Royals interested in Bruce?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mth123

This can be said about a lot of players I guess, but if Gary Nolan hadn't been hurt, he'd dominate the Reds pitching leader boards the way Pete Rose dominates most of the hitting ones. Most people remember him as the junkballer on the 75 & 76 reds. I remember a kid who could throw 99 and carry it deep in the game. We already know that he would have been able to transition when the stuff went away.

---

I can recall Gary Nolan striking out Willie Mays 4 times in one game in 1967. Nolan was barely age 19. He struck out 206 hitters in 226 innings in 1967 and was arguably the best rookie in baseball even though Tom Seaver was voted the NL Rookie of the Year. Maybe the arm injuries were inevitable, but he was worked hard and his dominating fastball was a memory by the time he was age 22.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RedlegJake

The Reds had that problem big time in the 60s - they lost Maloney, Nolan (who resurrected his career as a off speed pitcher) Simpson, McCool - all to overwork at young ages. When Gullett arrived he was abused, too, by today's standards, but Sparky actually limited his workload early on, especially compared to how they treated the other guys I mentioned. Simpson & Nolan were especially egregious cases - when I think what they might have become with proper handling....but you can make a long, long list of great young hurlers through the dark ages of sports science in baseball, from its earliest days to Billy Martin's destruction of Oakland's young staff, that were ruined by overuse and the stupid idea that you simply pitched through pain and discomfort. Every time I hear someone say "Well, a ton of innings didn't hurt Nolan Ryan, or those early guys like Iron Joe McGinnity, I want to reply "Yeah but that same abuse destroyed 50 guys for every one you can name that survived."

---

Arms are getting blown up as much or more today as they ever were when pitchers were being "abused"

The only advancement that's been made from then to now is the ability to repair them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redeyecat

Yeah, most of us (myself included) would say nobody is off the table, but that doesn't get us very far in terms of what's realistic for Bruce. So if you ran another team that needed an OF with pop and had the Reds' current prospects, what is the best package you would give to get Bruce?

---

Well, I've been saying the Reds should receive a LH reliever on the cusp of the majors and a prospect in the 100-200 range. There are now people saying that Garrett is going to wind up being a reliever. Maybe him and Mella or Blandino, someone like that? Maybe Ervin. For the chance at a run at the WS my best package would be: Garrett and Ervin.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mth123

This can be said about a lot of players I guess, but if Gary Nolan hadn't been hurt, he'd dominate the Reds pitching leader boards the way Pete Rose dominates most of the hitting ones. Most people remember him as the junkballer on the 75 & 76 reds. I remember a kid who could throw 99 and carry it deep in the game. We already know that he would have been able to transition when the stuff went away.

---

Not sure Nolan was that much better than Maloney, who, if not for the Achilles injury, would, IMHO, have dominated the "pitching leader boards the way PR dominates" the hitting ones.

Love the history lesson on Gary Nolan. I had no idea he was a stud in the 60s and debuted at the age of 18. I'm just familiar with his work for the BRM during his post-injury phase.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cooper

This is a message board -i thought we discussed the finer points of things and i was attempting to make a finer point. I thought it was interesting. You're welcome to ignore my posts-- but i'm not leaving because you feel my posts aren't groundbreaking enough. You're rude.

---

When did I ask you to leave? Where did I say your posts were not relevant or that I would ignore them? I was responding to the inference that some of us weren't capable of understanding that people age. That's not groundbreaking, and it's not some kind of new concept. We've been discussing whether or not Bruce (or other players) can still bring value after a certain age despite decline. I really don't see how that was rude, but glass houses and all that. Cheers.

Bruce to the Indians makes so much sense for both parties. I doubt he fetches Zimmer or Frazier, but is there another package that Cleveland could put together that would be satisfactory?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RiverRat13

Bruce to the Indians makes so much sense for both parties. I doubt he fetches Zimmer or Frazier, but is there another package that Cleveland could put together that would be satisfactory?

---

Then they can't have him. Seriously. If they want him, they need to pay, but no more settling in deals for the Reds.

Outside of Zimmer and Frazier the Indians have no prospects I want at the cost of Bruce. The Indians could put a very good pitching package together but the Reds don't need more prospect pitchers (at the cost of offense). Like membengal said, pay up or no deal.

Preferably Frazier. Not really sure I'd take Zimmer for Bruce at this point.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RedlegJake

Outside of Zimmer and Frazier the Indians have no prospects I want at the cost of Bruce. The Indians could put a very good pitching package together but the Reds don't need more prospect pitchers (at the cost of offense). Like membengal said, pay up or no deal.

---

There is no way the segment of Reds fandom who wants Bruce traded will be satisfied. Either the return will be ill-fitting or underwhelming (there is no way the Tribe trades either Frazier or Zimmer--they will sooner promote them than trade them), or the Reds will walk away (and we will hear the tired "Uncle Walt is asleep at the wheel again" meme all summer.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cannon

Preferably Frazier. Not really sure I'd take Zimmer for Bruce at this point.

---

I think Zimmer is enough. He is finally bringing his K rate back to respectability and he is finally starting to adjust to AA ball. I may slightly prefer Frazier, but I would let the Indians decide and be very happy if we got either.

I'm still on the fence about trading Bruce at all. I still think they can sign him to a fairly team-friendly contract for the next 6 years or so (he wants to stay, loses some leverage from past two seasons) and we would only really have him and Votto as 'veterans' in terms of hitters on the team (important, too, for easing the young guys in and providing presence while Phillips will be gone). Outside of a top end offer like a Frazier, Benintendi, Brinson, Bregman, Dahl, etc. I don't really see the value in trading him. But that discussion has been rehashed quite a bit so I digress. I just really hope we don't trade him for pocket change.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Big Klu

There is no way the segment of Reds fandom who wants Bruce traded will be satisfied. Either the return will be ill-fitting or underwhelming (there is no way the Tribe trades either Frazier or Zimmer--they will sooner promote them than trade them), or the Reds will walk away (and we will hear the tired "Uncle Walt is asleep at the wheel again" meme all summer.)

---

I'd deal with the Indians and not insist on Zimmer or Frazier. I'd ask for a package of 3 top 10 prospects like RHP Clevenger, SS Gonzalez, and C Mejia. Or maybe see if I could work a 3-way deal that involved Bradley and another team looking for a long term solution at 1b.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by membengal

Then they can't have him. Seriously. If they want him, they need to pay, but no more settling in deals for the Reds.

---

Exactly. If teams aren't willing to give up value to get the biggest FA bat available today then we'll let him walk and take the draft pick. Or maybe their contending division rivals might be interested in Bruce. Don't let the Reds become synonymous with "pushovers at the negotiating table".