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.





