Royals interested in Bruce?

[Kc61]

Remember at the time, Cody was just on the cusp of top 100.

When I say a Cueto package, I'm thinking a 50-75 headliner (Finnegan), a cuspy 100 guy, and maybe a low upside roster player in the Lamb/Schebler/Duvall vein.

If I was a contending team in need of a slugger like that for 2 years, that would not feel like an overpayment to me.

That's two top hundred players - approx - and a third good prospect in the Cueto deal.

I don't see that for Bruce. Streaky hitter, two bad years, not like a TOR pitcher.

I think it's one excellent prospect and one good secondary player. I think you get the better of Finnegan or Reed, plus Lamb. But not Finnegan, Reed and Lamb.

We'll see.

[Patrick Bateman]

That's two top hundred players - approx - and a third good prospect for Cueto.

I don't see that for Bruce. Streaky hitter, two bad years, not like a TOR pitcher.

I think it's one excellent prospect and one good secondary piece like Schebler.

We'll see.

The difference I am seeing is the second year at a sub free agent rate. Cueto didn't have that, so that's a bit in Bruce's favour and helps close the gap in value some. Could also be dependent on whether the Reds are thinking about absorbing some of the remaining dollars to make him even more attractive. For example, 1.5 years of a discounted Bruce could be very attractive to a dollar conscious team like the Indians while they open up their window.

[Cooper]

Kingspoint: turning 30 is the beginning of the decline phase. You are completely wrong headed re: tha analysis. 75 to 80% of a players value comes before his age 31 season (after his age 30 season).

[_Sir_Charles_]

I'm looking forward to Phillips' replacement for 2017. Maybe that player is acquired in a deal for Bruce.

Personally speaking, I fully believe we already have that replacement. Jose Peraza. If he surprises me and sticks at short and performs above expectations defensively...then we've still got Brandon's replacement in either Blandino, Senzel or Suarez.

[_Sir_Charles_]

In a vacuum, nothing wrong with 31. My issue is contract status.

As a 31 year old free agent, he is going to command $15-20M annually depending on where his production is at that point in time. That comes at a severe opportunity cost to the Reds. $15-20M comes at the cost of perhaps extending two high performing young players during their arbitration years.

Especially in consideration that his production following a typical aging curve should decrease to the point where the production isn't meeting that contract. The Reds can afford to hand out very few free agent priced contracts. When you can replace free agent dollar players with young players via trade, and avoid playing the aging curve game, to me, it's a no-brainer which direction to head. I'd much rather have the young talent, plus the $15-20M to spend on arbitration players (or for example extending an arb player into their free agent years at a discount, similar to the current contract Bruce is on) and gap filling free agents and trade acquisitions that require less term commitment.

I think its about asset management. Right now Bruce is an asset that can be turned into other assets because of his current age and contract.

Extending him from ages 31-36 at free agent dollars is how you turn an asset into a potential liability. Small/mid market teams just can't play in that game very often and expect success.

Ever so slowly...converting my thought process. Doesn't mean I'll still not hate it when/if Jay is dealt away.

[Kc61]

The difference I am seeing is the second year at a sub free agent rate. Cueto didn't have that, so that's a bit in Bruce's favour and helps close the gap in value some. Could also be dependent on whether the Reds are thinking about absorbing some of the remaining dollars to make him even more attractive. For example, 1.5 years of a discounted Bruce could be very attractive to a dollar conscious team like the Indians while they open up their window.

Well, if you starting throwing Reds money into the package, that changes the equation.

Frankly, I think the first thing the Reds want in this deal is to be free and clear of any financial obligation.

Hard to configure a trade in a vacuum, but I think it's Bruce's contract free and clear; one excellent prospect; and something else of decent value.

In effect, I think the third piece (the Cody Reed piece) is going to be the salary relief for the rest of this season.

Who knows, we'll see.

[REDREAD]

I don't think they get a Cueto package. There's nothing as valuable as a TOR starter in a pennant race.

They'll probably get two players. I'm not worried about the second one, the Reds have done a good job of identifying secondary trade players. (Schebler, Renda, etc.)

The issue is how good the top name will be. That's the negotiation, we'll see.

I agree totally. I think most of RZ is going to be disappointed at the return if Bruce is traded.
Now I think earlier in the year, I underestimated his trade value (Bruce has done a good job maintaining high production so far)
But Bruce is not getting a Cueto package.
He might get a Leake package if we are lucky.

If we do some role playing (everyone is invited to respond).. suppose we go back in time to the season that Ludwick ruined his shoulder on opening day. Suppose you are the GM of the Reds and know Ludwick is out for the year. You can trade for the 2015 Bruce (and have his option) to fill in LF. You have all the prospects we have today.
How high would a RZ armchair GM go? I am guessing no one would trade the crown jewels for 1.5 years of 2015 Bruce.. Reed, Stephenson, Winker, Garrett, etc. are off the table.
Some people might trade Mahle or Mella, but I'm guessing most wouldn't.

