Royals interested in Bruce?

[corkedbat]

Trade. A few years ago, everyone wanted to trade Votto. Now, it's Bruce, Homer, Phillips, and Cozart. When will be satisfied? Apparently, RedsZone is never satisfied. When players are cheap, you keep them until they are no longer cheap and then you move them. Occasionally, you give a long term deal to a player who is special and then the fanbase gripes forever when they don't hit .400 and walk a lot and hit home runs and visit the sick children in the hospital. Just seems strange when anyone is successful, the trade talk starts. When they get the long term contract, everyone is looking for that great prospect that is going to save us. WE all worry about how much money the franchise is spending. It's not my money, so I don't care. The result is what we have now. Failure. Humor me. I really just want to win and winning without the players mentioned is near to impossible.

It's a business and the Reds have no business holding onto anyone whose current contracts expire in 2017 or sooner. They have even less business extending anyone who will be on the wrong side of 30. Everyone complains because there are all these onerous contracts tying up money that could be spent elsewhere. There was near-universal pissing and moaning last season and over the offseason about about how Bruce was one of the worst regulars in baseball. Most people wanted to give him away, but there wasn't a whole lot of interest. Now, Bruce, whose only real tool any more is inconsistency, as stated out fairly strong and presented the Reds with a Golden opportunity to move him (and possibly even get something useful in return. But now every body is whining, "Oh no, don't trade poor Jay! He's the real deal now!"

This is the same kind of fan sentimentality that has pushed this ownership and FO into making more than a couple of ill-advised moves. They showed promise over the last 11 months or so in dealing Cueto, Leake, Frazier & Chapman. Hopefully the maintain their resolve and do what needs to be done with Bruce, Cozart and with a huge dose of luck, Phillips.

[kpresidente]

Here's my assumptions that make me want to keep Bruce...

1. He'll perform well in the future. I know what regression to the mean is, both in terms of his BABiP in 14-15, and his UZR this year.
2. They won't get anything of value for him.
3. The money they save by trading him will go towards Dick Williams trust fund.

I don't think I'm wrong on #1, but I might be on #2 and #3, in which case, by all means trade him. Otherwise I'd rather suck less next year.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[RedTeamGo!]

Trade. A few years ago, everyone wanted to trade Votto. Now, it's Bruce, Homer, Phillips, and Cozart. When will be satisfied? Apparently, RedsZone is never satisfied. When players are cheap, you keep them until they are no longer cheap and then you move them. Occasionally, you give a long term deal to a player who is special and then the fanbase gripes forever when they don't hit .400 and walk a lot and hit home runs and visit the sick children in the hospital. Just seems strange when anyone is successful, the trade talk starts. When they get the long term contract, everyone is looking for that great prospect that is going to save us. WE all worry about how much money the franchise is spending. It's not my money, so I don't care. The result is what we have now. Failure. Humor me. I really just want to win and winning without the players mentioned is near to impossible.

Bruce is expensive and his contract is almost up. Phillips is old and his contract is almost up.

[Chuckie]

Let's picture Jay Bruce as the catcher and Dick Williams as the pitcher. (Get your minds out of the gutter -- I mean in a real baseball sense.)

Bruce gives Williams the "Sign me to a LTC" sign.

What would Williams do upon seeing the sign?

Shake it off.

[Chip R]

Let's picture Jay Bruce as the catcher and Dick Williams as the pitcher. (Get your minds out of the gutter -- I mean in a real baseball sense.)

Bruce gives Williams the "Sign me to a LTC" sign.

What would Williams do upon seeing the sign?

Shake it off.

[Chuckie]

Haters gonna hate.

[WrongVerb]

Haters gonna hate.

And Chuckie gonna Chuck.

[Tom Servo]

We know the Mets were interested last year. A name we floated last time around but questioned his power, Brandon Nimmo, is finally flashing some pop this year in the PCL, slashing .325/.403/.521 in 50 games so far.

Of course, it's hard to say if this is PCL benefitted power or if his game is turning a corner, that is the million dollar question.

[reds44]

I'm really surprise there are people advocating to re-sign Bruce. I've never been a Bruce hater, but I thought we would have all learned this lesson by now. Bruce is due to go into a prolonged slump any day now. At the trade deadline last year, he was putting up good numbers (and I was against trading him) and he crashed and burned in August and September.

[Tom Servo]

I'm really surprise there are people advocating to re-sign Bruce. I've never been a Bruce hater, but I thought we would have all learned this lesson by now. Bruce is due to go into a prolonged slump any day now. At the trade deadline last year, he was putting up good numbers (and I was against trading him) and he crashed and burned in August and September.

I have little doubt that some regression is coming from his current .903 OPS, but I also don't see the gigantic August collapse (OPS under .500 for the month) necessarily occuring again nor do I see him finishing with an OPS below .750. I think he's gotten his swing back to where it was before the injury and bad habits cropped up, and the numbers so far agree.

Just saying "yeah, but he's streaky" kind of glosses over some valid points in this thread including Bruce's BABIP returning to it's normal level, for instance.

I go back and forth on the extension idea, but I don't think it's something to dismiss out-of-hand.

[KoryMac5]

When you have the replacement in AAA you have to ship out the more expensive option, it sucks as we have gone through several ups and downs with Bruce but that's small market reality.

[corkedbat]

Here's my assumptions that make me want to keep Bruce...

