Article: Dozier's Not Jerking Around

[Brock Beauchamp]

The Minnesota Twins in August:

 

.798 OPS, 2nd in the AL.

 

5.69 ERA, 14th in the AL (props to the Angels for somehow being worse than this team).

 

9-12 record.

 

So, yeah, you kinda have to trade Dozier for pitching. Not catching, not another positional player... Pitching. It's risky but when your rotation has this little upside, it's a move you need to consider.

 

This trend isn't going to reverse by itself. Yeah, maybe Berrios gets better. Maybe you put May in the rotation. Maybe Santana holds steady. If everything goes right, this rotation is league average.

 

One needs to aim a little higher than that.

[Jham]

The Minnesota Twins in August:

 

.798 OPS, 2nd in the AL.

 

5.69 ERA, 14th in the AL (props to the Angels for somehow being worse than this team).

 

9-12 record.

 

So, yeah, you kinda have to trade Dozier for pitching. Not catching, not another positional player... Pitching. It's risky but when your rotation has this little upside, it's a move you need to consider.

 

This trend isn't going to reverse by itself. Yeah, maybe Berrios gets better. Maybe you put May in the rotation. Maybe Santana holds steady. If everything goes right, this rotation is league average.

 

One needs to aim a little higher than that.

"I've been a proponent of trading Dozier for awhile for the reason everyone has started: pitching. However, this would in my mind, mean extending Plouffe. I also assume he was made available at the deadline to at least test the market. He is still with us, and 2nd base is one of the deepest positions in baseball.

 

So there is 1 more way to get top line pitching without giving up Dozier. The royals built their staffs by trading prospects. See which prospects the market over values and deal. To me, this is less desirable than getting a getting a horse for Dozier, but if Brian can't generate the return, we have to look at other options.

[USAFChief]

I think it's tough to trade Dozier, but I'd do it if the return was a starter very likely to be the Twins best starter as soon as 2017, 2018 at the latest.

 

In general, I am very leery of trading established position players for potential pitching. It's just very difficult to know what you're getting with young pitchers. Very difficult.

 

But in this case, as others have pointed out, I don't know where else needed pitching comes fom, Dozier has a lot of trade value, and Polanco makes trading a Dozier less risky.

[Vanimal46]

 

So there is 1 more way to get top line pitching without giving up Dozier. The royals built their staffs by trading prospects. See which prospects the market over values and deal. To me, this is less desirable than getting a getting a horse for Dozier, but if Brian can't generate the return, we have to look at other options.

Unfortunately we're coming up a little short in the position player prospect category to acquire a difference making ace type pitcher. Unless Buxton is our version of Wil Myers for somebody else's James Shields. 

[Jham]

 

Unfortunately we're coming up a little short in the position player prospect category to acquire a difference making ace type pitcher. Unless Buxton is our version of Wil Myers for somebody else's James Shields.


That's the problem in a nutshell. We don't really have a good array of tradable prospects that are going to get us an established starter and trading prospects for pitching prospects is a risky bet. The best that happens if you're lucky if you trade for a pitching prospects is to get someone Who develops into a solid starter in a few years. It's going to be very difficult to get an established starter by trading anyone we have, including Dozier. It's the reason we havexpect to keep Santana. I think the better move is to keep Dozier and hope we can continue to score a lot of runs next year and that we get some improvement from the Young starters.

I almost forgot because I was hammered so hard in the "Trade Sano?" thread, but he'd probably bring a haul including potentially several top end starters and probably some MLB ready pitching as well.  We're brilliant if he's Delmon 2.0, prolly a wash if he's Prince Fielder 2.0, and morons if he's Chris Davis 2.0.  Assuming we're able to get something like Chris Archer or Chris Sale 1.0 and not Chris Benson 2.0...

[wsnydes]

 

Can this team contend in 2017?  That's the question that has to be answered. If the answer is no (and I suspect they could be a pretender in 2017 if this second half turn around is to be believed), then I don't see a logical scenario where we keep BD short of an extension.  I like him, don't get me wrong, but with Polanco doing well right now and no real place to play (I'm not one to give up on Escobar just yet and with Gordon likely starting in AA next season, a replacement isn't that far away). 

