Jay Bruce signed for 6 years, $51 million, $12 millon club option for 7th year

[Lex Logan]

The Reds locked up their 23-year old RF for 7 years, $63 million. He would've been arbitration eligible as a "super-2". Reds fans seem ecstatic; any outsider perspective on this deal?

http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2010/1...jay-bruce.html

[dickay]

i like it. i think he has a ton of talent and to lock that up for 6 years at under 10 mil per is pretty solid. There is risk to signing him, but also risk to not signing him..if he breaks out he'll cost significantly more. the guy is super streaky and has showed glimpses of greatness. I think this will be a great deal when all is said and done.

[haveacigar]

Yeah that's pretty much the only move for a small market team. Guarantee all the arb years early and you can get the player to give up a couple extremely valuable FA years. Gotta be careful, but for players like Jay Bruce, that's really the only play.

[dickay]

Yeah that's pretty much the only move for a small market team. Guarantee all the arb years early and you can get the player to give up a couple extremely valuable FA years. Gotta be careful, but for players like Jay Bruce, that's really the only play.

agreed...problem is that if the gamble fails it can set a small market team back quite a few years. this is one of the reasons I find it laughable that people say payrolls don't matter.

[haveacigar]

agreed...problem is that if the gamble fails it can set a small market team back quite a few years. this is one of the reasons I find it laughable that people say payrolls don't matter.

I was thinking about it though, it seems like a lot less risky in practice than it sounds. I can't really think of a deal like this going badly, can you? Well, Jeremy Bonderman, but no position players.

[HoustonGM]

agreed...problem is that if the gamble fails it can set a small market team back quite a few years.

A deal with an average annual salary of $8.5 million is highly unlikely to set any MLB team back "quite a few years." It's not an albatross of a contract. Every team could easily survive that if the deal failed...and it'd REALLY have to fail for the money to just be dead money. Even if Bruce busts and doesn't continue on the track of stardom, it'd take a catastrophic injury or a ridiculous step backwards for him to not be of some use to the Reds.

this is one of the reasons I find it laughable that people say payrolls don't matter.

Nobody says this.

[ragecage]

A deal with an average annual salary of $8.5 million is highly unlikely to set any MLB team back "quite a few years." It's not an albatross of a contract. Every team could easily survive that if the deal failed...and it'd REALLY have to fail for the money to just be dead money. Even if Bruce busts and doesn't continue on the track of stardom, it'd take a catastrophic injury or a ridiculous step backwards for him to not be of some use to the Reds.


Nobody says this.

I would like you to go deeper into this, I will await your article on the fangraphs site.

[haveacigar]

A deal with an average annual salary of $8.5 million is highly unlikely to set any MLB team back "quite a few years." It's not an albatross of a contract. Every team could easily survive that if the deal failed...and it'd REALLY have to fail for the money to just be dead money. Even if Bruce busts and doesn't continue on the track of stardom, it'd take a catastrophic injury or a ridiculous step backwards for him to not be of some use to the Reds.

Well, it can if you have a shoestring payroll. Plus, it's not the average annual that will kill a payroll. By the time someone like that losing value and becoming an albatross, you'd be in the backloaded part of the deal that is being more than $10 mil per year of waste.

[HoustonGM]

Well, it can if you have a shoestring payroll. Plus, it's not the average annual that will kill a payroll. By the time someone like that losing value and becoming an albatross, you'd be in the backloaded part of the deal that is being more than $10 mil per year of waste.

That's still not going to set any MLB team back a few years.

Plus, while you'll be in the "more expensive" years, there's also inflation to account for.

And, for these types of players and contracts, the "back end" of their deal will be when they're 27-29. The risk is really, really minimal compared to free agent contracts, which are you usually similar in length yet handed out to players who are ALREADY 29.

And, like you said, the risk is also significantly higher with pitchers. These types of deals for position players nearly always produce surplus value for the team.

[BINGLEBOP]

I would like you to go deeper into this, I will await your article on the fangraphs site.

Wonderful idea! I second this motion.

[HoustonGM]

Fangraphs article on Bruce extension

[BINGLEBOP]

Where does it say Erik Smith? I don't support imitators like this Matt Klaassen child.

[ragecage]

Fangraphs article on Bruce extension

Man you are fast with those articles.

[HoustonGM]

Yeah, I linked that before having seen ragecage's post. :|

[BINGLEBOP]

Man you are fast with those articles.

Ohhhh, I get it. "Matt Klaassen" is his alt on Fangraphs. Clever!