Royals interested in Bruce?

[Kc61]

I know this much, I'm setting a high price for Bruce if I'm the Reds. If teams wanted Bruce without giving up anything of real note for him, they had their chance and missed out. If someone like Indians want him, the conversation would start with Clint Frazier/Bradley Zimmer. I don't know where the Reds play him, or if he's a guy Cleveland wants to keep, but Jose Ramirez is pretty interesting as well.

With some of these names, we're already set up for disappointment. I wouldn't expect a top 25 MLB prospect. Bruce has inconsistency, two bad years, bad defensive ratings, etc.

I do think Reds should get one very strong prospect for Bruce, but maybe not the big glamour name.

[Tom Servo]

With some of these names, we're already set up for disappointment. I wouldn't expect a top 25 MLB prospect. Bruce has inconsistency, two bad years, bad defensive ratings, etc.

I do think Reds should get one very strong prospect for Bruce, but maybe not the big glamour name.

They need to get a young impact player. Like I said, if teams wanted a discount based on Bruce's 2014-2015 seasons, they had their chance and missed out. Now they have to pay the going rate.

I'm really not concerned with the defense thing. I haven't seen teams put a premium on it when acquiring sluggers, and I think there's a decent chance any team looking to acquire him are looking at LF or the DH spot. Reputation also gives veterans some leeway.

Truthfully, I wouldn't expect the Indians to move Frazier/Zimmer, because they are like the Pirates and would rather lose with their prospects still in-tact than win and not have them moving forward. But the point is that Bruce sure looks like the old Jay Bruce, and the Reds should rightfully be asking for good players in return for his services.

[_Sir_Charles_]

When I see people talking about trading away Jay Bruce, I usually cringe a bit. First off, let me say that nobody's untouchable and that if a really good offer comes along for Jay...then the Reds should go for it. But look at our minor league pipeline for a minute. Outside of Jesse Winker, where are the outfield bats? People here are counting on Hamilton and Duvall. Neither of them have proven enough to me to count on EITHER of them moving forward. Any trade of Bruce would almost HAVE to include a nice OF prospect coming back. If a team has an excellent OF prospect...why are they going after Bruce then? IMO the Reds would be best served by keeping Jay Bruce, Joey Votto and Zack Cozart this year and possibly next. Zack stabilizes the defense for the young pitchers and allows us time to see who his replacement will be (Peraza is still a question mark IMO) while Jay and Joey stabilze the offense so the team has SOME veteran presence while the young kids adjust to the majors. If we want some young OF prospects...the draft is coming up quite soon and IIRC we have a pretty good pick. *grin* Simply put, I don't see any return for Jay being an improvement upon Jay.

[mth123]

They need to get a young impact player. Like I said, if teams wanted a discount based on Bruce's 2014-2015 seasons, they had their chance and missed out. Now they have to pay the going rate.

I'm really not concerned with the defense thing. I haven't seen teams put a premium on it when acquiring sluggers, and I think there's a decent chance any team looking to acquire him are looking at LF or the DH spot. Reputation also gives veterans some leeway.

Truthfully, I wouldn't expect the Indians to move Frazier/Zimmer, because they are like the Pirates and would rather lose with their prospects still in-tact than win and not have them moving forward. But the point is that Bruce sure looks like the old Jay Bruce, and the Reds should rightfully be asking for good players in return for his services.

So, I'm probably pushing it by asking this, but if some team had a carbon copy of Peraza and Schebler, would you deal Bruce for that package? Anyone?

[Tom Servo]

So, I'm probably pushing it by asking this, but if some team had a carbon copy of Peraza and Schebler, would you deal Bruce for that package? Anyone?

Carbon copy? No. But I wouldn't be looking for quantity in a Bruce deal, just quality. It should be a no-doubter, like what the Reds got for Mike Leake at the deadline, not the Reds targeting guys who has fallen out of favor with their organization (all three of those guys had/are having nice days today in AA/AAA btw). One of your top hitting or pitching prospects, please and thank you.

[mth123]

Carbon copy? No. But I wouldn't be looking for quantity in a Bruce deal, just quality. It should be a no-doubter, like what the Reds got for Mike Leake at the deadline, not the Reds targeting guys who has fallen out of favor with their organization (all three of those guys had/are having nice days today in AA/AAA btw). One of your top hitting or pitching prospects, please and thank you.

But even with the rebound, Bruce doesn't have the value Frazier had. Frazier is a better defender, at a more difficult position. signed for half of what Bruce will be paid next year (assuming option added) and isn't coming off of two down years. If Frazier didn't net a "no doubter" why should Bruce?

I'm not trying to bust anyone's bubble, but I think we're going to be disappointed in the return for Bruce.

[Ron Madden]

But even with the rebound, Bruce doesn't have the value Frazier had. Frazier is a better defender, at a more difficult position. signed for half of what Bruce will be paid next year (assuming option added) and isn't coming off of two down years. If Frazier didn't net a "no doubter" why should Bruce?

I'm not trying to bust anyone's bubble, but I think we're going to be disappointed in the return for Bruce.

