Royals interested in Bruce?

[kpresidente]

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).

1. I'd limit it to 3 years. I don't see him as part of the rebuilt Reds, just ease the transition.

2. Agreed that this is pointless. I've already swallowed this season's pill but it was hard.

3. Maybe this. He could still be traded at next year's deadline. Or again if he has little return offer the QO and get a draft pick or another year where he can be moved at the deadline. So it's not like bringing him back means you get no return. You still get a return.

4. Useful is a word that's hard to pin down. The farm is already deep, so I don't want another middling prospect that projects as a backup or middle-reliever. I could go for a useful specialist, though, like a late-inning lefty or something. I'd also probably go for a high-ceiling, high-risk prospect at one of the weaker positions (RF, middle-infield). So I'm not out on trading him, just have a limited set of conditions. I do think they'll trade him, btw, and that only upsets me because I don't think they'll spend the money saved elsewhere, but that's a whole other topic.

[Wonderful Monds]

I certainly wasn't talking about now or this year, but I believe Votto will right the ship and sometim in the next couple of years someone might make an offer.

Still incredibly stupid.

[Wonderful Monds]

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.

1. Stop saying the Reds are small market. You can regurgitate it all you want but it doesn't make it any more true.

2. Go be a fan of the Astros or A's if you enjoy being losers every other year. Man, I really hope this kind of groan inducing mentality doesn't infect RZ.

TRADE EVERYTHING BOLTED DOWN! ERASE THE DEFICIT! MAKE THE REDS GREAT AGAIN!

No.

[CRDB40]

Still incredibly stupid.

Hardly.

Stupid was a small market team giving a 30-year old 1B a 10-year contract that is still the 7th largest contract in baseball history (by total value).

[Wonderful Monds]

Hardly.

Stupid was a small market team giving a 30-year old 1B a 10-year contract that is still the 7th largest contract in baseball history (by total value).

. Stop saying the Reds are small market. You can regurgitate it all you want but it doesn't make it any more true.

S-T-U-P-I-D

You would make an awful GM, thank god you're just a nimby spouting BS on a fan forum.

[CRDB40]

1. Stop saying the Reds are small market. You can regurgitate it all you want but it doesn't make it any more true.

2. Go be a fan of the Astros or A's if you enjoy being losers every other year. Man, I really hope this kind of groan inducing mentality doesn't infect RZ.

TRADE EVERYTHING BOLTED DOWN! ERASE THE DEFICIT! MAKE THE REDS GREAT AGAIN!

No.

Losing only every other year? Shoot, I'm a Reds fan. We've had losing seasons in 7 out of the last 10. (And like 18 of 30 for my lifetime.) Every other year is only for the faint of heart!

The Reds tried to act like a larger market team in many ways the last few seasons. Didn't work. You can try to spin it like spending money and extending all the good players will equal success, but that doesn't make it anymore true.

If you read carefully, I never said trade everyone. Or erase the deficit. That would be stupid. And I'm pretty sure you can read and comprehend more intelligently than that. I have faith in you.

I stated my preference for how I wish the Reds would operate. Doesn't mean it's right and doesn't mean the Reds would work it correctly.

But it also doesn't mean that simply spending money is the answer either. Or keeping everyone that we like and extending them into their twilight years is the missing ingredient.

The common denominator of consistent winning teams is a well-run FO that utilizes their resources well and doesn't overextend themselves. In this case, I believe that trading players at certain points, not spending wastefully (which, in my opinion, several current contracts or possible extensions would fall under), and resisting holding on to sentimental favorites would be points in that approach.

But to each their own.

[CRDB40]

S-T-U-P-I-D

You would make an awful GM, thank god you're just a nimby spouting BS on a fan forum.

Thank you for your kind words, Mr. Internet-Tough-Guy.

I'm glad we could have a civil back-and-forth. It's nice to finally realize that a fan forum is not for discussion. I will keep that in mind. Life lessons, I tell you.

