Royals interested in Bruce?

[WrongVerb]

If you're talking top prospects today, well, the only one I wouldn't trade is Reed. Anyone else on the Reds' 2016 list is fair game as far as I'm concerned.

[Cannon]

Trading him can get you that player, and we're talking about trying to win a World Series in 2018 at the very earliest. Bruce will be productive, but he'll also be very expensive. We'll need Bruce's money to pay for new contracts as our current young players come into and out of arbitration.

Really? Given how much salary we just cut and with Phillips coming off the books how much money is really tied up in the team? Why would he be 'very expensive' anyway? He'll be 30 and he won't have a ton of leverage because of his injury riddled seasons and on top of it he supposedly loves Cincinnati and wants to stay. I don't see him getting a ridiculous contract and he'll likely be worth what we could pay him.

With that said if we got a player back for Bruce that could 'beat down the door' so to speak and be ready to replace his production in a year or two I'd be fine with that. But that's an A grade prospect and most people here don't think teams would be willing to give that up for Bruce, and in that case it's better to keep him. He's a premium bat and that's not so easy to replace.

[HokieRed]

I'm in favor of seeking the best possible deal for Bruce, but the talk about age 30 here compels me to say that the justification given for trading the best Reds player I have seen in my 61 years as a Reds follower was that he was "an old 30."

[Kingspoint]

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).

That is not true anymore. I read every Bill James Abstact from cover to cover over and over again when they started coming out in the 70's. I have all his research memorized that supports what you're saying. His analysis that included every player since 1900 showed that 28 was the peak season, which coincides with the natural peak in physical maturity of a man. The ages of 27 and 29 were generally a 15-20% drop from age 28. Ages 26 and 30 were another 15-20% drop. That 5-yr period were the prime years. Then, as you say, after 30 they would have a steady decline.However, there was always a resurgence year five years after their prime, where they would, for one seson, match numbers from their prime years. Then, the following year, they would fall off a cliff and resemble a shell of their former selves. Great players were exceptions, in that they had a lot more years after 30 where they could be respectable.

But, that was a long time ago. What happened with careers from 1900-1980 doesn't apply today. From the mid-80's to about 10 years ago, a span of 30 years, steroid usage was rampant. The careers of players didn't follow anythinglike the previous 85 years. It's a completely different measurement, as reality and facts didn't come into play. You could change both reality and facts with steroid usage.

B.S. (before steroids) was a period where baseball players had jobs in the off-season. They never worked out in the off-months. Weight training was considered to be detrimental to your play believing it would tighten up your muscles. Players ate like crap, smoked, drank heavily, but didn't have the convenience of fast foods, so they wouldn't over eat. In other words, their physical makeup was the same as the average Joe, but they could either pitch a ball better or hit a ball better, or could afford the opportunity to skip "real work" and play baseball for a job. Only the best made a lot of money. Most baseball players in the United States eaked out a living on the diamond for a very long time. These are the people that Bill James used to pool the results and come up with his average career trajectory.

But, we're talking about today. My wife and I have daily conversations about probiotics, good bacteria, and every possible chemical makeup, good and bad, that we could possibly be exposed or expose ourselves to (she's a pharmacist, but she would be interested in this even if she hadn't gone to medical school.) Our bathroom scale at home measures our fat percentage. Weight is unimportant. We get our dairy from a farm. We don't use microwaves because it changes the chemical makeup of the food or beverage, let's just say in a negative way, but you can do the research (I highly encourage it for you, and those around you). We don't buy processed foods. We filter our water to remove the Chlorine at the street level, so that it's not going through your skin when you wash and bathe. We exercise both weights and aerobic. She gets her sleep. I fail miserably there and I'm paying for it.

