DaveW: Dodgers trade for Dozier to be completed within the next 24 hours

[Otto von Ballpark]

How about if next July Dozier has a .900 OPS, and the Dodgers have a giant sucking hole at second base. They are below .500 against LH pitching and trail the Giants by 3 games in the NLW?

 

The Dodgers will give the Twins the keys to Hollywood.

 

Leverage is fluid, and can flow both ways.

Dozier didn't even have a .900 OPS in 2016.

 

Obviously anyone can make up a scenario where the leverage shifts to favor the Twins, but that is pretty meaningless without accounting for likelihood. And you scenario is probably not among the more likely.

 

Plus, I could add a variety of factors to your scenario that could largely neutralize the Twins leverage. What if the Dodgers rotation is banged up again, and De Leon and Stewart are already up and contributing? Unlikely the Dodgers subtract from their MLB club significantly to add Dozier, so those guys could probably be more untouchable than they are now. What if the Mets are out of it and make Neil Walker available? What if Forsythe or Solarte has a strong first half and Tampa and San Diego show their usual aggressiveness toward trading? What if the Tigers are out of the race and Kinsler has a change of heart about his extension demands? If any of those things happen, it could largely neutralize the leverage bonus from Dozier's performance

[doscinco]

This has nothing to do with you. I just hate when Rosenthal/Heyman/others use that line of thinking.

During the offseason, when no market forms, it's always:

Dozier (or any player) can be held until the deadline when teams get desperate.

At the deadline, when no market forms, it's always:

Dozier (or any player) can be held until the offseason when 29 teams can bid for his services.

 

It's a scam to increase viewership. The reality is that a market forms when a market forms. The fit between the Dodgers and Twins seems natural on the surface but the longer this drags on, the more I feel like Friedman is using the Twins as the fluffer (watch Unfinished Business if you don't understand). As a Dodger fan, I have no problem with this. If Colletti were still the GM I could see that fool sending JDL, Alvarez, and Urias. Fortunately Friedman isn't Colletti.

The team that holds the best player typically always has the advantage/leverage, though this is a weird case because the Dodgers are the only team showing serious interest on a good player.

[drjim]

Dozier didn't even have a .900 OPS in 2016.

 

Obviously anyone can make up a scenario where the leverage shifts to favor the Twins, but that is pretty meaningless without accounting for likelihood. And you scenario is probably not among the more likely.

 

Plus, I could add a variety of factors to your scenario that could largely neutralize the Twins leverage. What if the Dodgers rotation is banged up again, and De Leon and Stewart are already up and contributing? Unlikely the Dodgers subtract from their MLB club significantly to add Dozier, so those guys could probably be more untouchable than they are now. What if the Mets are out of it and make Neil Walker available? What if Forsythe or Solarte has a strong first half and Tampa and San Diego show their usual aggressiveness toward trading? What if the Tigers are out of the race and Kinsler has a change of heart about his extension demands? If any of those things happen, it could largely neutralize the leverage bonus from Dozier's performance

Agree with this. Twins don't have to trade Dozier for less than they think he's worth, but their leverage is almost certainly not getting better.

 

There is a reason the expected return is pretty consistent across the national people.

 

My personal speculation is they are close, which is why we aren't hearing much.

[DodgerFan1234]

I'll give you guys a little bit of the psychology of Dodger fans. A memory burned into the mind of every Dodger fan over 30.

 

Dodgers have a gaping hole at 2nd base. They have a plethora of pitching options to trade on the farm. They fill that hole with a guy that's been pretty good the last few years in exchange for a mid-rotation guy with some size/injury concerns. What could possibly go wrong? *cough*Pedro Martinez*cough*Delino Deshields*cough*

[gunnarthor]

 

The team that holds the best player typically always has the advantage/leverage, though this is a weird case because the Dodgers are the only team showing serious interest on a good player.

