Chapman trade is a good trade. I agree the other 3 guys look like longshots now, but maybe Jag starts hitting again.

If Peraza becomes a 2-3 WAR SS or 2b, the Reds did excellent with Frazier.. I loved Frazier too when he was here, but let's face it, he was a sub 300 OBP guy with a lot of power that was getting old..

And I can almost guarantee most of the board will be disappointed with the return for Bruce, simply because they are overvaluing him now.
The dude was unmovable in the spring, even if the Reds ate 8 million of his salary. Sure, he's improved his stock dramatically, but half a season doesn't change a player from albotross to worth a top 30 prospect.. Same with Strally.. he is not worth much on the trade market.. If the Reds were contending, needed pitching, and their "big move" was adding Strally (even at a low cost), people would be upset.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tom Servo

He has 5 doubles on the year, hasn't hit one in over a month.

Kind of blows up the "Just keep him until the trade deadline to rebuild his value from last year's second half!" argument.

---

Yes, Thank God Frazier was traded over the winter, or we'd be hearing "Walt/Dick waited too long to trade Frazier, it was obvious he was on a downward swing" all year.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by REDREAD

Too soon to tell. If Rookie Davis becomes a servicable pitcher (even if just in the pen), Chapman trade is a good trade. I agree the other 3 guys look like longshots now, but maybe Jag starts hitting again.

If Peraza becomes a 2-3 WAR SS or 2b, the Reds did excellent with Frazier.. I loved Frazier too when he was here, but let's face it, he was a sub 300 OBP guy with a lot of power that was getting old..

And I can almost guarantee most of the board will be disappointed with the return for Bruce, simply because they are overvaluing him now.
The dude was unmovable in the spring, even if the Reds ate 8 million of his salary. Sure, he's improved his stock dramatically, but half a season doesn't change a player from albotross to worth a top 30 prospect.. Same with Strally.. he is not worth much on the trade market.. If the Reds were contending, needed pitching, and their "big move" was adding Strally (even at a low cost), people would be upset.

---

I agree with Straily. Bruce can make a huge difference for a contender with a hole in RF. His AB vs Arrieta last night where he banged an RBI single up the middle had to be impressive for a scout. It shows Bruce can hit good pitching in clutch situations. That's what contenders are looking for.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by REDREAD

Yes, Thank God Frazier was traded over the winter, or we'd be hearing "Walt/Dick waited too long to trade Frazier, it was obvious he was on a downward swing" all year.

---

Let's pretend the Reds hadn't traded Frazier this winter and he was on the list of people the Reds would move this winter. Is there anyone on the board that can make a legitimate case that Todd Frazier would net a Top 100 prospect like Peraza? He could probably get Schebler and the others and "maybe" another prospect but no way do those stats get you someone as highly rated as Peraza. In other words, Reds win that trade along with every other trade they made from Latos/Simon trade on except maybe Chapman....and the jury is still out on that one. (Rookie Davis has been pretty good this year)

Obviously the ideal time to trade Frazier was during the 2015 Home Run Derby trophy presentation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kc61

Hard to see the Reds getting three real prospects for Bruce. Plus the salary relief the Reds obviously want.

The best way to approach this deal is that the Reds must get full salary relief (no Reds contribution) and one top 100 or better type prospect. Plus more, but not expecting the "more" to be too valuable.

---

I don't disagree about the 3 prospects. I think it's more likely to expect the Reds to secure a couple B level prospects instead of 3 true prospect types.

However, with how Bruce is producing, I don't think that salary relief is a major factor in a trade at this point.

He's going to be paid, what, about $6MM the rest of this season, with $13MM next season on the option (or $1MM on the buyout). That's not a huge financial commitment to most teams that would pursue him.

