Re: Royals interested in Bruce?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
klw
I hate to say it but I don't think I move either Bruce or Cozart at this point unless the Reds get their socks blown away. With the arms coming up and back, the improvement and potential to compete for a WC spot is there for 2017. If Winker was beating down the door at AAA, it might be different but this team has a shot to compete next year. The position players are not that far off.
It certainly would be fun to try, but "competing for a wild card spot" is never the goal. There isn't a pitcher on the team right now that could pitch well enough in a league championship series or world series in 2017. Without that, it's pointless to plan the economics and assets of the organization for a hope to compete for a wild card spot. Take advantage of Zach and Jay each having a career year. Just wish Phillips would agree to leave (and left when we maybe could have gotten something for him.)
When Frazier was dealt, the commitment to go very young was made. We need to convert all we can into younger assets.
Re: Royals interested in Bruce?
Players who battle injuries most of their career don't suddenly stop doing so at age 29/30 ( there may be a couple of exceptions during the PED era).
Do you think a team that trades for him is going to say "he's battled injuries a lot, it MAY be effecting his defense.....he's hitting the decline phase of his career....let's give up an A prospect and a couple B level guys"? A team might do that --they really might, but they'd be unwise to do so. Let me check Bill James numbers and see where he ranks on the whole. It might add another piece to the puzzle.
Re: Royals interested in Bruce?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Cooper
Players who battle injuries most of their career don't suddenly stop doing so at age 29/30 ( there may be a couple of exceptions during the PED era).
Do you think a team that trades for him is going to say "he's battled injuries a lot, it MAY be effecting his defense.....he's hitting the decline phase of his career....let's give up an A prospect and a couple B level guys"? A team might do that --they really might, but they'd be unwise to do so. Let me check Bill James numbers and see where he ranks on the whole. It might add another piece to the puzzle.
He hasn't battled injuries "a lot"
He battled injuries for the last two seasons. Now he's healthy, and has returned to the player he was (or better) at the plate prior to those 2 seasons.
Re: Royals interested in Bruce?
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.
Remember at the time, Cody was just on the cusp of top 100.
When I say a Cueto package, I'm thinking a 50-75 headliner (Finnegan), a cuspy 100 guy, and maybe a low upside roster player in the Lamb/Schebler/Duvall vein.
If I was a contending team in need of a slugger like that for 2 years, that would not feel like an overpayment to me.
Re: Royals interested in Bruce?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Cooper
Players who battle injuries most of their career don't suddenly stop doing so at age 29/30 ( there may be a couple of exceptions during the PED era).
Do you think a team that trades for him is going to say "he's battled injuries a lot, it MAY be effecting his defense.....he's hitting the decline phase of his career....let's give up an A prospect and a couple B level guys"? A team might do that --they really might, but they'd be unwise to do so. Let me check Bill James numbers and see where he ranks on the whole. It might add another piece to the puzzle.
The injury topic is a fair add on your part IMO.
A bit of a difference here is that he isn't a player that has easily succumbed to nagging injuries.
It was one larger topic that I think they had trouble getting him back to 100% percent because it was a significant injury. It did take longer to rehabilitate and build up strength again. I believe that has happened and was perhaps an isolated incident that is behind him. His speed and range has declined, but that isn't uncommon around his age group, and not necessarily completely indicative of his injury having prolonged effects.
Re: Royals interested in Bruce?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Cooper
His value is the same as Frazier's (essentially). For Frazier the Reds received one B- prospect in Peraza, and one C level prospect in Schebler, and a C- prospect in Dixon. Frazier was making 8 million compared to Bruce making 13 million. That's probably why the Dodgers/White Sox added 2 C level prospects. That seems to be within line of who he is. Heck, value wise you could makenthe case that Schebler might be able to replace Bruce and you might not miss his production. Think about that.....a C level prospect possibly producing the same value at 1/10th the cost.
I'm not saying i want this to happen -he's my 3rd favorite player on the team and i'm hoping that he turns things around from here on out, but there's a lot of at bats there and usually players don't turn it around at age 29/30. Maybe we should look at his comps.
Frazier has right-handed power. Bruce has left-handed power. Major Difference. Plus, Bruce had a better pedigree. He's been smashing longballs in the Majors far longer than Frazier. Everyone in the world knows about Bruce's natural power. It's sweet. We've been waiting for him to make an adjustment so he could take another step forward in his career.
