Royals interested in Bruce?

[REDREAD]

I wouldn't say most of the time. The Frazier deal sure doesn't look too good. Nor does the Chapman deal

Too soon to tell. If Rookie Davis becomes a servicable pitcher (even if just in the pen), Chapman trade is a good trade. I agree the other 3 guys look like longshots now, but maybe Jag starts hitting again.

If Peraza becomes a 2-3 WAR SS or 2b, the Reds did excellent with Frazier.. I loved Frazier too when he was here, but let's face it, he was a sub 300 OBP guy with a lot of power that was getting old..

And I can almost guarantee most of the board will be disappointed with the return for Bruce, simply because they are overvaluing him now.
The dude was unmovable in the spring, even if the Reds ate 8 million of his salary. Sure, he's improved his stock dramatically, but half a season doesn't change a player from albotross to worth a top 30 prospect.. Same with Strally.. he is not worth much on the trade market.. If the Reds were contending, needed pitching, and their "big move" was adding Strally (even at a low cost), people would be upset.

[REDREAD]

He has 5 doubles on the year, hasn't hit one in over a month.

Kind of blows up the "Just keep him until the trade deadline to rebuild his value from last year's second half!" argument.

Yes, Thank God Frazier was traded over the winter, or we'd be hearing "Walt/Dick waited too long to trade Frazier, it was obvious he was on a downward swing" all year.

[Sea Ray]

Too soon to tell. If Rookie Davis becomes a servicable pitcher (even if just in the pen), Chapman trade is a good trade. I agree the other 3 guys look like longshots now, but maybe Jag starts hitting again.

If Peraza becomes a 2-3 WAR SS or 2b, the Reds did excellent with Frazier.. I loved Frazier too when he was here, but let's face it, he was a sub 300 OBP guy with a lot of power that was getting old..

And I can almost guarantee most of the board will be disappointed with the return for Bruce, simply because they are overvaluing him now.
The dude was unmovable in the spring, even if the Reds ate 8 million of his salary. Sure, he's improved his stock dramatically, but half a season doesn't change a player from albotross to worth a top 30 prospect.. Same with Strally.. he is not worth much on the trade market.. If the Reds were contending, needed pitching, and their "big move" was adding Strally (even at a low cost), people would be upset.

I agree with Straily. Bruce can make a huge difference for a contender with a hole in RF. His AB vs Arrieta last night where he banged an RBI single up the middle had to be impressive for a scout. It shows Bruce can hit good pitching in clutch situations. That's what contenders are looking for.

[paulrichjr]

Yes, Thank God Frazier was traded over the winter, or we'd be hearing "Walt/Dick waited too long to trade Frazier, it was obvious he was on a downward swing" all year.

Let's pretend the Reds hadn't traded Frazier this winter and he was on the list of people the Reds would move this winter. Is there anyone on the board that can make a legitimate case that Todd Frazier would net a Top 100 prospect like Peraza? He could probably get Schebler and the others and "maybe" another prospect but no way do those stats get you someone as highly rated as Peraza. In other words, Reds win that trade along with every other trade they made from Latos/Simon trade on except maybe Chapman....and the jury is still out on that one. (Rookie Davis has been pretty good this year)

[Pony Boy]

Obviously the ideal time to trade Frazier was during the 2015 Home Run Derby trophy presentation.

[CRDB40]

Hard to see the Reds getting three real prospects for Bruce. Plus the salary relief the Reds obviously want.

The best way to approach this deal is that the Reds must get full salary relief (no Reds contribution) and one top 100 or better type prospect. Plus more, but not expecting the "more" to be too valuable.

I don't disagree about the 3 prospects. I think it's more likely to expect the Reds to secure a couple B level prospects instead of 3 true prospect types.

However, with how Bruce is producing, I don't think that salary relief is a major factor in a trade at this point.

He's going to be paid, what, about $6MM the rest of this season, with $13MM next season on the option (or $1MM on the buyout). That's not a huge financial commitment to most teams that would pursue him.

