Re: Royals interested in Bruce?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
podgejeff_
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".
If I'm not mistaken, there is not QO and draft pick associated with Bruce this season. There's an option with a buyout. He has a 13MM option that a team can pick up next season, or a 1MM buyout on that option year. If the Reds keep him, then it's at 13MM. If they take the buyout, he's a free agent. They would be unable to offer him a QO (and even if they could, it'd be more expensive than the option, so there would really be no point). Now, if you wait until after 2017, then maybe there is a QO option, but that is to be determined after the new CBA. The QO system might be dismantled, or at least highly reworked, so that might not be an option.
Re: Royals interested in Bruce?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
WrongVerb
Yeah, because this organization is the Marlins part Duex
Re: Royals interested in Bruce?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Tom Servo
And if it IS a career year, isn't that all the more reason to trade for him since he's not locked up long term?
Not for a half year rental. I wouldn't give up the kind of prospects folks are demanding in return. How do I know Bruce's hitting prowess this year won't turn out to be nothing more than a "career half-season?" Unfortunately, Jay Bruce's history is working against him. He looks great one night - ready to carry the team, and the next game (or the next fifty games), he looks clueless.
Don't get me wrong. I have enjoyed watching Jay Bruce this year. This is the Jay Bruce we've been looking for the last five years. But if there is one thing I have learned from statistical analysis is that everything has a way of balancing out. Jay Bruce's season thus far has been outstanding, but I do not expect the second half to be as impressive as his first half.
Re: Royals interested in Bruce?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Cannon
Just out of curiosity, for those that are pro-trading Bruce. What benefit is there to the Reds in getting a 'future major leaguer' or average prospect/player back in return for Bruce? We've already got plenty of 'AAAA' caliber players or utility/4th outfielder types. I don't see any sense in moving a guy that will probably be a very productive bat for at least the forseeable future for bit pieces or role players. Again, at that point you may as well gamble on the compensation pick and try to hit a home-run prospect there.
1. the compensation pick is not a given. Bruce may accept arbitration, especially given his spotty track record and the fact that he loves it here. Front office probably doesn't want to risk 15-17 million in Bruce salary for a comp pick
2. The prospect we get for Bruce is likely to be much better than a comp pick. Most comp picks wash out.
3. We need more average players.. If we assume Cozart and Bruce are short time players, pretty much every position except 1b is in flux. We also need more pitching depth.
In fact, I would prefer to get a prospect like Peraza as opposed to a comp pick.
4. I don't agree that we have plenty of role players.. Although if when you say AAAA players, you mean players that aren't good enough to make the big leagues, I agree.
Re: Royals interested in Bruce?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
MikeS21
Not for a half year rental. I wouldn't give up the kind of prospects folks are demanding in return. How do I know Bruce's hitting prowess this year won't turn out to be nothing more than a "career half-season?" Unfortunately, Jay Bruce's history is working against him. He looks great one night - ready to carry the team, and the next game (or the next fifty games), he looks clueless.
Don't get me wrong. I have enjoyed watching Jay Bruce this year. This is the Jay Bruce we've been looking for the last five years. But if there is one thing I have learned from statistical analysis is that everything has a way of balancing out. Jay Bruce's season thus far has been outstanding, but I do not expect the second half to be as impressive as his first half.
He has a 2017 club option attached to his deal. He is not a half year rental
Re: Royals interested in Bruce?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Cannon
Just out of curiosity, for those that are pro-trading Bruce. What benefit is there to the Reds in getting a 'future major leaguer' or average prospect/player back in return for Bruce? We've already got plenty of 'AAAA' caliber players or utility/4th outfielder types. I don't see any sense in moving a guy that will probably be a very productive bat for at least the forseeable future for bit pieces or role players. Again, at that point you may as well gamble on the compensation pick and try to hit a home-run prospect there.
Cannon, I know you are extremely pro-"keep Bruce", and I can tell you are very hesitant to accept different lines of thinking. I'm not going to argue with you, but I will respond to this one.
I am pro-"trade Bruce". It's not because I don't like Bruce (I do), or because I don't think he's a productive player (he is). However, here are the reasons I would trade Bruce.