The team that trades for Bruce is going to be a team that is looking to win this season. A team that is willing to give up young talent in exchange for a player who can help them this season. Paying that player approximately $7MM (if they only want him this season and then buy him out for 2017) or $19MM (for this season and next) is not going to dramatically move the meter in terms of the prospects exchanged. If they don't buy him out, and the QO system is still in place after 2017, then that club can attempt a QO and try to recoup a prospect.

For the Reds, I don't think the salary dump is really a factor anymore. Yes, it was during this past offseason when it looked like Bruce's career was going down the drain due to injury. Paying $25+MM to Bruce at that time looked like a contract that was extremely distasteful for a rebuilding club - which is why they were trying to unload him for a very minimal package in that failed TOR-LAA-CIN deal. That was a pure salary dump. But, as he's rebounded, his salary for the Reds the rest of this season and next is manageable. An extension from the Reds, in my opinion, would be mismanagement, but if he continues to produce like this, that's not a terrible contract for the Reds. You could try to trade him again next season, or you could take whatever compensation is in place following 2017.

If you think teams are taking Bruce simply as salary relief, then a trade makes little sense. The return you get would be minimal, and probably wouldn't be worth anything more than the nothing you'd get if you hang onto him, he tanks the rest of his contract, and you let him go.

I really don't believe "salary relief" is anything more than a minimal factor in trading Bruce at this time. I think his rebound in value has put that to rest.

I agree with some of the previous post. But keep in mind that the Reds have (apparently) - earlier on - been involved in discussions to trade Bruce in which they would have eaten some salary.

I agree this has changed. But anyone dealing with the Reds will understand that the Reds are a cost conscious, rebuilding team and this may influence offers.

And, in some cases, say the Indians, salary may continue to have a more important influence.

So I agree salary is less of a factor now, but it is still a factor given the history and give the Reds' obvious and known desire to keep reducing payroll.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kc61

So I agree salary is less of a factor now, but it is still a factor given the history and give the Reds' obvious and known desire to keep reducing payroll.

---

Food for thought, our GM has claimed the objective in saving payroll was to inject in forward thinking measures, not purely to save the bottom line.

Eating the salary to enhance the prospects being received would certainly fit in with vision.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Patrick Bateman

Food for thought, our GM has claimed the objective in saving payroll was to inject in forward thinking measures, not purely to save the bottom line.

Eating the salary to enhance the prospects being received would certainly fit in with vision.

---

It would fit with the vision, but it would also be a departure from their modus operandi. I know they seemed willing to eat some of Bruce's contract in the off season, but that may have been simply an effort to create a trade market. There now is (or should be) a trade market for Bruce. Whether they are still willing to kick in money to further improve it remains to be seen. I, for one, am skeptical.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kc61

I agree with some of the previous post. But keep in mind that the Reds have (apparently) - earlier on - been involved in discussions to trade Bruce in which they would have eaten some salary.

I agree this has changed. But anyone dealing with the Reds will understand that the Reds are a cost conscious, rebuilding team and this may influence offers.

And, in some cases, say the Indians, salary may continue to have a more important influence.

So I agree salary is less of a factor now, but it is still a factor given the history and give the Reds' obvious and known desire to keep reducing payroll.

---

I'm aware that it has been a factor in previous discussions. I referenced that. Before this season, it would have been the main factor in unloading Bruce.

My point is now, since he has rebounded in value, his salary is not an albatross, and it won't prevent the Reds from getting a solid prospect return. (He won't bring the level that some are expecting, but the return will be solid.) If other teams are saying, "Hey, you're a cost-conscious team so we'll take his salary and give you nothing in return", then the Reds won't make the deal. His value is now beyond that line of thinking.

If the Reds are willing to eat salary in a deal with another cost-conscious team, and therefore get a better prospect package in return, I can see that. In my mind, that scenario is now much more likely than the scenario of a "salary dump".

In regards to Bruce and reducing payroll, the reduction of payroll now is to create flexibility and enable the team to acquire better players in the future. Bruce's value is now such that they can acquire future talent in a trade, which means you don't have to just reduce payroll in a trade.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CRDB40

I'm aware that it has been a factor in previous discussions. I referenced that. Before this season, it would have been the main factor in unloading Bruce.