This is just a small sample of all of the studying we do when it comes to our, and our child's health. Today's athlete has this information while also having the luxury that it's their job to be in peak physical shape. There is no "decline at 30" anymore. Not even close. My wife and I, as well as athletes in every sport, talk a lot about cells, it's makeup, what scientifically makes them healthy or unhealthy. Athletes have nutrionists, team doctors educated in sports medicine, yoga instructors. Yoga is an unbelievable tool for keeping the mind and body in top shape. Flexibility that players would start losing at 29-30 still happens if you treat your body the way everyone did during the 20th Century. But, with yoga, you can have better flexibility and a healthier body at 50 than you did during your 20's.

You can see examples throughout all sports of players who pay better attention to the science available and try to keep up with all of the new information that continues to be discovered. Sugar is a killer. Monsanto is evil (and now Bayer will own them). You have to be proactive about your body and community. If you just sit back and take what those in power try to feed you, you'll be unhealthy and die miserably and way too soon.

[WrongVerb]

I'm in favor of seeking the best possible deal for Bruce, but the talk about age 30 here compels me to say that the justification given for trading the best Reds player I have seen in my 61 years as a Reds follower was that he was "an old 30."

I think that had less to do about his age and more to do with his other intrinsic qualities.

[Kingspoint]

Really? Given how much salary we just cut and with Phillips coming off the books how much money is really tied up in the team? Why would he be 'very expensive' anyway? He'll be 30 and he won't have a ton of leverage because of his injury riddled seasons and on top of it he supposedly loves Cincinnati and wants to stay. I don't see him getting a ridiculous contract and he'll likely be worth what we could pay him.

With that said if we got a player back for Bruce that could 'beat down the door' so to speak and be ready to replace his production in a year or two I'd be fine with that. But that's an A grade prospect and most people here don't think teams would be willing to give that up for Bruce, and in that case it's better to keep him. He's a premium bat and that's not so easy to replace.

He'll have leverage because he is 2nd in the league in RBI's, 3rd in Slg, 10th in OPS, and all signs point to him staying that way for the next year and a half. This isn't a hot streak.

2018 and 2019 Bruce will be better than any prospect we could get for him, but we could get someone who could be a solid starter by 2019 for $20M less than what Bruce will be earning. We would also have that player's prime years at the same time as all of our current and best prospects.

[swaisuc]

How can they not? What pitcher in our organization could pitch well enough to win a League Champioship Game (keep in mind who his opposing Ace will be, in addition to the opposing Lineup), yet alone a World Series game?

I tend to agree, but my main point is... we're going to find out what they really think, which is what matters. They can't possibly believe they're going to win in '17 without Jay Bruce. It makes no sense to hold Bruce if you think you're not a playoff team next year. The only 2 things that make sense are trading Bruce if you think it'll be at least another year or 2 ... and keeping Bruce if you think you can make the 2017 playoffs.

[westofyou]

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/ar...articleid=9933

Conclusion

I began my investigation into how baseball players age in order to address some potential problems with past studies. It turns out that after correcting for those flaws that the peak age of baseball players appears to be around 29, and possibly 30 for hitters in modern times. Of course, some players will peak earlier and others later, but this is a general benchmark.

I find it interesting that despite his unwavering pronouncement of when players peaked when the article opened, James's tone was tempered in his general conclusion:

Good hitters stay around, weak hitters don't. Most players are declining by age 30; all players are declining by age 33. There are difference in rates of decline, but those differences are far less significant for the assessment of future value than are the differing levels of ability (James, 1982, p. 205).


And that's probably about as technical as we need to get.

[REDREAD]

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.

Oh I was just using today's list to make it easier and so we don't have the benefit of hindsight. But this is fair list to use too.

[WrongVerb]

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/ar...articleid=9933

It's my suspicion that Joey's slow April was a pothole on his road of decline. He got straightened out, of course, but it's going to prove harder and harder for him to do that and more of those stretches are going to creep into his game. Given how strong of a hitter he is, though, his decline will be gradual. Arguably his peak season was 2012. Five years after will be 2017. Expect a resurgence next year then a steeper decline.

Bruce might be having his peak season now, so 2021 is 5 years hence when he's 34 years old for his resurgence year.