1. The Reds are in a rebuild. However competent you feel the FO is, or however you choose to define rebuild, I think it's safe for all to admit the Reds are in a transition period. They are looking to stockpile assets at the current time, and focus money and development and playing time to younger players in order to build for the future. In my personal opinion, Bruce does not fit into those plans. He doesn't figure to be in productive peak years when the Reds hit another stretch of competitive play.
2. Regardless of the Reds' perspective or philosophy, I have my own personal opinions. And I'm against paying older players into their mid-30s. It's a practice that has very, very, very few historical benefits and a significant amount of historical disadvantages. Age-related regression and heightened injury both make that practice a very risky proposition - one that a larger market team can afford more than a mid/small market. I don't believe a team like the Reds should hand out a 3-4+ year extension that will end in/close to a guy's mid-30s.
3. I personally don't believe that Jay will sustain this level of play. It could, in fact, be the type of performance that he would have had during his injury years, but we don't know. The performance that we do have historical evidence to would suggest he is due for a regression. Maybe he hits it; maybe he doesn't. But as I'm averse to extending him, I'd look to deal him why his value is high. And I find it hard to envision his value going much higher than it currently is.
4. The Reds are not going to be the type of team that forks out payroll until they are a top 5-8 (or likely even top 10-12) franchise in terms of overall player payroll. As such, they need to operate differently than extend every good player they have and sign expensive free agents. You have to build through prospects, through the draft, through the international market, and develop that talent. You need organizational talent and you need organizational depth. And, again, this is all my opinion, but I don't believe you should extend guys like Bruce. I don't think there is a need to tie money up into an aging veteran (which he would be during extension years) when you can use that money to extend younger players or dip into free agency for team needs.
5. The benefit to trading Bruce for a prospect, and hopefully, a prospect package, is that A) you get more controllable pieces into your system that you can work to develop, and B) you free up payroll that can be use to either find a useful piece/older mentor to stopgap until a younger player emerges; payroll that can be used to extend a younger player or two; payroll that could be used to shore up other areas (such as the bullpen, where $13MM could add 2-3 good arms, if needed - this is an example only).
Personally, I think it's quite far-fetched to think that Bruce will fetch a Benintendi, Brinson, or some of the other names you've bandied as "trade Bruce only if you can get this guy". Bruce isn't going to fetch that kind of return. But he could fetch a package of players that could project to be ML regulars. And that has value in the Reds' current plans. Acquire as much talent as possible, and develop it as best as you can. Maybe it works out. Maybe it doesn't. But Bruce might keep hitting or he might not. But I think you can get more than just bit pieces for him. You won't get stars, but I think the Reds, if they negotiate well, could land multiple MLB starting-caliber talents. I'd take that. And I'd take that over a possible draft pick compensation in 2018 (if that system is still in place).
I can see the perspective of holding onto him through 2017 and then giving the QO/taking the pick (again, if it's still in place). At least you'd be getting something in return in that case. But I'm definitely against giving Bruce an extension.
Re: Royals interested in Bruce?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
MikeS21
Not for a half year rental. I wouldn't give up the kind of prospects folks are demanding in return. How do I know Bruce's hitting prowess this year won't turn out to be nothing more than a "career half-season?" Unfortunately, Jay Bruce's history is working against him. He looks great one night - ready to carry the team, and the next game (or the next fifty games), he looks clueless.
Don't get me wrong. I have enjoyed watching Jay Bruce this year. This is the Jay Bruce we've been looking for the last five years. But if there is one thing I have learned from statistical analysis is that everything has a way of balancing out. Jay Bruce's season thus far has been outstanding, but I do not expect the second half to be as impressive as his first half.
He's not a half-year rental. He's under control for 1.5 years. The only way he'd be a half-year rental is if a team paid the buyout on his option year.
Re: Royals interested in Bruce?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Rojo Rijo
He has a 2017 club option attached to his deal. He is not a half year rental
Which is really ideal for the club that trades for him.
Suppose the Indians trade for Bruce this year.
Suppose at the end of the year, they feel they have a kid ready to play in Bruce's place or suppose Bruce collapses after the trade.
In this case, the Indians could cut bait with Bruce for only 1 million.