 

This is the exact reasoning as to why I think the only logical answer is to trade him.  It makes no sense at all, in my view, to keep him around.  I like him, but this team has too many needs to hold onto a high value piece at this point in time.

[jimmer]

 

This is the exact reasoning as to why I think the only logical answer is to trade him.  It makes no sense at all, in my view, to keep him around.  I like him, but this team has too many needs to hold onto a high value piece at this point in time.

But certainly with the top notch farm system Ryan built, we have all the prospects we need :-)

Edited August 24, 2016 by jimmer

[wsnydes]

 

So there is 1 more way to get top line pitching without giving up Dozier. The royals built their staffs by trading prospects. See which prospects the market over values and deal. To me, this is less desirable than getting a getting a horse for Dozier, but if Brian can't generate the return, we have to look at other options.

The issue with this approach is that this team needs most of the prospects they have to improve.  Most of the veterans on this squad won't and can't be a factor in the resurgence of the team.  The Royals had their core group of prospects come up a few years before and just hadn't peaked yet.  They filled in a few holes via free agency and traded prospect depth for pitching.  I don't feel that this team in is that type of situation.

[wsnydes]

 

But certainly with the top notch farm system Ryan built, we have all the prospects we need :-)

Since that's obviously the case, you've got to make room for all of those prospects on the big league roster!  

Edited August 24, 2016 by wsnydes

[Jham]

 

The issue with this approach is that this team needs most of the prospects they have to improve.  Most of the veterans on this squad won't and can't be a factor in the resurgence of the team.  The Royals had their core group of prospects come up a few years before and just hadn't peaked yet.  They filled in a few holes via free agency and traded prospect depth for pitching.  I don't feel that this team in is that type of situation.

So the plan is to just cross our fingers while we sit and wait and hope for improvement?  How many years of Sano, Kepler, Buxton, and Berrios are we willing to waste hoping that other prospects catch up, or that those 4 actually move forward instead of stalling out?  Could we have built a winner or rebuilt faster if we traded 1, 2, all of them for more/better/safer talent?  I don't know.  But as I've said before, if this core is good enough, why wouldn't we expect to compete in the next season or two?  If this core is not good enough, then dear God, please trade some of these guys to teams who still think Buxton = young Trout, Sano = young Cabby, or Berrios = young vote for Pedro.  

[wsnydes]

 

So the plan is to just cross our fingers while we sit and wait and hope for improvement?  How many years of Sano, Kepler, Buxton, and Berrios are we willing to waste hoping that other prospects catch up, or that those 4 actually move forward instead of stalling out?  Could we have built a winner or rebuilt faster if we traded 1, 2, all of them for more/better/safer talent?  I don't know.  But as I've said before, if this core is good enough, why wouldn't we expect to compete in the next season or two?  If this core is not good enough, then dear God, please trade some of these guys to teams who still think Buxton = young Trout, Sano = young Cabby, or Berrios = young vote for Pedro.  

No, I think you're missing my point a bit.  I'm not suggesting that they don't move any of them at all or ever.  My point is that in order to rebuild, they need most of them because they have nothing at the MLB level now.  That's why they're putrid.  They aren't going to compete next year and perhaps even the year after.  The prospects are just now coming onto the big stage.  To expect them to be world beaters right away isn't realistic.  You used the Royals as an example.  When the Royals started moving prospects, the Gordon's and Moustakas' of the world had been in the league for a few years.  Their core was established at the MLB level and the team just needed pitching and to fill a few holes.  This Twins team is not at all in that position.  Nothing, and I mean that literally, nothing is established from the front office to the coaching staff to where Sano is going to be in the field if at all.  It may and hopefully will be in a year or two and then they can start filling holes by using prospects as currency.  Trading prospects now seems foolhardy and putting the cart before the horse.  Not enough of the prospects are here and those that are are hardly shoe in's to stay.  That's where trading Dozier is ideal.  He's established, he's valuable, he's blocking a prospect, and he can bring talent in without touching your core group of prospects that haven't even gotten to the big leagues yet.  If adding a prospect to a Dozier deal gets you an ace, then you consider it.  But this team has far too many holes and question marks to start dealing multiple prospects like the Royals did.  Two very different situations.

