Royals interested in Bruce?

[Wonderful Monds]

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.

Sure.

[Wonderful Monds]

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.

We should trade Cody Reed and Robert Stephenson too before anybody figures them out! DONT WANNA BE TOO LATE, BRO.

[WrongVerb]

We should trade Cody Reed and Robert Stephenson too before anybody figures them out! DONT WANNA BE TOO LATE, BRO.

No. I just don't want to pay them in their 30s for production they gave in their 20s.

[corkedbat]

We should trade Cody Reed and Robert Stephenson too before anybody figures them out! DONT WANNA BE TOO LATE, BRO.

If they're blowing up an get into their second or third year of Arb and they show no sign of interest in an extension, then yeah, you do start seriously listening to offers, Spanky. A team with a market and budget like the Reds needs to either get an extension that buy's a year or two of FA and two or three years of FA or they need to start looking for a return. They also need to be keeping the farm healthy on both sides (Arms and bats).

[Big Klu]

We should trade Cody Reed and Robert Stephenson too before anybody figures them out! DONT WANNA BE TOO LATE, BRO.

I would suggest four years in a Reds uniform, then let them graduate to the big leagues. Stevenson has already used up his freshman year of eligibility this season, so they need to get the best offer they can by the 2019-20 offseason, because by Opening Day 2020 he needs to be out the door.

Four years. No exceptions.

[JaxRed]

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.

Man... one of the best posts ever. Completely agree. The Reds play in a system that is inherently unfair. MLB does not share revenue to the extent all teams have an even playing field, and there is no cap. The Dodgers, Yankees, etc. can outspend us by vast amounts. So the Reds can't operate the way those teams do. They have to maximize every dollar of revenue.

They have to concentrate on those areas where they do have an equal chance, such as the draft and international free agency. And that's been the frustrating thing about the Reds. They have been so poor at the area they need to excel at. (I am encouraged by the first 3 picks of this years draft however). In the minors, except for a few starting pitchers it looks like the cupboard is bare. A minor league system should be producing a flock of young arms that can fill the bullpen at minimal cost. One of those minimal cost guys should turn into the closer, and when he gets expensive, he need to be flipped to another team and replaced by another young cheap arm. You don't sign the Aroldis Chapman's of the world to a big deal and then make him a closer.

As far as long term deals for hitters, you need to make Evan Longoria/Anthony Rizzo type of deals, where you identify a guy super early as a guy to make a long term deal and buy him out of arb and free agency at a reasonable price. That way you're signing a guy for 8 years that run from 24-32 for example. And pray that your judgement was correct. I'd essentially never give out a long term deal on a pitcher. They simply blow up too often.

[Chuckie]

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).

Incorrect. Cozart didn't have much trade value during the offseason after getting his knee shredded. The Reds made the right decision to keep him, hope he had a good first half of the 2016 season, and then theoretically dealing him before the deadline for a legit prospect. For once, the Reds played their cards right in the Cozart case.

One could argue they played their cards right with Jay Bruce too -- since his value is higher now than it was during the offseason. However, that was just dumb luck. The Reds tried to trade him and even had a deal in place, but it fell through when a Blue Jays prospect failed his physical.

Anyone who thinks the Reds are a well-run operation, ask yourself this: Is there a single neutral observer who covers MLB for a living that would say: "The Reds are one of the smartest organizations in baseball"? I highly doubt it. Some of our divisional rivals would be mentioned, but not us.

[corkedbat]

nm

[corkedbat]

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.

Excellent post

[Cannon]

Bruce just keeps crushing the ball. His homer today...

[Kc61]

Bruce just keeps crushing the ball. His homer today...

Yeah, listen I'm for rebuilding; I think the Reds were too willing to hold onto expensive stars and should have gradually started to reduce payroll earlier; I'm on record with that; and I fully expect a Bruce trade.

But I don't know, this guy is just raking. He was the top minor league prospect in baseball and currently is hitting with that kind of prowess. He's now at .911 OPS.

Sure, sell high, but are the Reds really going to get a haul worthy of such a hitter?

This is tough. The approach must be to insist on guys like Frazier of Cleveland or other top 50 prospects who the Reds really like. And if that return isn't forthcoming, exercise Jay's option for one more season at $13 million.

It's risky and expensive to hold him even for a year, I know, but it would be a shame to drop this guy and watch him put up All Star numbers for another club. Been there, done that, it stinks. This one is getting tough.

[bagz]

If what these contending teams isn't a good return I'd be inclined to exercise the option for next year.

[PuffyPig]

Y

But I don't know, this guy is just raking. He was the top minor league prospect in baseball and currently is hitting with that kind of prowess. He's now at .911 OPS.

So, do you think there is a chance that it's simply just "simply clicked for Bruce now" at the age of 29?

[Kc61]

So, do you think there is a chance that it's simply just "simply clicked for Bruce now" at the age of ?

If you go back to 2010-13, this year's Bruce isn't that dramatic an increase. And I don't think he'll stay at .911, so maybe he'll "slump" to say .850-875. So maybe it's clicked to the tune of a slightly better Jay Bruce at the top of his offensive game.

Sometimes we can all underestimate the impact of an injury. Jay's 2014 was a disaster and his power was just sapped by injury. That's the obvious, most reasonable explanation.

Last year? Lot of possible explanations. Still injured? Bad habits from injury? Pressing to compensate for 2014? I can't tell you exactly what.

But if you discard those two seasons, Jay's at age 29, a very experienced hitter, feeling healthy again, actually building on his 2010-13 numbers.

Of maybe it's a lucky two months. LOL, I can't tell you.

But here's the thing. If I'm GM, I take the risk. If I can't get top dollar, then no trade and exercise one year option.

It may turn out to be a colossal disaster and I as GM I may get panned on RedsZone for years to come. I'd take that risk in this case. We've cut payroll already. Time to play some hardball.

[Bourgeois Zee]

If I can't get top dollar, then no trade and exercise one year option.

Should he continue to hit as he has, that option looks like a relative bargain.

You could move Duvall to 3B, slide Bruce to LF, and put Winker in RF. With Hamilton's Gold Glove in the middle, that makes sense. Of course, you're then making Suarez a utility guy playing SS, 2B, 3B, and elsewhere as needed.

So you don't have to move him this season.