I keep reading Jay Bruce at 29 has no place on the Reds in 2018 but no one brings up Adam Duvall will turn 28 later this season. Does Duvall who has had 1 good month so far fit into 2018 plans just curious.
Printable View
I keep reading Jay Bruce at 29 has no place on the Reds in 2018 but no one brings up Adam Duvall will turn 28 later this season. Does Duvall who has had 1 good month so far fit into 2018 plans just curious.
Has nothing to do with age and everything to do with contract. Adam Duvall is cheaply cost controlled for the foreseeable future. Bruce is a free agent after next year.Quote:
Originally Posted by indy_dave00
My question is really is Adam Duvall just in a hot streak, while the book on him is still being written? Or at 27 1/2 and finally getting a chance the real thing? I'm surprised every time he gets a fastball, he still seems to struggle against off speed pitching and most pitches that have break to them, just call me still skeptical he can continue to hit as he has, hopefully he proves me wrong.
Pretty Simple. Bruce will not be 29 in 2018, he'll be 31 with deteriorating skills (see defense), some recent history of injury, consistently inconsistent and the there's the nettling fact that he'll cost you $10-12m/yr. (IF YOU'RE LUCKY). Yes, Duvall will be 30, but he won't be Arb-eligible until 2019 or FA-eligible until 2022. If all of this is a mirage, he'll be cheap enough for bench-duty or even to jettison if need be.Quote:
Originally Posted by indy_dave00
If Duvall is not the real deal, then you find another answer that is not an aging, expensive Jay Bruce. Possibly in the first couple of rounds of this year's draft.Quote:
Originally Posted by indy_dave00
My guess is Duvall is having his age 27 season this year.
If they would eat the remainder of his contract and send back a Peter/Wheeler package I'd take it. Would much rather have Clark than Wheeler but I don't see the Sox parting with himQuote:
Originally Posted by 757690
Duvall didn't have a good month, he had an incredible one. And has been good thus far in June. (Wasn't bad in April either.)Quote:
Originally Posted by indy_dave00
To answer your question, yes, Duvall absolutely fits in the plans in 2018. His floor is a very good bench player, something the Reds do a horrible job of finding. His ceiling is that of an everyday LF that can mash 30-35 HRs per year. Oh, and he comes very cheap, at least for the next couple years. And then he's still under team control for 3 years (relatively cheap) after that). He's been the second-biggest highlight of the rebuilding process thus far, right behind Cody Reed who has assented to one of the top 25 prospects in all of baseball.
Royals are offering Yordano Ventura in trades:
Bruce for Ventura?Quote:
Last night’s plunking of Manny Machado was the latest in a line of questionable actions from Royals righty Yordano Ventura, and Jeff Passan of Yahoo Sports writes that his attitude is wearing thin on the Kansas City organization. Indeed, per the report, executives from at least two other teams say that the Royals have offered to deal Ventura away within the last month.
Expectations had been that the now-25-year-old with the high-octane fastball would be entrenched in the K.C. staff for years to come. After all, the club inked him to a five-year, $23MM extension before the start of the 2015 season. That deal also includes two option years valued at $12MM apiece.
Doesn't everybody's?Quote:
Originally Posted by corkedbat
For me, this is the deciding factor...will a trade of Bruce improve the Reds? This year or in the near future? To me, the answer is no or "maybe". The money isn't really an issue to be honest. The team payroll is quite low and there aren't any raises of any significance coming any time soon. Draft/trade for some young hitters and give them time to develop. In the meantime, Jay fills the void quite nice.
Attrition is the enemy of us allQuote:
Originally Posted by _Sir_Charles_
Pretty sure I pull the trigger on that deal if I am DW/WJ. I wouldn't give up both Cozart and Bruce for Ventura, though. Ventura has been pretty bad this year, and has had some velocity loss, but I believe he is fixable. Plus, he has enormous raw talent and is signed through 2019 with team options through 2021.Quote:
Originally Posted by WrongVerb
But you've overlooked that rather large elephant in the room. Do you want to have to deal with his repeated antics/headaches? Not me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Edd Roush
Ventura is a nut job. But for Bruce straight up... tempting.Quote:
Originally Posted by Edd Roush
I didn't even realize that Bruce already has half of his HR total (26 HRs in 649 PAs) from last year in just 215 PAs.
If teams want Bruce, they gotta pay.
If the Reds do not accept Ventura for Bruce because they dug into Ventura's off-the-field issues and there were enough red flags to kill the deal, I am OK with that. I was trying to evaluate a potential trade solely based upon the grounds of on-the-field production, however I definitely agree that off-the-field issues should be considered as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by _Sir_Charles_
I would seriously consider a Bruce-for-Ventura swap. Between Ventura, Lorenzen, Finnegan, and Iglesias, that should lock down a top shelf back of bullpen and 1-2 rotation spots.Quote:
Originally Posted by Edd Roush
Especially assuming they don't draft Puk.
