Royals interested in Bruce?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by corkedbat

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.

---

Yep, extending Ludwick for 2 years ended up blowing up in our faces. I'm not saying it was a good or bad idea at the time, but that freak accident killed his production.
But people were critical of it at the time. Ludwick was "only" 33 when he was extended.

Now people want to extend Bruce to the same age range (he would be about 33 after his option year is up) , when we don't even have a contending team which makes it worth the risk?
And with Bruce's spotty recent track record and recent injury history? Like no offense to Bruce, but Ludwick had a healthier body at 33 (pre-shoulder injury) than Bruce does today at 31.

So if extending Ludwick at 33 was horrible (according to people at the time), how in the world is extending Bruce at about age 33 a great idea? Especially for a 90+ loss team.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wonderful Monds

Yeah that's this other thing, I feel like we're talking about Frank Robinson with this "BUT HE'S GOING TO BE 30!!" talk all the time.

It's not a death knell. Even he if begins to *decline* it doesn't mean he'll be awful. Even in his decline this year, Votto has been the most productive Red.

It's MLB, not the NFL, lol. It's not like Jay Bruce is a free agent RB.

---

Brandon Phillips, his Cincinnati years up to and including his age 31 year:

.280 .329 .446 .775

Phillips after his age 31 year:

.271 .311 .387 .699

His very predictable "good" year last year he OPSed .723, which is still .050 off his composite average through his age 31 season. This year with nearly half the season gone and him playing full time he's OPSing .667. His decline started at age 31.

Votto is having his lowest non-injury OPS year of his career, currently at .804, in his age 32 year. Luckily his game is such that he'll decline pretty gracefully. But I contend we've seen the best of Joey Votto, save for that one year around age 34-35 where he puts up close to MVP numbers and everyone will exclaim "He's back!"

Aging, it happens to the best of it. A small market club shouldn't be paying a boat load of money to a declining player.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wonderful Monds

And that's where I strongly disagree. Bruce has spoken a lot about wanting to remain a Red for his career. If he means it, and I don't see any reason to doubt him, I absolutely extend him 3 years after next year.

If it takes more than that, than no, sure thing trade him.

But I don't think it's a given it takes a truck o' money to extend Jay.

---

What do you think it would take to extend Bruce?
Won't it be a minimum of 15 million / year (probably closer to 20)?
And probably a full no trade clause too, because if he takes a discount, he's not going to want to go through this trade drama again. He's going to want to hang with his friends here the rest of his life. Actually, if extended, his 10/5 will kick in soon anyhow.

Why would he settle for a 3 year contract extension? He said earlier he wanted a lifetime contract from the Reds.
He's going to want to be paid into the decline years, esp if it is at a team friendly salary in the beginning.

I agree with you that Bruce would love to finish his career here, but in the end, money is important too.
His next contract is going to likely be his last big one.
I think a 3 year extension would be a minimum of 20 million per year, if not 25 million per year.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wonderful Monds

And that's where I strongly disagree. Bruce has spoken a lot about wanting to remain a Red for his career. If he means it, and I don't see any reason to doubt him, I absolutely extend him 3 years after next year.

If it takes more than that, than no, sure thing trade him.

But I don't think it's a given it takes a truck o' money to extend Jay.

---

Lots of players talk about loving the team they come up with, it means nothing, they all want to get paid, I don't blame them.

Bruce won't sign on for 3 years, this will be his last big deal, he will want lots of years and lots of cash.

Not only will Bruce be 31 in two years, he'll be forty in eleven. Better get rid of him before it's too late.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Big Klu

There is a real possibility that nobody on the current 25-man roster will contribute on the next good Reds team.

---

I don't believe that's true. At least a few of the pitchers could and should. It's tougher on offense to find them, I grant.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wonderful Monds

Yeah that's this other thing, I feel like we're talking about Frank Robinson with this "BUT HE'S GOING TO BE 30!!" talk all the time.

It's not a death knell. Even he if begins to *decline* it doesn't mean he'll be awful. Even in his decline this year, Votto has been the most productive Red.

It's MLB, not the NFL, lol. It's not like Jay Bruce is a free agent RB.

---

Frank Robinson compared to Jay Bruce is like Stevie Ray Vaughan compared to John Mayer.

I just came here to spitball a Jay Bruce trade idea. I'm throwing this idea out there while keeping in mind that the Indians traded Brandon Moss for Rob Kaminsky.

Tigers receive:
Jay Bruce

Reds receive:
Joe Jimenez
Paul Voelker
JaCoby Jones

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RedTeamGo!

Frank Robinson compared to Jay Bruce is like Stevie Ray Vaughan compared to John Mayer.

---

You really like Mayer that much?

;)

"Your body is a wonderland" is your fave, isn't it?

Frank Robinson is arguably on God's 25-man roster, yet he last led the league in any statistical category (save HBP at age 33) at age 30 when he won the triple crown. While he hit more than 30 home runs seven times with the Reds, after that age 30 year he hit more than 30 just once (32 in his age 33 season). Of his 10 highest OPS years, 8 of them came before or during his age 30 year. The decline in his play is there, but his greatness enabled him to be productive well into his 30s. I suspect long term the same will be with Votto. Bruce, OTOH, as much as we have enjoyed his presence, is no Frank Robinson. There's no reason to think he's not going to decline and his decline won't be a lot sharper than Robinson's was. The best option would be to trade Bruce, then if he can be brought back at a reasonable FA contract that doesn't last past his age 34 season, why not do it? Just keep in mind that you should never pay a player in his 30s for the production he gave in his 20s.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by camisadelgolf

I just came here to spitball a Jay Bruce trade idea. I'm throwing this idea out there while keeping in mind that the Indians traded Brandon Moss for Rob Kaminsky.

Tigers receive:
Jay Bruce

Reds receive:
Joe Jimenez
Paul Voelker
JaCoby Jones

---

Give me Jimenez, Mike Gerber, and Jeff McVaney.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by camisadelgolf

I just came here to spitball a Jay Bruce trade idea. I'm throwing this idea out there while keeping in mind that the Indians traded Brandon Moss for Rob Kaminsky.

Tigers receive:
Jay Bruce

Reds receive:
Joe Jimenez
Paul Voelker
JaCoby Jones

---

Give me Volker, Greenspan and Yellen

Should probably post here, too. Bruce "very likely" to waive no-trade clause to CLE

http://www.todaysknuckleball.com/cle...-trade-clause/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chuckie

You really like Mayer that much?

;)

"Your body is a wonderland" is your fave, isn't it?

---

Chuckie, I am getting a little concerned about how familiar you are with Taylor Swift and Meyer :)

Mark Sheldon just tweeted that Beuce would waive trade on any club that is winning...so there's that