More than likely the RZ GMs would trade maybe Lorenzen, Weiss, Jag, YRod, maybe Peraza, maybe Blandino, Rookie Davis or just plain chaff.. the guys perceived as 2nd tier guys on the board.

[gilpdawg]

That was before Bruce started hitting again, and after his defense was already grading out as awful.

Not necessarily true on the defensive point. This year, the metrics are all unanimous. In 2015 they were not. BBRef had Bruce at plus 5 last year, and if you take a rolling 3 year average, which is sort of recommended with this sort of thing, even with this year's small sample minus 10, he's at minus 4.

[Patrick Bateman]

Well, if you starting throwing Reds money into the package, that changes the equation.

Frankly, I think the first thing the Reds want in this deal is to be free and clear of any financial obligation.

Hard to configure a trade in a vacuum, but I think it's Bruce's contract free and clear; one excellent prospect; and something else of decent value.

In effect, I think the third piece (the Cody Reed piece) is going to be the salary relief for the rest of this season.

Who knows, we'll see.

The argument for the Reds kicking in some cash is similar to what they say they are doing with the savings of Frazier, et al. They talked about injecting the savings into foreign markets, the draft, analytics, etc. They claim they really aren't saving the money, just putting it in forward thinking initiatives.

Kicking in some cash on Bruce to enhance the prospect return package follows the same vein. Rather than injecting the savings into the draft, let's see some immediate return through a better return (unlike the Frazier trade where the return was underwhelming).

[Bourgeois Zee]

I love/ hate the idea of trading Cozart to the Pirates. While Austin Meadows is out of the realm of possibility, perhaps a Harold Ramirez or Reese McGuire deal would work for both sides.

I'd do backflips if Bruce and Straily turn into Bregman and a lottery ticket or two.

[Tom Servo]

Fun fact on a stat that I never pay attention to: Bruce is leading all outfielders in RBIs, only Edwin Encarnacion, Nolan Arenado, and David Ortiz have more in the league.

[REDREAD]

Keeping him, picking up the option, then making a QO after 2017 wouldn't be the worst thing in the world at this point.

Still think Cozart needs to go, though.

Last year, the QO was 15.8 million. In two years, it could be 17 million or more.

I don't think it makes economic sense to pay Bruce the rest of 2016, and 2017 and risk being on the hook for maybe 17 million in 2018 just to pick up an extra draft pick.
Especially since Bruce can probably be traded right now for talent that is better than a compensation pick. I mean, a B prospect is better than most compensation picks.
Sure some Comp picks become stars, but most wash out and don't even make the major leagues.

IMO, it only makes sense to keep Bruce if you think the team can contend in 2017. You have to assume the club will not want to extend him and you have to assume they will not want to risk the QO in 2017 offseason .. All signs point that way.

[WrongVerb]

This should be a sign in every GMs office in big bright bold red letters that would make Jojo jealous: "Do not pay a player in his 30s for the production he gave in his 20s."

That said, some team will overpay for Bruce after his age 31 season and wind up owing a considerable amount while he puts up good numbers but nothing that matches his production from age 22-26 and age 29 (and maybe 30) seasons.

[Patrick Bateman]

Not necessarily true on the defensive point. This year, the metrics are all unanimous. In 2015 they were not. BBRef had Bruce at plus 5 last year, and if you take a rolling 3 year average, which is sort of recommended with this sort of thing, even with this year's small sample minus 10, he's at minus 4.

You are right about that, I was purely looking at UZR. I think your point better illustrates that there is a lot of noise going on with the defensive stats. Things don't point to Bruce grading well out there, however, I could definitely see teams grading him out to a point where the amount he is giving back on defense can be somewhat mitigated, and/or a more secondary consideration to his current hitting value.

[WrongVerb]

I agree totally. I think most of RZ is going to be disappointed at the return if Bruce is traded.
Now I think earlier in the year, I underestimated his trade value (Bruce has done a good job maintaining high production so far)
But Bruce is not getting a Cueto package.
He might get a Leake package if we are lucky.

If we do some role playing (everyone is invited to respond).. suppose we go back in time to the season that Ludwick ruined his shoulder on opening day. Suppose you are the GM of the Reds and know Ludwick is out for the year. You can trade for the 2015 Bruce (and have his option) to fill in LF. You have all the prospects we have today.
How high would a RZ armchair GM go? I am guessing no one would trade the crown jewels for 1.5 years of 2015 Bruce.. Reed, Stephenson, Winker, Garrett, etc. are off the table.
Some people might trade Mahle or Mella, but I'm guessing most wouldn't.

More than likely the RZ GMs would trade maybe Lorenzen, Weiss, Jag, YRod, maybe Peraza, maybe Blandino, Rookie Davis or just plain chaff.. the guys perceived as 2nd tier guys on the board.

In 2013, the Reds top prospects were:

1. Hamilton
2. Stephenson
3. Travieso
4. Ervin
5. Winker
6. Lorenzen
7. Corcino
8. Holmberg
9. Wright
10. Buckley

Nobody on that list I wouldn't hesitate to trade if the Reds had a real shot at winning the World Series.