Ventura's talent is enough, but I want a young bat, particularly if they take Puk tomorrow.
I'd like to get a quality return for him, preferably a bat, but pitchers are good.
Bruce+Straily for Ventura+Bonifacio/Dozier?
He does have enormous raw talent, but do you want to deal with the immaturity? Especially on a team which is going to be increasingly younger as the season continues and we move into future seasons?Quote:
Originally Posted by Edd Roush
If you deal for him, you better be sure he sticks in the rotation, because I'm not sure you want that kind of contract in the bullpen - especially if Iglesias also stays in the bullpen.
And finally, while he does have great stuff, he also is a FB pitcher. While Kaufmann suppresses HRs, GABP would not. Who knows if he could pitch as effectively in Cincy as he has shown the tendency to do at KC.
I'd take a chance on him. Just 25?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Quote:
Originally Posted by BluegrassRedleg
He's about 125 years full of crazy.
Just because you aren't spending the money doesn't mean you throw it away (Jocketty recently said there aren't many funds available for improvement). If you extend Bruce three - four years, you most likely end up with an overpaid aging OF. The last couple of years of that contract, they'll probably be looking to start negotiating early extensions with the current crop of young guns. That also could be a time where they would like to add a FA or higher-priced rental arm or bat. Be a shame to have to walk away from a contract, because you're over-paying an aging bat with diminishing skills. Move Bruce, Cozart, Phillips and yes, even Votto, the first time you get the right offer.Quote:
Originally Posted by _Sir_Charles_
I will say that if you can't get anything at all for Jay then keep him and buy him out - maybe even pick up his option in the unlikely event his offensive renaissance continues, but no more.
Votto and Phillips' contracts mean they won't be going anywhere unless they want to. Bruce's no trade clause also limits the places he can be traded - especially since he has a couple opportunities each year to update the teams on his no-trade clause. Cozart is really the only one they could "easily" move if they wanted to.Quote:
Originally Posted by corkedbat
Have to agree. Bruce doesn't want to break the bank in staying here. The money shouldn't be an issue. Keep the guy, let him be part of the next nucleus like was always planned. He's good again, and a middle of the order hitter in a league devoid of this power trait. Don't be a cheap organization for once because he's not in a bad contact and won't be.Quote:
Originally Posted by _Sir_Charles_
White Sox, Reds Talked Jay Bruce In Spring Training
By Steve Adams | June 7, 2016 at 9:04pm CDT
The White Sox aren’t planning to simply sit back idly after acquiring James Shields from the Padres, writes Bruce Levine of CBS Chicago. The amount of money that San Diego kicked in to cover the cost of Shields’ contract has the White Sox positioned to add “at least two more important cogs for a playoff push,” per Levine. Chief among the Sox’ needs at this point are a left-handed bat and a left-handed setup man for the bullpen. Levine lists Jay Bruce as a player of interest, though he notes that when the Sox spoke to the Reds about Bruce in Spring Training, Cincinnati was “adamant” that the Sox would have to cover at least $11MM of the $12.5MM that Bruce is earning in 2016. Beyond that, Levine writes that the chances of the South Siders parting with top prospects Tim Anderson and Carson Fulmer in any trade this season, regardless of target, are “close to zero.” For those interested in some names that could be available as targets for the Sox, MLBTR’s Jeff Todd penned an updated list of the game’s top trade candidates earlier today.
Jay Bruce has more than enough ability to continue to OBP at the bare minimum 315 and SLG around 500, if not higher now he's around his prime. Probably a little low on the SLG even. He's shown the ability to hit in the 280 range which probably pushes his OBP closer to the 330-340 range and SLG around 550. He's a top OF at that level, and he's ALWAYS had that kind of talent.
I absolutely look to extend him before trading him. Offer him something like 3yr/45-50mil after next year's option, and keep him around at least as long as Votto is here.
Bruce is as close to a sure thing the Reds currently have. He can still be a very valuable part of a winning team's core. And I know he's been around for a while, but the guy is currently in his 20s still. Offering him a 3yr extension is hardly insane. It'd take you probably right down to around the end of his prime years.
Meanwhile, having Bruce in the lineup cranking out ~30 dongers a year at a reasonable price is nothing but good. The team has to spend money again EVENTUALLY. Might as well start looking at investing in the things that will contribute to them winning now, and Bruce certainly fits that bill.
Hell I can see this team playing over 500 in the second half once the prospects get called up and they empty the recycle bin in the bullpen and push some of the younger rotation talent to relief. And Jay will be a big part of that.
ps, UZR can go pound sand
I feel like the Reds should hold on to Bruce unless they are wowed with an offer. Especially with his comeback this season. Another aspect I think is that he’s a good leader and you don’t want to have a team with a losing culture, something I feel might happen if you keep replacing the best players. Also Bruce is one of my favorite players.