The team that trades for Bruce is going to be a team that is looking to win this season. A team that is willing to give up young talent in exchange for a player who can help them this season. Paying that player approximately $7MM (if they only want him this season and then buy him out for 2017) or $19MM (for this season and next) is not going to dramatically move the meter in terms of the prospects exchanged. If they don't buy him out, and the QO system is still in place after 2017, then that club can attempt a QO and try to recoup a prospect.

For the Reds, I don't think the salary dump is really a factor anymore. Yes, it was during this past offseason when it looked like Bruce's career was going down the drain due to injury. Paying $25+MM to Bruce at that time looked like a contract that was extremely distasteful for a rebuilding club - which is why they were trying to unload him for a very minimal package in that failed TOR-LAA-CIN deal. That was a pure salary dump. But, as he's rebounded, his salary for the Reds the rest of this season and next is manageable. An extension from the Reds, in my opinion, would be mismanagement, but if he continues to produce like this, that's not a terrible contract for the Reds. You could try to trade him again next season, or you could take whatever compensation is in place following 2017.

If you think teams are taking Bruce simply as salary relief, then a trade makes little sense. The return you get would be minimal, and probably wouldn't be worth anything more than the nothing you'd get if you hang onto him, he tanks the rest of his contract, and you let him go.

I really don't believe "salary relief" is anything more than a minimal factor in trading Bruce at this time. I think his rebound in value has put that to rest.

[Kc61]

I agree with some of the previous post. But keep in mind that the Reds have (apparently) - earlier on - been involved in discussions to trade Bruce in which they would have eaten some salary.

I agree this has changed. But anyone dealing with the Reds will understand that the Reds are a cost conscious, rebuilding team and this may influence offers.

And, in some cases, say the Indians, salary may continue to have a more important influence.

So I agree salary is less of a factor now, but it is still a factor given the history and give the Reds' obvious and known desire to keep reducing payroll.

[Patrick Bateman]

So I agree salary is less of a factor now, but it is still a factor given the history and give the Reds' obvious and known desire to keep reducing payroll.

Food for thought, our GM has claimed the objective in saving payroll was to inject in forward thinking measures, not purely to save the bottom line.

Eating the salary to enhance the prospects being received would certainly fit in with vision.

[puca]

Food for thought, our GM has claimed the objective in saving payroll was to inject in forward thinking measures, not purely to save the bottom line.

Eating the salary to enhance the prospects being received would certainly fit in with vision.

It would fit with the vision, but it would also be a departure from their modus operandi. I know they seemed willing to eat some of Bruce's contract in the off season, but that may have been simply an effort to create a trade market. There now is (or should be) a trade market for Bruce. Whether they are still willing to kick in money to further improve it remains to be seen. I, for one, am skeptical.

[CRDB40]

I agree with some of the previous post. But keep in mind that the Reds have (apparently) - earlier on - been involved in discussions to trade Bruce in which they would have eaten some salary.

I agree this has changed. But anyone dealing with the Reds will understand that the Reds are a cost conscious, rebuilding team and this may influence offers.

And, in some cases, say the Indians, salary may continue to have a more important influence.

So I agree salary is less of a factor now, but it is still a factor given the history and give the Reds' obvious and known desire to keep reducing payroll.

I'm aware that it has been a factor in previous discussions. I referenced that. Before this season, it would have been the main factor in unloading Bruce.

My point is now, since he has rebounded in value, his salary is not an albatross, and it won't prevent the Reds from getting a solid prospect return. (He won't bring the level that some are expecting, but the return will be solid.) If other teams are saying, "Hey, you're a cost-conscious team so we'll take his salary and give you nothing in return", then the Reds won't make the deal. His value is now beyond that line of thinking.

If the Reds are willing to eat salary in a deal with another cost-conscious team, and therefore get a better prospect package in return, I can see that. In my mind, that scenario is now much more likely than the scenario of a "salary dump".

In regards to Bruce and reducing payroll, the reduction of payroll now is to create flexibility and enable the team to acquire better players in the future. Bruce's value is now such that they can acquire future talent in a trade, which means you don't have to just reduce payroll in a trade.