 

Buxton, Sano, and Berrios could all be stellar and this team could still suck.  But those are only 3 guys.  The other 22 need to be good too in order to compete.  Berrios would only pitch every 5 days.  What about the rest of the staff?  If this team had veteran talent of worth, they wouldn't be threatening 100 losses and a 5th 90+ loss season in their last 6.  That's just reality.  

Edited August 24, 2016 by wsnydes

[jimmer]

 

If this team had veteran talent of worth, they wouldn't be threatening 100 losses and a 5th 90+ loss season in their last 6.  That's just reality.  

The Twins may not hit 100 losses, but they have to win at least 24 out of their final 37 games to avoid losing at least 90 games.  I don't like the odds of the Twins avoiding at least another 90 loss season.

Edited August 24, 2016 by jimmer

[wsnydes]

 

The Twins may not hit 100 losses, but they have to win at least 24 out of their final 37 games to avoid losing at least 90 games.  I don't like the odds of the Twins avoiding at least another 90 loss season.

Agreed.  That's why I think trading prospects at this point makes no sense.  If this team had core talent of a contender, they wouldn't be in this position.  Once the prospects emerge and establish themselves, then you can start dealing some.  For all we know, all of them come up and are legit and you won't need to wheel and deal.  I don't see that happening, but it's possible.

 

I'm not sure i see this team winning 15 of their last 37 let alone 24.  They're streaky, but trend towards deep valleys and moderate peaks.  I'd love to be wrong about that though.

[Jham]

 

Agreed.  That's why I think trading prospects at this point makes no sense.  If this team had core talent of a contender, they wouldn't be in this position.  Once the prospects emerge and establish themselves, then you can start dealing some.  For all we know, all of them come up and are legit and you won't need to wheel and deal.  I don't see that happening, but it's possible.

 

I'm not sure i see this team winning 15 of their last 37 let alone 24.  They're streaky, but trend towards deep valleys and moderate peaks.  I'd love to be wrong about that though.

I agree on trading Dozier.  I just think he returns a lot less than Sano or possibly Buxton, and might put up similar or more production over the next few years.  

Let's say no one offers much for Dozier, like we tried to deal him at the deadline but couldn't.  Do we trade him just to make way for Polanco, a fine but probably slightly less valuable 2b?  We potentially just made our team worse for no reason.  Let's say we think Sano is what he is and other than a career year here and there, probably will be a good but not great slugger without a position?  Or that Buxton is still 3 years away from ever being a decent hitter, and that his speed may be dampened by injuries by then?  

My memory of the Royals may be a little different.  I remember people thinking they were further away then they were and criticizing their win now moves.  Again, if we don't expect to compete for 3 more years, then Sano, Buxton, Berrios, and Kepler probably weren't as good as we hoped, and not good enough to plan around.  We're middle of the road as far as runs go.  The pitching needs to improve drastically.  If they do, we're contenders.  
 

[wsnydes]

 

I agree on trading Dozier.  I just think he returns a lot less than Sano or possibly Buxton, and might put up similar or more production over the next few years.  

Let's say no one offers much for Dozier, like we tried to deal him at the deadline but couldn't.  Do we trade him just to make way for Polanco, a fine but probably slightly less valuable 2b?  We potentially just made our team worse for no reason.  Let's say we think Sano is what he is and other than a career year here and there, probably will be a good but not great slugger without a position?  Or that Buxton is still 3 years away from ever being a decent hitter, and that his speed may be dampened by injuries by then?  

