Royals interested in Bruce?

[REDREAD]

So you're completely happy with trading Bruce, a proven 30+ HR hitter who, outside of injury seasons, puts up .320+ OBP, averaging 3.7 WAR over 4 seasons and generally good defending in RF, who is under 30, for...someone who might one day be an average or back-up player?

Insanity.

Yes, I am, because the market reality is that Bruce could not be traded in spring, even with the Reds willing to eat 8 million.
2014 and 2015 were really disappointing and much more relevant to his market value than years before that.
Bruce has about 200 ABs this year, has been doing well. I am happy for him, but every team in baseball knows that he could crash at any moment.
My original post was that people need to lower their expectations.. This hot start in 2016 isn't going to change Bruce's market value much, especially after last year's crash and burn.
And not to be nitpicky, but Bruce is not really a proven 30+ HR hitter. He did it from 2011-2013, but that data really isn't relevant anymore.
His last two years OBP is 281 and 294. I don't want to be dragged into the argument about Bruce's defense, but it's debatable whether he is a good fielder.
And since you brought up WAR, his last 2 seasons WAR is -1.1 and 0.8

[paulrichjr]

Extend Jay Bruce at $13+ million each year or play Jesse Winker and pay him $600K? Honestly I'm not sure why there is debate on this. If the NL had a DH maybe. He just isn't good in RF anymore.

[WrongVerb]

The thing with Bruce this year is the lack of a white hot streak. He's been really, really consistent, and that consistency has lacked in his game since he arrived in Cincy. It bodes well for the next 4-5 years.

[REDREAD]

All I'm saying is.. If we can't get equal value back in any trade for Bruce, I'd keep him.
Pick up his option for next season and go from there..

If another team wants to make a fair trade over the winter or at the deadline next season you can always do that.
But there is no way I'd make a deal knowing the return would be a disappointment.

If you want to pick up his option for next season and then let him walk at the end of the year, you can do that too.

I would be ok to keeping Bruce the rest of the season if trade negotiations are unfruitful, and my bar for what I'd accept for Bruce is low.

IMO, it would not be wise to pick up Bruce's option next year. Spend that money on the bullpen, use it to sign the next Ingelsis, or have the flexibility to add a young player in a trade.
2017 is going to be another lost year. It might be better than 2016.. but I see no point at all in keeping Bruce for 2017.. The only logical thought would be maybe Bruce is worth more in a trade then.. but why pay another 12 million (his pay from this July to next July) to find out?

Thankfully, Bruce is off to another hot start. We might be able to dump him in July and move on.

[Kc61]

You can't make this decision in a vacuum. The Reds are already committed, heavily, to rebuilding with youth and controllable players. They have gone way down that road.

They are now playing Winker in RF frequently at AAA, he obviously will need a starting slot. They have payroll commitments to a few veteran players and extending Bruce would only add to that list.

I don't think it's a tragedy if they wind up not trading Bruce. I wouldn't take just anything for him. I'd play some hardball in trade talks, try to get a good package.

But an extension for him would be contrary to the plan and I don't think it's going to happen.

[Chip R]

I'm all for trading him. I was afraid his good season and the Reds modest winning streak would get people up in arms about trading him.

[Kc61]

I'm all for trading him. I was afraid his good season and the Reds modest winning streak would get people up in arms about trading him.

Yes. My only point is that the market will have to be re-conditioned on Bruce.

My guess is that offers before this season required the Reds to pay much of Jay's salary. And perhaps offered a very modest return.

I do think the Reds should up the ante on their "ask." And if there is no acceptable deal, and they wind up paying Bruce's buy out after this year, and then decide whether to make a Qualifying Offer, so be it.

But I agree with Chip that at the end of the day, the likeliest scenario is to stick to plan and make the deal in July.

[Cannon]

And not to be nitpicky, but Bruce is not really a proven 30+ HR hitter. He did it from 2011-2013, but that data really isn't relevant anymore.
His last two years OBP is 281 and 294. I don't want to be dragged into the argument about Bruce's defense, but it's debatable whether he is a good fielder.
And since you brought up WAR, his last 2 seasons WAR is -1.1 and 0.8

So why is his data from 2011-13 not relevant anymore? Are we ignoring his pedigree as a player because he had an injury that created bad habits and sapped him of his power? As though he suddenly was coming into his prime and just 'lost it'? That seems a bit ignorant to me. He had one down year (where he almost hit 30 HRs anyway) and a year of injury (which probably affected his 2015 as well). We have a lot more data that suggests what he's doing right now is more in line with his career norms than what he did the past two seasons, even if he's a poor fielder now (though that seems correctable given his arm and athleticism seem fine).