1. He'll perform well in the future. I know what regression to the mean is, both in terms of his BABiP in 14-15, and his UZR this year.
2. They won't get anything of value for him.
3. The money they save by trading him will go towards Dick Williams trust fund.

I don't think I'm wrong on #1, but I might be on #2 and #3, in which case, by all means trade him. Otherwise I'd rather suck less next year.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

OK, there are four possibilities with Bruce.

1. Extend him beyond his contract for three or four years @ around 30 or 40 Million. He's aging, he's expensive, his never been a model of consistency, his skills are deteriorating, yada, yada, yada...
2. You hold onto him and then buy him out at the end of the year. Why? He may or may not continue his resurgence, but the Reds are going no where. Time for youth to be served.
3. Hold on to him and pick up his option. See #2 (only doubly so). The Reds are going no where, yet you would owe him around $20M - sheer idiocy. A lot sooner than later, you're gonna have to find a replacement for him (probably even if you keep him). Right now you have Winker and Duvall as candidates for the OF corners. Are they sure bets? Hardly, but you need to find out and they're a heck of a lot cheaper.
4. Deal Bruce (and quite possibly a young arm or even two) for a useful return. Seems like the only sane option (but that's just me).

[InsaneinthBrame]

But is his babip truely back to normal. It is know that with the shift left handed pull hitters have lower babip.

His numbers are bouyed by his recent hot streak since Mid May. Which he had a similiar hot streak from mid May to mid July last year

bruce is only 1 year younger than Cozart I would rather extend him than Bruce. Because Cozart bring D to a more important position where we do not have a good enough replacement and his offense is good for a short stop. I think you trade both since we will be rebuilding for 3-4 more years.

[Chip R]

I'm really surprise there are people advocating to re-sign Bruce. I've never been a Bruce hater, but I thought we would have all learned this lesson by now. Bruce is due to go into a prolonged slump any day now. At the trade deadline last year, he was putting up good numbers (and I was against trading him) and he crashed and burned in August and September.

I'm not so sure Bruce is going to go into a huge slump all of a sudden although his career suggests that he will. What I'm concerned about is next year and the year after that and the year after that, etc. He's already regressed defensively enough that he's arguably a liability out there. Sort of like Junior in his last few years with the Reds. If his knee is still hampering him, it's not going to get any better even if he gets it scoped every off-season. I suspect that sooner, rather than later, his offensive skills will regress and his defensive skills will regress even further. Since the NL has no DH and Votto is entrenched at 1st, there will be fewer places to hide him. Even if his salary remains close to the same as it is now and next year, I don't want the Reds to pay that much for sentiment. Yeah, trading him while he's hot is going to make some angry fans even angrier but they will be just as angry 2-3 years from now when he's our Ryan Howard.

[CRDB40]

Trade. A few years ago, everyone wanted to trade Votto. Now, it's Bruce, Homer, Phillips, and Cozart. When will be satisfied? Apparently, RedsZone is never satisfied. When players are cheap, you keep them until they are no longer cheap and then you move them. Occasionally, you give a long term deal to a player who is special and then the fanbase gripes forever when they don't hit .400 and walk a lot and hit home runs and visit the sick children in the hospital. Just seems strange when anyone is successful, the trade talk starts. When they get the long term contract, everyone is looking for that great prospect that is going to save us. WE all worry about how much money the franchise is spending. It's not my money, so I don't care. The result is what we have now. Failure. Humor me. I really just want to win and winning without the players mentioned is near to impossible.

I was one of the ones who would have liked to see the Reds trade Votto a few years ago. And I'm one who would like to see them move Bruce, Homer, Phillips (if possible), and Cozart now.

It has nothing to do with "being satisfied" about the number of moves or the player affinities or any of that.

It has to do with my personal view of how the Reds should function as a small market team.

Yes, when players are quality and under team control, you keep them until a year or two before team controls runs out, and you deal them away for a quality package that might return even more than what you gave away. Or, you try to extend players while they are still cheap and have TC/Arb years remaining in order to hang onto them for a few extra seasons and pay them while also receiving somewhat of a bargain for their prime years. So, yeah, extend a guy who might be special at 23-26 or so, to keep them through their age-30 season (give or take a year or two). And then, either trade them for a package or give out the QO and take the pick.

I do not want to see the Reds give a deal out to anyone that goes well into the 30s or exceeds a valuation that is out of the Reds' realistic financial means. And, in my opinion, they did that with Votto, with Phillips, and with Bailey. The Bruce deal wasn't terrible at all, but it's going to expire now as he's around 30 and that's the time to move on.

Draft well, sign well, develop well, and deal well. Don't overpay and don't give into the sentimentality of older players.

You see the discussions of trading people as what's led to this "failure"? What's led to this failure is that the FO didn't do more in anticipation of this, and kept older/expensive players too long in false hopes of contending.

You say winning without the players mentioned is near to impossible. I would disagree. I would argue that freeing up the money owed to aging vets, coupled with the prospect packages and draft picks you might get in return, presents more flexibility and greater probability of acquiring a winning team. There is always risk - risk of bad signings, risk of prospects burning out, etc. But on the other hand, you have risk of injuries, extreme skill regression, etc. with aging vets?

Done well, a continuous cyclical system of draft-sign-develop-deal gives a higher probability of winning for a small market team than sign long-term and try to band-aid the weak areas (which is what we've been doing for several seasons).

But that's my view on it. Not everyone agrees. And none of us are GMs.