My point is now, since he has rebounded in value, his salary is not an albatross, and it won't prevent the Reds from getting a solid prospect return. (He won't bring the level that some are expecting, but the return will be solid.) If other teams are saying, "Hey, you're a cost-conscious team so we'll take his salary and give you nothing in return", then the Reds won't make the deal. His value is now beyond that line of thinking.

If the Reds are willing to eat salary in a deal with another cost-conscious team, and therefore get a better prospect package in return, I can see that. In my mind, that scenario is now much more likely than the scenario of a "salary dump".

In regards to Bruce and reducing payroll, the reduction of payroll now is to create flexibility and enable the team to acquire better players in the future. Bruce's value is now such that they can acquire future talent in a trade, which means you don't have to just reduce payroll in a trade.

---

If I were negotiating with the Reds, I'd give up the one major prospect. But when the Reds ask for more, then I'd say - we're taking on Bruce's salary and his buy out option. We'll give you one very good prospect. Beyond that, it's just minor additions.

Given the Reds' continued desire to cut salary, they might accept.

I would absolutely continue to use salary in the talks, even though the situation has indeed changed to the Reds' advantage.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pony Boy

Obviously the ideal time to trade Frazier was during the 2015 Home Run Derby trophy presentation.

---

FWIW I was begging for that to happen at the time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by puca

It would fit with the vision, but it would also be a departure from their modus operandi. I know they seemed willing to eat some of Bruce's contract in the off season, but that may have been simply an effort to create a trade market. There now is (or should be) a trade market for Bruce. Whether they are still willing to kick in money to further improve it remains to be seen. I, for one, am skeptical.

---

The Reds were revealed to be willing to eat salary in the nixed three-way Bruce trade in the offseason. Reports were that the Reds were going to send the majority of Bruce's salary to another team in order to receive a high-quality prospect back in the trade, but that injury concerns from one of the involved pieces nixed the deal.

I think it's evidence that the Reds are going to target players and then do what they can to get there, rather than simply trying to dump salary.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kc61

If I were negotiating with the Reds, I'd give up the one major prospect. But when the Reds ask for more, then I'd say - we're taking on Bruce's salary and his buy out option. We'll give you one very good prospect. Beyond that, it's just minor additions.

Given the Reds' continued desire to cut salary, they might accept.

I would absolutely continue to use salary in the talks, even though the situation has indeed changed to the Reds' advantage.

---

If the Reds get one very good prospect with minor additions, I think that's a fair return for Bruce. That's what I'm expecting - 1 very good prospect and 1-2 lottery tickets, or more, likely, 2 good prospects.

With that said, if the Reds acquire one very good prospect in exchange for Bruce, I think that signals that it wasn't a "salary dump". If it was a true salary dump, the Reds would get the salary relief and maybe a lottery ticket.

So, again, I don't think that the salary factor is going to cause the Reds to get very little back in terms of prospects.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by REDREAD

And I can almost guarantee most of the board will be disappointed with the return for Bruce, simply because they are overvaluing him now.
The dude was unmovable in the spring, even if the Reds ate 8 million of his salary. Sure, he's improved his stock dramatically, but half a season doesn't change a player from albotross to worth a top 30 prospect.. Same with Strally.. he is not worth much on the trade market.. If the Reds were contending, needed pitching, and their "big move" was adding Strally (even at a low cost), people would be upset.

---

People on here will definitely be disappointed if they think the Reds are going to get a top-30 MLB prospect for Bruce. I'm just hoping for a top-100 prospect and I absolutely think the Reds will get that (plus a throw-in or two). I'll keep saying this until I'm blue (red?) in the face: If a team doesn't offer at least a top-100 prospect for Jay Bruce ... they ain't gettin' no Jay Bruce.

Shake it off.