My memory of the Royals may be a little different.  I remember people thinking they were further away then they were and criticizing their win now moves.  Again, if we don't expect to compete for 3 more years, then Sano, Buxton, Berrios, and Kepler probably weren't as good as we hoped, and not good enough to plan around.  We're middle of the road as far as runs go.  The pitching needs to improve drastically.  If they do, we're contenders.  
 

Part of the reason to trade Dozier is also because many, myself included, don't see him as the 2B when this team does start peaking.  So take advantage of that and move him now for someone that will help you at that time.  It's not just to make room for Polanco.  Secondly, many, myself included, feel that Polanco is a better fit offensively for this club in the future.  Dozier's power is nice, but if some of the prospects pan out, power isn't a problem.  Guys on base is, and that is what Polcano brings.  He's less valuable now, but may not be by the time this team peaks.

 

I think you're correct on the Royals feeling like they were further away.  That's never been my point.  A couple of their core group hadn't taken off or were still inconsistent.  But again, they had been in the big leagues for a few years already.  They were established.  Nobody on this team is that.  Sano is the closest and just a few weeks ago there was talk of sending him down.  Kepler will likely regress in his sophomore year.  Berrios hasn't shown that he can show the same command that he did in the minors.  Buxton is currently in the minors.  This simply isn't the same situation.  The 2013 team, the year before their magical WS run that ended in a loss, won 86 games.  This team is about to lose 100.

 

I don't believe that it's reasonable to expect this team to compete next year at all.  The year after, maybe.  That's not a reflection at all on Buxton, Sano, Kepler, or Berrios.  This team has no pitching.  The offense, while inconsistent now, has shown signs of life.  It's the pitching that is largely the issue.  Until they can build a staff, this team will not compete like you said.  Trading a Buxton or a Sano can help, but they won't fill the hole completely enough to really matter.  You'd have to trade several of the young stars to acquire enough pitching to seriously compete.  At that point, you just gutted your farm system and still have nothing left at the major league level.  I just think you're putting too much stock in 4 guys when there are 21 others that still have a ways to go.  I think its unreasonable and unrealistic to expect a team that will flirt with 100 losses to be able to be legit contenders next year.  If the chips fall right, they could in two years, but things have to fall their way.  Even if the four guys you mentioned are all-stars, if the rest of the team isn't following behind them then it's not going to matter.  You're putting too much stock in what a few players can do to carry a team.  You have these guys under control for a handful of years yet, there's no reason to panic and try to peak before their ready to.

Edited August 25, 2016 by wsnydes

[Jham]

 

I just think you're putting too much stock in 4 guys when there are 21 others that still have a ways to go.  I think its unreasonable and unrealistic to expect a team that will flirt with 100 losses to be able to be legit contenders next year.  If the chips fall right, they could in two years, but things have to fall their way.  Even if the four guys you mentioned are all-stars, if the rest of the team isn't following behind them then it's not going to matter.  You're putting too much stock in what a few players can do to carry a team.  You have these guys under control for a handful of years yet, there's no reason to panic and try to peak before their ready to.

This part I disagree with.  We're middle of the pack in runs with Kepler only giving half a season, Sano being mostly just ok while hurting us defensively, and Berrios and Buxton giving negative contributions.  I don't think you're putting enough stock in the other 11 position players.  If Sano bounces back and hits 35 next year, Kepler doesn't regress (not as much a given as you think), and Berrios finds himself, we could be decent and we'd forget about missing Nick Gordon for a few years.  Berrios would then be the only player we would be depending on to take a big jump.  Let's say we dealt Buxton and Gordon for Sale.  Sale, Santana, Berrios, Mejia, May/Hughes....  Potential upgrades at 4/5 spots without sacrificing anything from this year's offense (Nunez is already gone).  It's not without risk, obviously this is a bold move, and just an example for example's sake, but I want to see what the young kids can do with some real pitching.  I think the defeatest mentality hurts development.  If the organization says 2-3 years, what incentive do our players have to play hard and get better tomorrow?  They don't have to really compete hard and focus in for a couple years yet.  