Please remember the small peons on this forum when you take the Reds to a WS three-peat.

[WrongVerb]

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.

I've been saying this for years. You're a fan after my own heart.

And from what I've seen out of this club, it feels like they're starting to transition to that philosophy. Their stumble out of the gate was not dealing Bruce, Frazier, and Chapman at the deadline last year and not dealing Cozart over the winter. They got middling return on Chapman and Frazier, and hopefully will do better with Bruce and Cozart (and hopefully Straily).

[WrongVerb]

Thank you for your kind words, Mr. Internet-Tough-Guy.

I'm glad we could have a civil back-and-forth. It's nice to finally realize that a fan forum is not for discussion. I will keep that in mind. Life lessons, I tell you.

Please remember the small peons on this forum when you take the Reds to a WS three-peat.

Welcome to RedsZone. Sometimes you gotta get past the folks who are here just to score points in lieu of an actual discussion.

['69]

Someone mentioned that this a business. It is, a major league baseball team. This isn't the local Kwik E Mart, but the that's the kind of service, products, and employees some of you are advocating. No one will have players to root for on the 3-4 year churn and burn. Not only will the product stink, no one will want to work for you for any legnth of time (FA).

Bruce had a mechanical change to his swing before the season that simplified and quickened the bat to the ball. He is finally being more selective at the plate. He's hitting the ball harder than ever, more line drives and power to all fields. Could he go into a slump, of course. Likely to be a trainwreck, no. There are a ton of Bruce fans, Phillips fans, and Votto fans that show up and keep the business afloat. Some of you keep beating the drum but gloss over the numbers. I'm not opposed to dealing him for something really special, but that certainly goes for Votto as well who's age to contract are scary, tbh.

[_Sir_Charles_]

I Still say the Reds should be talking to the Mets. With Wright, Duda and Legares all out, they have to be in the market for reinforcements (the Kelly Johnson deal is throwing a bucket of water at a raging fire IMO) . Add that even when healthy the MI there is pretty questionable defensively. Seems like a perfect spot for both Bruce and Cozart. Bruce plays 1B until Duda is back and gives them an extra bat when he is back (if Duda comes back. A stress fracture in the back may be something that keeps being aggravated with activity). Alternatively, they could put Bruce in LF with Conforto at 1B. Either way, it would solve a huge problem for the Mets. The LH pop missing with Duda out would be restored. Cozart would be a huge upgrade to the MI defense at SS and would allow Cabrera to slide over to 3B in Wright's place. IF and when Wright comes back, the depth will serve them well. He has lots of issues and will need frequent rest.

I'd ask for Gavin Cecchini who would provide the Reds all the things in the MI that Peraza lacks. He's a SS who hits, with on Base skill and no question about sticking at SS. He's also a bit light in the power department, but has more than Peraza. This would allow Peraza to stick to 2B or possibly some OF if needed. I'd also ask for Brandon Nimmo. He's another lefty hitting OF, but unlike Waldrop and Schebler he really can play all three OF spots and seems to have some decent on base ability. He probably doesn't have as much power as either of those guys, but the overall package probably makes him a better choice as a potential RF or 4th OF. To sweeten the deal, I'd ask for a couple of arms. Robert Gsellman is a control specialist type starting pitcher who is having a fine season in AA with a 2.71 ERA and a K:BB ratio in excess of 3:1 in 66 Innings. Finally I'd ask for Marcos Molina. He's a kid with a 60 FB, a 55 Slider and 55 Control. He's recovering from TJ which makes this a buy low opportunity, but he could be a high end reliever in a couple years or a decent starter if his change-up gets better.