Speaking of "prime" years, being 30 isn't a negative like it used to be unless you went to College and spent several seasons in the minors,...like Frazier. Bruce's prime years will far exceed in years Frazier's prime years. This is just the beginning of a second career in the Majors that could have, and I hope it has, more success than the last 8 years. For a wise GM, Jay Bruce is a bargain right now who is in his prime, one that could last for several more seasons. I'd make a generous offer for Bruce before June is over with, and I wouldn't care if he was coming over to the AL. The adjustments he made at the plate that has brought about this change is what matters. He'll eventually learn the pitchers in the AL.
Re: Royals interested in Bruce?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
klw
I hate to say it but I don't think I move either Bruce or Cozart at this point unless the Reds get their socks blown away. With the arms coming up and back, the improvement and potential to compete for a WC spot is there for 2017. If Winker was beating down the door at AAA, it might be different but this team has a shot to compete next year. The position players are not that far off.
There is no doubt that Jay Bruce is forcing their hand to decide if they view 2017 as a rebuild year or not.
Re: Royals interested in Bruce?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
swaisuc
There is no doubt that Jay Bruce is forcing their hand to decide if they view 2017 as a rebuild year or not.
I don't really think so. They may view 2017 as trying to be respectable, but I believe they would be viewing 2018/9+ as the true years to contend. Bruce doesn't fit into that window. IMO, would be very shortsighted to keep Bruce for 2017 in hopes of trying to claw their way into fringe contention. Let's cash him in for chips that might play into the window.
Same goes for Cozart. What he's doing right now is great. But I don't want to be the team paying him $15M in his decline years when we need that cash to re-up players on the up-start and prime of their careers.
Re: Royals interested in Bruce?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
swaisuc
There is no doubt that Jay Bruce is forcing their hand to decide if they view 2017 as a rebuild year or not.
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.
Re: Royals interested in Bruce?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Patrick Bateman
I don't really think so. They may view 2017 as trying to be respectable, but I believe they would be viewing 2018/9+ as the true years to contend. Bruce doesn't fit into that window. IMO, would be very shortsighted to keep Bruce for 2017 in hopes of trying to claw their way into fringe contention. Let's cash him in for chips that might play into the window.
He'll be 31 in 2018; that's not too old to fit into that window. Unless something I'm not forseeing happens, he'll be worth more during those years than whatever the Reds get in return.
Re: Royals interested in Bruce?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
swaisuc
There is no doubt that Jay Bruce is forcing their hand to decide if they view 2017 as a rebuild year or not.
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?
Re: Royals interested in Bruce?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
klw
I hate to say it but I don't think I move either Bruce or Cozart at this point unless the Reds get their socks blown away. With the arms coming up and back, the improvement and potential to compete for a WC spot is there for 2017. If Winker was beating down the door at AAA, it might be different but this team has a shot to compete next year. The position players are not that far off.
Pretty much how I feel, and have felt about it, for a while. Bruce still has years of strong production ahead of him and we don't have any A level prospects beating the door to replace him. No reason to move him unless they get a good offer.
Re: Royals interested in Bruce?
I'm looking forward to Phillips' replacement for 2017. Maybe that player is acquired in a deal for Bruce.
Re: Royals interested in Bruce?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Cannon
Pretty much how I feel, and have felt about it, for a while. Bruce still has years of strong production ahead of him and we don't have any A level prospects beating the door to replace him. No reason to move him unless they get a good offer.
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.
Re: Royals interested in Bruce?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
marcshoe
He'll be 31 in 2018; that's not too old to fit into that window. Unless something I'm not forseeing happens, he'll be worth more during those years than whatever the Reds get in return.
In a vacuum, nothing wrong with 31. My issue is contract status.
As a 31 year old free agent, he is going to command $15-20M annually depending on where his production is at that point in time. That comes at a severe opportunity cost to the Reds. $15-20M comes at the cost of perhaps extending two high performing young players during their arbitration years.
Especially in consideration that his production following a typical aging curve should decrease to the point where the production isn't meeting that contract. The Reds can afford to hand out very few free agent priced contracts. When you can replace free agent dollar players with young players via trade, and avoid playing the aging curve game, to me, it's a no-brainer which direction to head. I'd much rather have the young talent, plus the $15-20M to spend on arbitration players (or for example extending an arb player into their free agent years at a discount, similar to the current contract Bruce is on) and gap filling free agents and trade acquisitions that require less term commitment.
I think its about asset management. Right now Bruce is an asset that can be turned into other assets because of his current age and contract.
Extending him from ages 31-36 at free agent dollars is how you turn an asset into a potential liability. Small/mid market teams just can't play in that game very often and expect success.