If you are gonna be disappointed in the return for Bruce why even trade him? Why not go ahead and keep him?

[Big Klu]

If you are gonna be disappointed in the return for Bruce why even trade him? Why not go ahead and keep him?

Because...prospects.

[Cannon]

Yep...if I'm dealing Bruce it's for a "sure thing" or as close to it as you can get. Nothing less. He's not that old, he's on a decent contract, and he's one of the few 30+ HR guys in the league when healthy. He'll make any team happy I think, and he's not a rental.

For me it's a bat coming back, and nothing less than Clint Frazier, Andrew Benintendi, Lewis Brinson, Alex Bregman, Kyle Zimmer + Hunter Dozier, Alex Verdugo+ or Alex Jackson+. If you think that's too much take a look at Bruce's track record -- people put way too much stock in potential. Way more guys with the talent of those prospects have flopped or just become average players than have turned into guys like Jay Bruce. If they don't like the asking price fine, move along, we'll keep him.

[mth123]

If you are gonna be disappointed in the return for Bruce why even trade him? Why not go ahead and keep him?

It's a good question. Depends if you think his return to form is real or not I guess. I tend to think it is, but I doubt the market will. If I could exchange that option year for say a 3 year, $48 Million extension, I would. My guess is Bruce would want 6 or 7 years. I wouldn't do that.

[Tom Servo]

But even with the rebound, Bruce doesn't have the value Frazier had. Frazier is a better defender, at a more difficult position. signed for half of what Bruce will be paid next year (assuming option added) and isn't coming off of two down years. If Frazier didn't net a "no doubter" why should Bruce?

I'm not trying to bust anyone's bubble, but I think we're going to be disappointed in the return for Bruce.

I think the Frazier deal was the Reds being too cute by a half. I think all of the players acquired were pretty good targets (Dixon two more HRs today!) but they were seeking a collection of distressed assets who otherwise might be out of their trading range instead of one top guy. I think the players very may well work out which is why I defend the deal, but I've never denied my belief that Frazier did have more value than the Reds ultimately received.

Bruce is more expensive, but at his peak he is a superior offensive player to Frazier. He's also younger than Frazier, which is very easy to forget.

[Kc61]

I think the Frazier deal was the Reds being too cute by a half. I think all of the players acquired were pretty good targets (Dixon two more HRs today!) but they were seeking a collection of distressed assets who otherwise might be out of their trading range instead of one top guy. I think the players very may well work out which is why I defend the deal, but I've never denied my belief that Frazier did have more value than the Reds ultimately received.

Bruce is more expensive, but at his peak he is a superior offensive player to Frazier. He's also younger than Frazier, which is very easy to forget.

I do believe that Peraza is the highest rated prospect -- at time of the trade -- the Reds received in any trade in the last several years. I don't believe anyone acquired for Cueto, Leake, Latos, Simon, Chapman, or Leake was a top 25 in MLB prospect at the time of the deal. Peraza was. Cody Reed is top 25 now.

Somebody with the Reds thought Peraza was more than a pretty good prospect. Nobody on RedsZone, I dare say, but he was a very highly rated prospect.

So people can attack the Frazier deal all they want. Looking back at this moment, I think it was a fair trade for the Reds, subject to how all these guys eventually work out.

[KronoRed]

The time to deal is now, before the inevitable month-long slump begins.

Even if that slump doesn't happen there is no way I extend him, I mean that would be insane.

[Chuckie]

I do believe that Peraza is the highest rated prospect -- at time of the trade -- the Reds received in any trade in the last several years. I don't believe anyone acquired for Cueto, Leake, Latos, Simon, Chapman, or Leake was a top 25 in MLB prospect at the time of the deal. Peraza was. Cody Reed is top 25 now.

Somebody with the Reds thought Peraza was more than a pretty good prospect. Nobody on RedsZone, I dare say, but he was a very highly rated prospect.

So people can attack the Frazier deal all they want. Looking back at this moment, I think it was a fair trade for the Reds, subject to how all these guys eventually work out.

Peraza wasn't a top 25 prospect at the time of the deal. Top 100? Yes. Top 75? Maybe. Top 25? Negative.

[mth123]

I do believe that Peraza is the highest rated prospect -- at time of the trade -- the Reds received in any trade in the last several years. I don't believe anyone acquired for Cueto, Leake, Latos, Simon, Chapman, or Leake was a top 25 in MLB prospect at the time of the deal. Peraza was. Cody Reed is top 25 now.

Somebody with the Reds thought Peraza was more than a pretty good prospect. Nobody on RedsZone, I dare say, but he was a very highly rated prospect.

So people can attack the Frazier deal all they want. Looking back at this moment, I think it was a fair trade for the Reds, subject to how all these guys eventually work out.

He was 25 on an outdated list. He was dropping like a rock. Even though a lot of the same guys he was on the list with had graduated off, he still went pretty far down instead of up, and two organizations basically gave up on him within a year.

If they acquired Peraza and Schebler version 2 for Bruce, I'd be unhappy with the deal even though I expect Bruce to net a fair bit less than what Frazier should have.