His perceived value on this board is out of whack and that's expected - think about what a top 100 player is...it's Amir Garrett (he's probably in 100 as of right now). There's no way a team gives you salary relief and Amir Garrett for Jay Bruce. I still believe it will be salary relief and a player 11-15 will be offered and the Reds will not accept it based upon a fan base that perceives Bruce to be worth more than 0.8 WAR bref. I really wish they'd do it - the perception is they're tanking - might as well go ahead and jump.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cooper

His perceived value on this board is out of whack and that's expected - think about what a top 100 player is...it's Amir Garrett (he's probably in 100 as of right now). There's no way a team gives you salary relief and Amir Garrett for Jay Bruce. I still believe it will be salary relief and a player 11-15 will be offered and the Reds will not accept it based upon a fan base that perceives Bruce to be worth more than 0.8 WAR bref. I really wish they'd do it - the perception is they're tanking - might as well go ahead and jump.

---

If a team grades out Jay Bruce as a non awful defender and is in the market for an outfielder, I believe they would be fools to turn down 1.5 years of control of that straight up for a guy with as much development left as Garrett. Don't get me wrong, I like Garrett and get his upside. But there are plenty of guys in his shoes that have failed to become adequate major league players. His chances are less than 50%. Bruce is affordable and producing very, very well. That is real production happening in real time. Contending teams value that highly.

Around $5 million for half a season of Bruce isn’t salary relief, thats called good value. Bruce has been a top 30 offensive player (minimum) this season and is under control for multiple years. It’s gonna take at least a top 100 prospect for that, maybe even top 50. Its an offensively starved league and one contender will pay a premium price for Bruce. And if not? Hold on to him and trade him next trade deadline or keep him and get the draft pick. Or extend him if he keeps on producing. But don’t give him away for “salary relief” when he is finally producing at an elite level.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CRDB40

I don't disagree about the 3 prospects. I think it's more likely to expect the Reds to secure a couple B level prospects instead of 3 true prospect types.

However, with how Bruce is producing, I don't think that salary relief is a major factor in a trade at this point.

He's going to be paid, what, about $6MM the rest of this season, with $13MM next season on the option (or $1MM on the buyout). That's not a huge financial commitment to most teams that would pursue him.

The team that trades for Bruce is going to be a team that is looking to win this season. A team that is willing to give up young talent in exchange for a player who can help them this season. Paying that player approximately $7MM (if they only want him this season and then buy him out for 2017) or $19MM (for this season and next) is not going to dramatically move the meter in terms of the prospects exchanged. If they don't buy him out, and the QO system is still in place after 2017, then that club can attempt a QO and try to recoup a prospect.

For the Reds, I don't think the salary dump is really a factor anymore. Yes, it was during this past offseason when it looked like Bruce's career was going down the drain due to injury. Paying $25+MM to Bruce at that time looked like a contract that was extremely distasteful for a rebuilding club - which is why they were trying to unload him for a very minimal package in that failed TOR-LAA-CIN deal. That was a pure salary dump. But, as he's rebounded, his salary for the Reds the rest of this season and next is manageable. An extension from the Reds, in my opinion, would be mismanagement, but if he continues to produce like this, that's not a terrible contract for the Reds. You could try to trade him again next season, or you could take whatever compensation is in place following 2017.

If you think teams are taking Bruce simply as salary relief, then a trade makes little sense. The return you get would be minimal, and probably wouldn't be worth anything more than the nothing you'd get if you hang onto him, he tanks the rest of his contract, and you let him go.

I really don't believe "salary relief" is anything more than a minimal factor in trading Bruce at this time. I think his rebound in value has put that to rest.

---

I agree with all this logic, but I think the Reds have prioritized saving cash over actually trying to win. It explains the off-season moves and the lack of reinvesting the savings into a decent arm who could have helped anchor the ship and been that trade piece that the team is lacking now. I don't think the Reds will accept any deal that requires them to eat any money even if the prospect return is substantially higher by paying a couple of million.