I get it. I honestly do. UZR isn't that great for measuring defense BUT the eye test also says that Jay Bruce is just bad out there (RF). I wish he weren't because frankly I would be all in on signing him to an extension. I just don't see it though when the Reds have other options that cost 1/24 his cost and at the same time have a fairly large amount of trade bait (pitching) to get someone else if they don't want to hand the job to Winker.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wonderful Monds
The only thing is that I hope the Reds don't make the same mistake with Bruce that they made with Frank Robinson. Different Players I know, just a scary thought since Jay blew his knee out and hasn't been healthy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wonderful Monds
The Cardinals went to the playoffs last year with a guy in LF (Piscotty) who literally could not throw the baseball due to an elbow injury. It didn't affect his hitting so they kept him out there.
Like I said before I'd like to see the Reds pick up Bruce's option rather than trade him just for the sake of trading him.
And there's a very good chance that Bruce could do this for three or four more years, at least. It seems like he's older than he is because of his down years and injuries as well as the amount of team he's been with the club, but he isn't. He can be a major contributor when the team is ready to contend. Yet I get the idea that the team is just interested in dumping his salary.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wonderful Monds
Exactly where I'm coming from. To use the old refrain in a different way this time, he's only 29, and yet he's been up and with the team for nearly 10 years now. He's had injuries, but he appears to be recovering and healthier than he's been in years.Quote:
Originally Posted by marcshoe
If he stays around for the option + say that hypothetical 3 yr extension, then you're only tied to him through his age 33 season, when his prime years probably will be winding down. But that time isn't now.
I think people just remember he and Votto came up around the same time and equate them together. In reality, Jay is closer to Duvall than he is Votto, and Duvall is viewed as a part of the "rebuild".
Dave Cameron said something to this effect today in his Fangraphs chat.Quote:
Originally Posted by marcshoe
I doubt it would make me stop being a Reds fan (there might not be anything that could), but I would be incredibly pissed if they trade Bruce away for nothing so that they don't have to pay the rest of his salary this season.
What gives me some hope on the opposite side is that it's been reported both in the offseason and during this season that teams felt as though the Reds were asking for too high a price. With Bruce coming back to life at the plate, I tend to think the Reds wouldn't suddenly lower those standards.
This team is not really in the position to get cute with Bruce. The time to trade him is now. Thankfully Bruce's value is back above water, and if the Reds decide to kick in an extra million or two the return could be even better.
They aren't going to land a Zimmer/Frazier or even Tim Anderson, but they could put a package together and eat enough money to net a decent 50-100 or a couple of 100+ guys. Cingrani is a guy I'd look to package with Bruce, maybe even Straily. A Bruce/Cozart could fetch something nice if they both keep hitting.
I definitely understand the line of thinking. I'm just more of a bird in the hand type of thinker, I guess. Winker projects pretty good, but at his best, I imagine Bruce right now is probably his ceiling, just pure net positive production. But I think Winker will also hit for less power (though it appears he probably will walk considerably more often.)Quote:
Originally Posted by paulrichjr
Also, to me as far as the eye test goes, I really don't think Bruce is as bad as has been written in RF. If defense slumps too, at most that's what I'm seeing from Jay. He's played some balls off the wall weird a few times this season, but really, he's always been somewhat prone to that (I remember a particularly egregious example in SF in I wanna say either 2012 or 13 where it literally cost the Reds the game, and that was a year his D graded out positive.)
He's still got a cannon for an arm and I think the reports of the demise of his range have been exaggerated.
IMO the most I'm seeing is Jay playing defense fairly tentatively (he's pulled up more often this year than in the past when he would've dove for a ball, seems to be playing extra cautious at the wall as well), probably wary of reinjuring himself. And that's something I think he can adjust.
The tools are still there to my eyes. It's just a matter of regaining that confidence in his body and his skill to prevent himself from getting injured without needing to play like he's made of glass in his mind.
I can understand being incredibly annoyed or whatever, but the issue isn't this year's salary. It's next year's salary. It's getting some return for Bruce.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Servo
If the Reds don't trade him they have three choices.
1. Exercise his $13MM option for next year, or extend him. Reds will not want to do this. Maybe they should, but this team is cutting cost, they will not want to.
2. Exercise the buy out option and offer him a QO. That's ok, but what if he accepts the QO? It's probably $14.5 million or so for next year. Not attractive.
3. Exercise the buy out and don't offer the QO. Then you get zero return for him.
The Reds simply will not want to pay Jay a $13-14 million salary for next year (or extend him). It's contrary to their entire rebuilding scheme. They have Duvall and Winker for the corners next year.
So, the likely move is to trade him at the deadline, using his improved performance to get the best deal possible.
Personally, I'd like to see the Reds hold out if no good deal is coming. I think it's time they exercised some leverage rather than trading for the best deal possible. Let the league know they aren't desperate and are demanding fair value. But I believe money is the key factor and they will simply trade him at the deadline for the best available trade.
I wish I had a nickel for every time I read this after a Bruce hot streak.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghosts of 1990