[Kc61]

I'm aware that it has been a factor in previous discussions. I referenced that. Before this season, it would have been the main factor in unloading Bruce.

My point is now, since he has rebounded in value, his salary is not an albatross, and it won't prevent the Reds from getting a solid prospect return. (He won't bring the level that some are expecting, but the return will be solid.) If other teams are saying, "Hey, you're a cost-conscious team so we'll take his salary and give you nothing in return", then the Reds won't make the deal. His value is now beyond that line of thinking.

If the Reds are willing to eat salary in a deal with another cost-conscious team, and therefore get a better prospect package in return, I can see that. In my mind, that scenario is now much more likely than the scenario of a "salary dump".

In regards to Bruce and reducing payroll, the reduction of payroll now is to create flexibility and enable the team to acquire better players in the future. Bruce's value is now such that they can acquire future talent in a trade, which means you don't have to just reduce payroll in a trade.

If I were negotiating with the Reds, I'd give up the one major prospect. But when the Reds ask for more, then I'd say - we're taking on Bruce's salary and his buy out option. We'll give you one very good prospect. Beyond that, it's just minor additions.

Given the Reds' continued desire to cut salary, they might accept.

I would absolutely continue to use salary in the talks, even though the situation has indeed changed to the Reds' advantage.

[WrongVerb]

Obviously the ideal time to trade Frazier was during the 2015 Home Run Derby trophy presentation.

FWIW I was begging for that to happen at the time.

[Plus Plus]

It would fit with the vision, but it would also be a departure from their modus operandi. I know they seemed willing to eat some of Bruce's contract in the off season, but that may have been simply an effort to create a trade market. There now is (or should be) a trade market for Bruce. Whether they are still willing to kick in money to further improve it remains to be seen. I, for one, am skeptical.

The Reds were revealed to be willing to eat salary in the nixed three-way Bruce trade in the offseason. Reports were that the Reds were going to send the majority of Bruce's salary to another team in order to receive a high-quality prospect back in the trade, but that injury concerns from one of the involved pieces nixed the deal.

I think it's evidence that the Reds are going to target players and then do what they can to get there, rather than simply trying to dump salary.

[CRDB40]

If I were negotiating with the Reds, I'd give up the one major prospect. But when the Reds ask for more, then I'd say - we're taking on Bruce's salary and his buy out option. We'll give you one very good prospect. Beyond that, it's just minor additions.

Given the Reds' continued desire to cut salary, they might accept.

I would absolutely continue to use salary in the talks, even though the situation has indeed changed to the Reds' advantage.

If the Reds get one very good prospect with minor additions, I think that's a fair return for Bruce. That's what I'm expecting - 1 very good prospect and 1-2 lottery tickets, or more, likely, 2 good prospects.

With that said, if the Reds acquire one very good prospect in exchange for Bruce, I think that signals that it wasn't a "salary dump". If it was a true salary dump, the Reds would get the salary relief and maybe a lottery ticket.

So, again, I don't think that the salary factor is going to cause the Reds to get very little back in terms of prospects.

[Chuckie]

And I can almost guarantee most of the board will be disappointed with the return for Bruce, simply because they are overvaluing him now.
The dude was unmovable in the spring, even if the Reds ate 8 million of his salary. Sure, he's improved his stock dramatically, but half a season doesn't change a player from albotross to worth a top 30 prospect.. Same with Strally.. he is not worth much on the trade market.. If the Reds were contending, needed pitching, and their "big move" was adding Strally (even at a low cost), people would be upset.

People on here will definitely be disappointed if they think the Reds are going to get a top-30 MLB prospect for Bruce. I'm just hoping for a top-100 prospect and I absolutely think the Reds will get that (plus a throw-in or two). I'll keep saying this until I'm blue (red?) in the face: If a team doesn't offer at least a top-100 prospect for Jay Bruce ... they ain't gettin' no Jay Bruce.

Shake it off.