The Reds have to spend money eventually and I'd rather spend it on a familiar quantity than in FA with Jay

But, if the Reds decide in favor of Brucexit (lol), Amir Garrett or what Robert Stephenson is now is pretty much what I'd need back before I'd deal him.

I might kick in SOME money from my end if I'm the Reds, but not much. He doesn't really cost much for his hitting caliber and the other team gets a choice whether or not they want to keep him for an extra season.

EDIT: and I really don't think there are that many sure things in the system OF prospect wise. I'd rather keep the Bruce in the hand than the one in the bush leagues.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wonderful Monds

The Reds have to spend money eventually and I'd rather spend it on a familiar quantity than in FA with Jay

But, if the Reds decide in favor of Brucexit (lol), Amir Garrett or what Robert Stephenson is now is pretty much what I'd need back before I'd deal him.

I might kick in SOME money from my end if I'm the Reds, but not much. He doesn't really cost much for his hitting caliber and the other team gets a choice whether or not they want to keep him for an extra season.

EDIT: and I really don't think there are that many sure things in the system OF prospect wise. I'd rather keep the Bruce in the hand than the one in the bush leagues.

---

You are going to be one of those guys REDREAD was talking about that will be disappointed in the Reds' return for Bruce. I would set your expectations at receiving a top-100 prospect for Bruce ... not top-50.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cooper

His perceived value on this board is out of whack and that's expected - think about what a top 100 player is...it's Amir Garrett (he's probably in 100 as of right now). There's no way a team gives you salary relief and Amir Garrett for Jay Bruce. I still believe it will be salary relief and a player 11-15 will be offered and the Reds will not accept it based upon a fan base that perceives Bruce to be worth more than 0.8 WAR bref. I really wish they'd do it - the perception is they're tanking - might as well go ahead and jump.

---

I actually think it's the exact opposite. People here are so hung up on what Jay Bruce wasn't in 2014 and 2015 compared to expectations that they value him less than pretty much any objective source. I think for anyone outside the 275 loop, he's the #1 available bat. Nobody is concerned about Bruce's salary when they need an impact hitter. I don't believe for a second a team looking for a hitter would balk over Amir Garrett for Jay Bruce.

One issue with Bruce being traded is that the FA class this off-season is very weak. Do not expect him to be replaced from outside the organization except through a trade.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by klw

One issue with Bruce being traded is that the FA class this off-season is very weak. Do not expect him to be replaced from outside the organization except through a trade.

---

Agree which may push us to target an OF as return. Personally the idea of Duvall/Billy/Winker doesn't bother me that much for 2017.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by klw

One issue with Bruce being traded is that the FA class this off-season is very weak. Do not expect him to be replaced from outside the organization except through a trade.

---

That also makes his trade value higher

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Raisor

That also makes his trade value higher

---

That's a bingo.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cooper

His perceived value on this board is out of whack and that's expected - think about what a top 100 player is...it's Amir Garrett (he's probably in 100 as of right now). There's no way a team gives you salary relief and Amir Garrett for Jay Bruce. I still believe it will be salary relief and a player 11-15 will be offered and the Reds will not accept it based upon a fan base that perceives Bruce to be worth more than 0.8 WAR bref. I really wish they'd do it - the perception is they're tanking - might as well go ahead and jump.

---

I'd be thrilled to death to get a prospect like Garrett back for Bruce.
I would be happy with a prospect similar to Mella (who was a top 150 prospect by Sickels before the season started last year).
I agree that the Reds should not accept nothing but salary relief for Bruce. totally agree with you.. A prospect with a solid chance to contribute for Bruce helps the Reds move forward.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wonderful Monds

EDIT: and I really don't think there are that many sure things in the system OF prospect wise. I'd rather keep the Bruce in the hand than the one in the bush leagues.