[wsnydes]

 

This part I disagree with.  We're middle of the pack in runs with Kepler only giving half a season, Sano being mostly just ok while hurting us defensively, and Berrios and Buxton giving negative contributions.  I don't think you're putting enough stock in the other 11 position players.  If Sano bounces back and hits 35 next year, Kepler doesn't regress (not as much a given as you think), and Berrios finds himself, we could be decent and we'd forget about missing Nick Gordon for a few years.  Berrios would then be the only player we would be depending on to take a big jump.  Let's say we dealt Buxton and Gordon for Sale.  Sale, Santana, Berrios, Mejia, May/Hughes....  Potential upgrades at 4/5 spots without sacrificing anything from this year's offense (Nunez is already gone).  It's not without risk, obviously this is a bold move, and just an example for example's sake, but I want to see what the young kids can do with some real pitching.  I think the defeatest mentality hurts development.  If the organization says 2-3 years, what incentive do our players have to play hard and get better tomorrow?  They don't have to really compete hard and focus in for a couple years yet.  

"Decent" is not contending.  I'm not worried as much about the position players.  Like you say, they're in the middle of the pack offensively.  There are plenty of question marks though.  Of the four guys you keep referring to, only one is a pitcher.  That's where this teams greatest weakness lies.  The only pitcher that can be counted on right now is Santana, and he may be a trade target himself.  Berrios is no guarantee to be reliable next year at this point.  Might he be?  Sure.  The team may decide to let Gibson walk.  Meijia just made his major league debut and sent back to the minors, albeit for innings limit reasons.  The team can't make up its mind on May.  Hughes is far from anything certain.  Even if they acquire someone like Sale, an ace doesn't put this team over the top.  That's my greatest point.  There are so many holes and question marks on this team, that acquiring Sandy Koufax in his prime doesn't turn this team into a contender.  I haven't even gotten to the bullpen.  Who's the closer?  Who are the setup guys?  Who can be counted on at all?  There are a crop of young bullpen arms ready or nearly ready, but most of them haven't sniffed the majors yet.  And all of them are anything but certain to be reliable let alone expect them to be.

 

My general point is this.  It's not a defeatest attitude to say that expecting a 100 loss team can suddenly emerge as a serious contender the following year.  That's called reality.  They don't have most of the pieces in place and riddled by injuries.  Most of the pieces aren't even in the majors yet.  Is it possible?  Sure, they could catch lightning in a bottle.  I too want to see what these young kids can do with real pitching.  But that's the problem.  There isn't any real pitching on this team.

 

You ask what the players have to play for in the next 2 or 3 years if this club isn't planning on competing?  How about their jobs?  In the case of the prospects, their careers.  That's one reason you get rid of the veterans, they don't necessarily have the stomach to rebuild.  The prospects are playing to stay in the big leagues and playing to establish themselves for the long haul and to make a ton of cash.  If they aren't competing in three years, there's a big problem.  I'd expect them to have a good 2nd half of the 2018 season as well, setting up a legitimate contender in 2019.

 

I'd be right there with you and all over acquiring an ace if this team was a piece or two away from being a legitimate contender for a championship, but they aren't.  They're nowhere near that yet.  I'm a season ticket holder, my patience with this crap is long gone.  Yet, I still don't want them to literally sell the farm in order to acquire pieces that won't have a real impact next year.  You've been comparing a team that came off of an 86 win season to a team that is fighting to not lose 100 games.  They just aren't the same situation.  I'd be absolutely elated if this team were to get to around .500 next season.  That isn't a contending team.  Get to that point, then go make a splash with a trade or two.  At that point, you can also look to have an extended run of excellence.

 

I know that we don't see eye to eye on this, but this has been enjoyable.  I do think you bring up some valid points.  I just think that the moves you suggest come a year too soon.

[jimmer]

The problem with being okay with the position players because our offense is 9th in the AL out of 15 in scoring is that these are the same guys who also play the field and our defense is 14th in the AL.  So now we are looking at our position players being ranked 11th out of 15.

Edited August 25, 2016 by jimmer