Royals interested in Bruce?

[Wonderful Monds]

I still look for Winker's power to come around once the wrist issue clears up (albeit possibly not until next Spring). He'll probably have some adjustment issues the first half of his rookie year, but I look for him to eventually settle in as a high-.OBP option at the top of the Reds rotation. I'm really starting to get excited about Aquino as well, but even if he does pan out he most likely won't be helping the big club until sometime in 2018. This is why I'd really like to see the Reds add another young OFer. If they can't then I'm fine with keeping Bruce until the end of the season and buying him out. If he defies the odds and maintains his current performance level I might regretfully pick up the option, but there's no friggin' way I extend him beyond his current deal.

Winker is the one that I'm pretty much penciling in to a corner so yeah there is that.

But I'd be more worried about Duvall coming back to earth and only having 2/3s of an adequate outfield, especially hitting wise if Billy has settled in about where's gonna be, it could end up being more like 1/3. With Winker and Jay still both on the roster that takes care of a lot more question marks.

Plus also gives you options, ex. trying Duvall at 3B if Suarez totally flames out or continues his Edwin Encarnacion-lite act.

[marcshoe]

I'm among those who don't expect Duvall to continue above-average production, although I'll root for it to happen. I'd like to see Winker's power develop, but even if it doesn't, he should be solid. I've always liked Markakis and think that if this is who Winker ends up being, that's fine. I'd like to see enough offense from the corners to allow Billy to stay in center.

In the end, I just think the future outfield is a bit shaky without Bruce. Getting Verdugo in return would be nice, but I'm not expecting that good a return, and Verdugo's a couple of years away, anyway. I'm not so much absolute in keeping and extending Bruce as I am afraid that the other options will damage the near future.

[corkedbat]

So why trade him then? You already have the OF you need with Bruce. Trading him for an OF prospect is just an unnecessary gamble.

No, trading him for a young OF prospect is an inexpensive gamble with year's of return possible. Keeping him with his injury/inconsistency history is a huge expensive gamble (especially if they were moronic enough to offer him any kind of extension) and could block a roster spot for the duration.

[muethibp]

When a team is as bad as the Reds are, the entire organization should be analyzed through this paradigm:

Take player. Ask question 1: "Does this person have any trade value?" If "yes," move to question 2.

Question 2: "Is this player likely to be a contributor on the next good Reds team?" If the answer to the second question is no, then the player should be traded at the point of his highest value.

With Bruce, the answer is pretty clear. Yes, he has trade value, and, no, he will not contribute on the next good Reds team. So, off he should go. And since his value hasn't been this high in a while and won't likely be again, the time is now.

[corkedbat]

People talk about how there's plenty of salary space now to extend Bruce. Issue is though, by the second half of that contract hopefully the Reds are in a position where they want to start offering contracts to guys like Disco, Iggy, etc. that buy out a couple of Arb and a couple of FA years (the only kind of extensions/LTC's the Reds should consider). Other guys will be more expensive because of Arb as well and if they can improve enough, they may reach a point where a rental arm or bat might make sense to push them over the top.

[swaisuc]

So why trade him then? You already have the OF you need with Bruce. Trading him for an OF prospect is just an unnecessary gamble.

Short answer? because we're going to suck in 2017

[Big Klu]

When a team is as bad as the Reds are, the entire organization should be analyzed through this paradigm:

Take player. Ask question 1: "Does this person have any trade value?" If "yes," move to question 2.

Question 2: "Is this player likely to be a contributor on the next good Reds team?" If the answer to the second question is no, then the player should be traded at the point of his highest value.

With Bruce, the answer is pretty clear. Yes, he has trade value, and, no, he will not contribute on the next good Reds team. So, off he should go. And since his value hasn't been this high in a while and won't likely be again, the time is now.

There is a real possibility that nobody on the current 25-man roster will contribute on the next good Reds team.

[marcshoe]

Short answer? because we're going to suck in 2017

If so, this will be a self-fulfilling prophecy. We're going to suck, so let's gut the team. otoh, we could see what young talent is ready and make moves that fill the gaps.

[Wonderful Monds]

If so, this will be a self-fulfilling prophecy. We're going to suck, so let's gut the team. otoh, we could see what young talent is ready and make moves that fill the gaps.

Yep. There's no reason to rebuild forever. By the end of this year they will have been in rebuild for a season and a half at least.