---

I still look for Winker's power to come around once the wrist issue clears up (albeit possibly not until next Spring). He'll probably have some adjustment issues the first half of his rookie year, but I look for him to eventually settle in as a high-.OBP option at the top of the Reds rotation. I'm really starting to get excited about Aquino as well, but even if he does pan out he most likely won't be helping the big club until sometime in 2018. This is why I'd really like to see the Reds add another young OFer. If they can't then I'm fine with keeping Bruce until the end of the season and buying him out. If he defies the odds and maintains his current performance level I might regretfully pick up the option, but there's no friggin' way I extend him beyond his current deal.

I actually believe that Verdugo is about as fair a return for Bruce at his current production level as any I've seen. I'd like to see each team expand things by adding another piece or two.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by swaisuc

Agree which may push us to target an OF as return. Personally the idea of Duvall/Billy/Winker doesn't bother me that much for 2017.

---

So why trade him then? You already have the OF you need with Bruce. Trading him for an OF prospect is just an unnecessary gamble.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by corkedbat

I still look for Winker's power to come around once the wrist issue clears up (albeit possibly not until next Spring). He'll probably have some adjustment issues the first half of his rookie year, but I look for him to eventually settle in as a high-.OBP option at the top of the Reds rotation. I'm really starting to get excited about Aquino as well, but even if he does pan out he most likely won't be helping the big club until sometime in 2018. This is why I'd really like to see the Reds add another young OFer. If they can't then I'm fine with keeping Bruce until the end of the season and buying him out. If he defies the odds and maintains his current performance level I might regretfully pick up the option, but there's no friggin' way I extend him beyond his current deal.

---

Winker is the one that I'm pretty much penciling in to a corner so yeah there is that.

But I'd be more worried about Duvall coming back to earth and only having 2/3s of an adequate outfield, especially hitting wise if Billy has settled in about where's gonna be, it could end up being more like 1/3. With Winker and Jay still both on the roster that takes care of a lot more question marks.

Plus also gives you options, ex. trying Duvall at 3B if Suarez totally flames out or continues his Edwin Encarnacion-lite act.

I'm among those who don't expect Duvall to continue above-average production, although I'll root for it to happen. I'd like to see Winker's power develop, but even if it doesn't, he should be solid. I've always liked Markakis and think that if this is who Winker ends up being, that's fine. I'd like to see enough offense from the corners to allow Billy to stay in center.

In the end, I just think the future outfield is a bit shaky without Bruce. Getting Verdugo in return would be nice, but I'm not expecting that good a return, and Verdugo's a couple of years away, anyway. I'm not so much absolute in keeping and extending Bruce as I am afraid that the other options will damage the near future.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wonderful Monds

So why trade him then? You already have the OF you need with Bruce. Trading him for an OF prospect is just an unnecessary gamble.

---

No, trading him for a young OF prospect is an inexpensive gamble with year's of return possible. Keeping him with his injury/inconsistency history is a huge expensive gamble (especially if they were moronic enough to offer him any kind of extension) and could block a roster spot for the duration.

When a team is as bad as the Reds are, the entire organization should be analyzed through this paradigm:

Take player. Ask question 1: "Does this person have any trade value?" If "yes," move to question 2.

Question 2: "Is this player likely to be a contributor on the next good Reds team?" If the answer to the second question is no, then the player should be traded at the point of his highest value.

With Bruce, the answer is pretty clear. Yes, he has trade value, and, no, he will not contribute on the next good Reds team. So, off he should go. And since his value hasn't been this high in a while and won't likely be again, the time is now.

People talk about how there's plenty of salary space now to extend Bruce. Issue is though, by the second half of that contract hopefully the Reds are in a position where they want to start offering contracts to guys like Disco, Iggy, etc. that buy out a couple of Arb and a couple of FA years (the only kind of extensions/LTC's the Reds should consider). Other guys will be more expensive because of Arb as well and if they can improve enough, they may reach a point where a rental arm or bat might make sense to push them over the top.