That deal would give the Reds the Mets number 3, 4, 8 and 12 prospects in exchange for a allowing the Mets to fill a couple of glaring needs with player performing at an All Star caliber

The 2017 Reds:

Cecchini SS
Winker RF
Votto 1B
Duvall LF
Mesoraco C (Hope)
Suarez 3B
Phillips 2B
Pitcher
Hamilton CF

The bench would include:

Nimmo 4th OF
Peraza Super Sub
Barnhart C
and a couple decent PH options that they could scrounge up. Selsky, Schebler and Waldrop would all be candidates but maybe somebody else.

The rotation would lack a number 1, but Desclafani, Bailey, Reed, Stephenson, Strailey, Finnegan and Lamb would be my main candidates.
Iglesias, Lorenzen and Cingrani along with two of those rotation guys would form a talented back of the bullpen along with guys like Moscot, Weiss, and other pen options.

In AAA Garrett, Gsellman, Stephens, Davis and Romano would all be pushing for a spot. Travieso's struggles suggest a need to repeat AA at least to start out with Mahle and Mella and maybe the Molina kid.

I really like this idea. My biggest question mark surrounding it is Duvall. I love the way he's playing right now, but do we really want to count on him moving forward this heavily? Clean-up hitter, starter and LF? This season could VERY EASILY be a mirage and he could be nothing more than a Chris Heisey.

[Bourgeois Zee]

Someone mentioned that this a business. It is, a major league baseball team. This isn't the local Kwik E Mart, but the that's the kind of service, products, and employees some of you are advocating. No one will have players to root for on the 3-4 year churn and burn. Not only will the product stink, no one will want to work for you for any legnth of time (FA).

Why?

The Cardinals (Jason Heyward, John Lackey, Joe Kelly, Pat Neshek, Jon Jay and more just over the past two years) practice this exact type of "churn and burn" ideology. So does Pittsburgh (Neil Walker, Russell Martin, Aramis Ramirez, Pedro Alvarez off the top of my head).

If the team can win, fans will follow. The more fans that follow, the more money the team will have. The more money the team gets, the more likely they can sign free agents to fill in gaps from a blossoming and productive minor league ladder. And the more money they can pour into that minor league system to help ensure its productivity.

Just win, baby.

[WrongVerb]

I really like this idea. My biggest question mark surrounding it is Duvall. I love the way he's playing right now, but do we really want to count on him moving forward this heavily? Clean-up hitter, starter and LF? This season could VERY EASILY be a mirage and he could be nothing more than a Chris Heisey.

Count me as one who is enjoying his performance but also wanting to sell high as I do expect a regression. But as others have said, all the clubs have really smart people who know this so he isn't likely to bring much in trade.

[mth123]

I really like this idea. My biggest question mark surrounding it is Duvall. I love the way he's playing right now, but do we really want to count on him moving forward this heavily? Clean-up hitter, starter and LF? This season could VERY EASILY be a mirage and he could be nothing more than a Chris Heisey.

I'm still a skeptic as well. There is nobody else. It's why Nimmo is a guy to target in this deal. He might be a guy, but they'd need to add some pop. One idea might be Suarez as a fallback. He still seems a bit iffy in the IF, but probably has the arm for RF. Senzel may be the 3B soon. I'm really down on the minor league position guys. I like Winker and that's about it really. Senzel is my great hope. Duvall's emergence is the best hope moving forward, but I'm totally on board that he could be Kevin Maas or Bob Hamelin. I just don't see selling bringing back anyone to build around. Duvall has the hope that it continues. Dealing him probably doesn't bring a hope like that back.

[corkedbat]

I've been saying this for years. You're a fan after my own heart.

And from what I've seen out of this club, it feels like they're starting to transition to that philosophy. Their stumble out of the gate was not dealing Bruce, Frazier, and Chapman at the deadline last year and not dealing Cozart over the winter. They got middling return on Chapman and Frazier, and hopefully will do better with Bruce and Cozart (and hopefully Straily).

I'm talking about getting a solid return for Votto. Anyone who wouldn't deal out from under that contract while getting talent in return before it gets really ugly is terminally stupid and has no business whatsoever blasting others.