BTW, I keep bringing up the Cardinals, but a cursory glance at their rosters over the past 10-15 years shows a lot of players in that 27-30 age range, after which the team dumps them unless they're strong hitters (Holliday, Molina). They play the age game very well.

[Kingspoint]

So, the million dollar question, or for Bruce, almost $200M question, has he the same mindset as his father and grandfather regarding taking care of his body and mind, or has he embraced the new athlete, where you rarely find them eating fast food, for starters. Will he begin the "normal" decline at 30 or will he study the information that's out there and live a healthy lifestyle in as many ways as possible. Money's no object for him, as it's the biggest detriment to putting healthy food into most people's bodies.

[Benihana]

So if the Indians won't trade Zimmer or Frazier, what do people realistically expect the Reds can get for Bruce?

Brandon Nimmo's name has been mentioned, but until a hot start in the offense-happy PCL this year, he was widely viewed as a 4th OF type. I'd be looking for something more for Bruce given his performance this year. I'm not sure Bregman is a great target unless the Reds are convinced he or Peraza can stick at SS. Does anyone think Benintendi could be had for Bruce and someone like Strailey?

Personally, my targets given the contenders and the assumption that the Indians wouldn't move their two OF prospects, would be as follows:

1. Andrew Benintendi OF Red Sox - the local kid would be my #1 target and Dombrowski may just have the stones to deal him
2. Trea Turner SS Nationals - fits like a glove and currently not being utilized by division leading Nats. Would allow Reds to deal Cozart for a younger OF prospect (2013-2015 draftee)

3. Lewis Brinson CF Rangers - slow start in 2016 could make him available
4. Jurickson Profar SS Rangers - this would be an interesting swap of former #1 prospects in the game, so long as Reds liked his glove at SS
5. Alex Bregman 2B/3B Astros - would be higher if not for positional backlog (Peraza, Suarez, Senzel, etc.) or Reds believed one of them could stick at SS

6. Joey Gallo 3B/LF Rangers - might be redundant if Duvall keeps slugging like he has, but his power would be nice behind high OBP Votto/Winker/Senzel
7. Gleyber Torres SS Cubs - something doesn't feel right about Bruce helping the Cubs win a championship
8. Lucius Fox SS Giants - might be a little light for the top bat on the market, so might look for a little more to come along with him; Reds must believe he can stay at SS


I would be willing to add any prospect outside of the Reds top 5 (Reed, Garrett, R.Stephenson, Winker, Senzel) to get 1 or 2 on this list. 3-5 could include an additional piece like Straily/Lamb or a prospect other than T.Stephenson or Ervin. 6-8 would require the other team adding a second piece- someone like Tyler Beede from the Giants or Eloy Jimenez from the Cubs.

[Kingspoint]

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/ar...articleid=9933

James did a lot of leg work for a lot of people. He opened up avenues of thought that no one had before. It was enlightening.

I would have to wait until we can get a 20-yr period post-steroids to gather the evidence for how players have embraced the improved knowledge for taking care of the body and it's effect on career paths. You would almost have to have a thorough and complete questionaire into the lifestyles of each person as everyone embraces healthcare to a different degree. If each person was then given a proactive health score, some great information could be gleaned.

[Cannon]

Trading Bruce for a 4th outfielder type or a utility infielder type would be absolutely awful. Again, if there's not a top end prospect coming back he shouldn't be moving. It might be questionable, but I would much rather take my chances with a compensation pick from him walking than get some kind of middling prospect that likely won't be an impact player for a guy of Bruce's quality at the plate.

[Z-Fly]

Trading Bruce for a 4th outfielder type or a utility infielder type would be absolutely awful. Again, if there's not a top end prospect coming back he shouldn't be moving. It might be questionable, but I would much rather take my chances with a compensation pick from him walking than get some kind of middling prospect that likely won't be an impact player for a guy of Bruce's quality at the plate.

Do you get a comp pick, if there is an option?