If a team is trying to bargain that the past two seasons are the 'real' Jay Bruce then why are they coming to the table in the first place? No, a team is coming to the Reds because they want the Jay Bruce outside of those two years of his career which spans about a decade. If they don't want to pay for that they can move on; right now the market should be pretty good for Bruce given how many teams seem to need a power hitting fielder.

[RedsManRick]

So why is his data from 2011-13 not relevant anymore? Are we ignoring his pedigree as a player because he had an injury that created bad habits and sapped him of his power? As though he suddenly was coming into his prime and just 'lost it'? That seems a bit ignorant to me. He had one down year (where he almost hit 30 HRs anyway) and a year of injury (which probably affected his 2015 as well). We have a lot more data that suggests what he's doing right now is more in line with his career norms than what he did the past two seasons, even if he's a poor fielder now (though that seems correctable given his arm and athleticism seem fine).

Not all past performance is created equal when it comes to predicting the future. The further in the past the performance is, the less and less predictive of the future it is. Sure, we can talk about Bruce being injured in recent seasons and we can point out that he's in his physical prime and thus not likely to be experiencing age-related regression. But put simply, as a starting point, 2015 is more relevant than 2014 is more relevant than 2013 and so forth.

[lollipopcurve]

One consistent pattern woven through Bruce's past performance is inconsistency. Very productive streaks followed by extended periods of struggling. Is there a reason we should expect that pattern to end in 2016 and beyond? So far as I can tell, that would be the only reason to offer him an extension.

[Cannon]

Not all past performance is created equal when it comes to predicting the future. The further in the past the performance is, the less and less predictive of the future it is. Sure, we can talk about Bruce being injured in recent seasons and we can point out that he's in his physical prime and thus not likely to be experiencing age-related regression. But put simply, as a starting point, 2015 is more relevant than 2014 is more relevant than 2013 and so forth.

It's only more relevant if you are looking at them in a vacuum and assuming all the factors affecting his performance are the same, which in Bruce's case they weren't. If you think they were, and you believe 2014/15 to be more relevant to Bruce's performance you're not calling about him anyway.

[WrongVerb]

One consistent pattern woven through Bruce's past performance is inconsistency. Very productive streaks followed by extended periods of struggling. Is there a reason we should expect that pattern to end in 2016 and beyond? So far as I can tell, that would be the only reason to offer him an extension.

Apparently over the winter Bruce made extensive changes to his swing. I haven't seen anything that's indicated he's just on another hot streak this year. Really looks like the changes have brought him that elusive consistency.

[SoTxRedsFan]

Did it ever get leaked who the prospects we were going to get in the Reds/Blue Jays/Angels swap were?

[Alabama]

One of my good friends was in Cle bullpen, just got sent down today because he has one last option. Been shoving and has one of the better fastballs in baseball. Austin Adams.Jay Bruce for him and Naquin unless they were willing to part with Frazier or Zimmer.

Adams would really help out our bullpen as well and they dont seem to value him.

[paulrichjr]

Yes. My only point is that the market will have to be re-conditioned on Bruce.

My guess is that offers before this season required the Reds to pay much of Jay's salary. And perhaps offered a very modest return.

I do think the Reds should up the ante on their "ask." And if there is no acceptable deal, and they wind up paying Bruce's buy out after this year, and then decide whether to make a Qualifying Offer, so be it.

But I agree with Chip that at the end of the day, the likeliest scenario is to stick to plan and make the deal in July.

Why would they pay the buy out and then decide on a QO? The QO is way higher than the option is.

I don't think you give away Bruce but putting a pitcher or two with him that isn't named Stephenson, Reed or Garrett might net a high end prospect and give the Reds far more flexibility (roster as well as cash) for the rebuild. Walt rarely loses trades and I expect the last two trades of both Bruce and Cozart could just be the last ones that he ever makes in his career. No pressure but I expect him to land the next Johnny Bench and Joe Morgan.