If they want to keep Bruce, they can. (Even if it is just to attempt to re-trade him)
It's very advantageous because it's so flexible.
Re: Royals interested in Bruce?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
CRDB40
...
5. The benefit to trading Bruce for a prospect, and hopefully, a prospect package, is that A) you get more controllable pieces into your system that you can work to develop, and B) you free up payroll that can be use to either find a useful piece/older mentor to stopgap until a younger player emerges; payroll that can be used to extend a younger player or two; payroll that could be used to shore up other areas (such as the bullpen, where $13MM could add 2-3 good arms, if needed - this is an example only).
Personally, I think it's quite far-fetched to think that Bruce will fetch a Benintendi, Brinson, or some of the other names you've bandied as "trade Bruce only if you can get this guy". Bruce isn't going to fetch that kind of return. But he could fetch a package of players that could project to be ML regulars. And that has value in the Reds' current plans. Acquire as much talent as possible, and develop it as best as you can. Maybe it works out. Maybe it doesn't. But Bruce might keep hitting or he might not. But I think you can get more than just bit pieces for him. You won't get stars, but I think the Reds, if they negotiate well, could land multiple MLB starting-caliber talents. I'd take that. And I'd take that over a possible draft pick compensation in 2018 (if that system is still in place).
I can see the perspective of holding onto him through 2017 and then giving the QO/taking the pick (again, if it's still in place). At least you'd be getting something in return in that case. But I'm definitely against giving Bruce an extension.
I think Bruce along with another piece could fetch a top tier talent. I agree that it is unlikely that he will bring a Benintendi type but what if a Mahle was included in the package? At that point it would probably mean the other team might have to ante up more. This team stockpiled pitching for a reason...it's time to start seeing the fruit of it both at the 25 man roster as well as in trades for potentially elite hitting prospects.
Re: Royals interested in Bruce?
Redsox are 1 of 8 teams on Bruce no trade list, including Indians now....so theres that hurdle.
Re: Royals interested in Bruce?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
WrongVerb
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.
I'm a big Bruce fan and in the camp that Jay is traded only for significant value, but I'm thinking that would fit the bill for me. I think calling Garrett a left handed reliever on the verge of the majors short-changes him quite a bit, but that's often what makes a deal. Adding a talented guy like Ervin, who doesn't seem to be on the fast path but shows enough that there's still the legit possibility that he gets there, is a nice sweetener. If I can get 2 players comparable to those two for Bruce, we'd have a deal. :beerme:
Re: Royals interested in Bruce?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
REDREAD
Which is really ideal for the club that trades for him.
Suppose the Indians trade for Bruce this year.
Suppose at the end of the year, they feel they have a kid ready to play in Bruce's place or suppose Bruce collapses after the trade.
In this case, the Indians could cut bait with Bruce for only 1 million.
If they want to keep Bruce, they can. (Even if it is just to attempt to re-trade him)
It's very advantageous because it's so flexible.
and if they keep him with the 13m option and offer him a QO after 2017 and he signs elsewhere, they would receive a comp pick
Re: Royals interested in Bruce?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Rojo Rijo
and if they keep him with the 13m option and offer him a QO after 2017 and he signs elsewhere, they would receive a comp pick
Maybe. There's been a lot of speculation that the qualifying offer system could change or comp picks in general might go away(I don't see that one happening) with the new CBA.
Re: Royals interested in Bruce?
Sorry if posted already, but I find it odd that the Giants have asked about Bruce without a reply back from Reds FO.
http://www.sfgate.com/giants/article...de-8320803.php
Quote:
Yes, there seems to be an unusal number of teams that are out of contention early, but those teams are still assessing the market for the players they want to deal, determining which teams might want in. Unless they are intent on dumping as much money as possible, they have no incentive to move players now.
Take the Reds. They have no chance. The Giants inquired about Jay Bruce and have not heard back.
As the above paragraph suggests, the Giants are not limiting themselves to right-handed outfield options, although that would seem to be a bigger need. The problem is, most of the outfielders expected to be offered in trade are left-handed.
Re: Royals interested in Bruce?
I take that as, the Giants made an offer, and the Reds said I'll let you know.