They've done the payroll cutting thing, and by the time a new contract for Jay would begin, BP's will be gone.

2018 is around when they should start spending money.

And also what's this about Bruce being inconsistent? He's been injured, I don't know why that's just such an easily dismissed fact.

[WrongVerb]

Yep. There's no reason to rebuild forever. By the end of this year they will have been in rebuild for a season and a half at least.

They've done the payroll cutting thing, and by the time a new contract for Jay would begin, BP's will be gone.

2018 is around when they should start spending money.

And also what's this about Bruce being inconsistent? He's been injured, I don't know why that's just such an easily dismissed fact.

Players after age 30-31 go into decline. It happens. It's going to happen to Bruce. It happened to BP. We might be seeing the very early stages of it with Votto. No need to waste resources paying out the wazzou for a declining player on a rising team. And I doubt after this year that Bruce is looking for anything short of $20MM/yr extension. His best value to this club is as a trade chip.

[Wonderful Monds]

And I doubt after this year that Bruce is looking for anything short of $20MM/yr extension.

And that's where I strongly disagree. Bruce has spoken a lot about wanting to remain a Red for his career. If he means it, and I don't see any reason to doubt him, I absolutely extend him 3 years after next year.

If it takes more than that, than no, sure thing trade him.

But I don't think it's a given it takes a truck o' money to extend Jay.

[marcshoe]

Except Votto is almost 33, and BP, a middle infielder dealing with injuries, was around the same age when his decline began, and he managed to have a pretty good year in 2015.

[Wonderful Monds]

Except Votto is almost 33, and BP, a middle infielder dealing with injuries, was around the same age when his decline began, and he managed to have a pretty good year in 2015.

Yeah that's this other thing, I feel like we're talking about Frank Robinson with this "BUT HE'S GOING TO BE 30!!" talk all the time.

It's not a death knell. Even he if begins to *decline* it doesn't mean he'll be awful. Even in his decline this year, Votto has been the most productive Red.

It's MLB, not the NFL, lol. It's not like Jay Bruce is a free agent RB.

[REDREAD]

People talk about how there's plenty of salary space now to extend Bruce. Issue is though, by the second half of that contract hopefully the Reds are in a position where they want to start offering contracts to guys like Disco, Iggy, etc. that buy out a couple of Arb and a couple of FA years (the only kind of extensions/LTC's the Reds should consider). Other guys will be more expensive because of Arb as well and if they can improve enough, they may reach a point where a rental arm or bat might make sense to push them over the top.

Yep, extending Ludwick for 2 years ended up blowing up in our faces. I'm not saying it was a good or bad idea at the time, but that freak accident killed his production.
But people were critical of it at the time. Ludwick was "only" 33 when he was extended.

Now people want to extend Bruce to the same age range (he would be about 33 after his option year is up) , when we don't even have a contending team which makes it worth the risk?
And with Bruce's spotty recent track record and recent injury history? Like no offense to Bruce, but Ludwick had a healthier body at 33 (pre-shoulder injury) than Bruce does today at 31.

So if extending Ludwick at 33 was horrible (according to people at the time), how in the world is extending Bruce at about age 33 a great idea? Especially for a 90+ loss team.

[WrongVerb]

Yeah that's this other thing, I feel like we're talking about Frank Robinson with this "BUT HE'S GOING TO BE 30!!" talk all the time.

It's not a death knell. Even he if begins to *decline* it doesn't mean he'll be awful. Even in his decline this year, Votto has been the most productive Red.

It's MLB, not the NFL, lol. It's not like Jay Bruce is a free agent RB.

Brandon Phillips, his Cincinnati years up to and including his age 31 year:

.280 .329 .446 .775

Phillips after his age 31 year:

.271 .311 .387 .699

His very predictable "good" year last year he OPSed .723, which is still .050 off his composite average through his age 31 season. This year with nearly half the season gone and him playing full time he's OPSing .667. His decline started at age 31.

Votto is having his lowest non-injury OPS year of his career, currently at .804, in his age 32 year. Luckily his game is such that he'll decline pretty gracefully. But I contend we've seen the best of Joey Votto, save for that one year around age 34-35 where he puts up close to MVP numbers and everyone will exclaim "He's back!"

Aging, it happens to the best of it. A small market club shouldn't be paying a boat load of money to a declining player.