Well that's not necessarily true, Heyman has reported other teams are interested.  Not many rumors of ANY team are actually out there.  Both Heyman and Passan have tweeted about Dodger interest and De Leon but that's about it. The rest is from Dave.  So, for all we know, the Twins are talking to the Yankees instead of the Dodgers.  Obviously, the Dodgers make the most sense but I would be very surprised if other teams aren't sniffing around. 

 

 

[USAFChief]

That is possible, but dependent on a lot of ifs.

As is the quote I replied to.

[Mr. Brooks]

As is the quote I replied to.

The quote you responded to only depends on 1 of many possible ifs for Santana to lose value.

Your scenario depends on ALL the ifs happening.

[mudcat14]

I strongly disagree with some of theses post's about the probability of Dozier regressing if the Twins hang on to him.  I'll allow that he's unlikely to blast 42 dingers again, but I expect his overall numbers to increase as a healthy veteran amidst his prime years.  It's very reasonable to believe that the line-up around him will offer him greater opportunities to produce runs than he has had in the past.  The youngsters as a group, particularly Buxton, Sano, Kepler & Polanco, will mature into consistent offensive threats (perhaps even more.)  Their physical tools have been on display since they were drafted or signed, and each has shown a consistent progression through their years in the system.  Throw in Rosario, Vargas, Park and even D. Santana and obviously some will suffer setbacks, but as group their overall production will be better, guaranteed.  As long as veterans Mauer, Escobar and Castro don't totally tank, a stronger line-up will allow Dozier to maintain his on-field value into next season and the trade deadline.    

[USAFChief]

Dozier didn't even have a .900 OPS in 2016.

Obviously anyone can make up a scenario where the leverage shifts to favor the Twins, but that is pretty meaningless without accounting for likelihood. And you scenario is probably not among the more likely.

Plus, I could add a variety of factors to your scenario that could largely neutralize the Twins leverage. What if the Dodgers rotation is banged up again, and De Leon and Stewart are already up and contributing? Unlikely the Dodgers subtract from their MLB club significantly to add Dozier, so those guys could probably be more untouchable than they are now. What if the Mets are out of it and make Neil Walker available? What if Forsythe or Solarte has a strong first half and Tampa and San Diego show their usual aggressiveness toward trading? What if the Tigers are out of the race and Kinsler has a change of heart about his extension demands? If any of those things happen, it could largely neutralize the leverage bonus from Dozier's performance

What if, what if, what if?

 

That's the point. If the Dodgers need Dozier more than the Twins do, then pay up.

 

"We need to trade Dozier this winter" is a bad way to run a ball club. Particularly when there doesn't appear to be a lot of teams currently in the market.

 

Unless there's a good chance a trade makes the 2017 Twins better, don't do it.

[Mr. Brooks]

I strongly disagree with some of theses post's about the probability of Dozier regressing if the Twins hang on to him. I'll allow that he's unlikely to blast 42 dingers again, but I expect his overall numbers to increase as a healthy veteran amidst his prime years. It's very reasonable to believe that the line-up around him will offer him greater opportunities to produce runs than he has had in the past. The youngsters as a group, particularly Buxton, Sano, Kepler & Polanco, will mature into consistent offensive threats (perhaps even more.) Their physical tools have been on display since they were drafted or signed, and each has shown a consistent progression through their years in the system. Throw in Rosario, Vargas, Park and even D. Santana and obviously some will suffer setbacks, but as group their overall production will be better, guaranteed. As long as veterans Mauer, Escobar and Castro don't totally tank, a stronger line-up will allow Dozier to maintain his on-field value into next season and the trade deadline.

Even if he keeps up his performance, he still loses value.

Why would anyone pay as much for 1.5 years of production as they would for 2 years? If he is a 5 WAR player, that is 2.5 wins that a team is forfeiting by waiting until the deadline instead of getting him now.

[Mr. Brooks]

What if, what if, what if?

 

That's the point. If the Dodgers need Dozier more than the Twins do, then pay up.

 

"We need to trade Dozier this winter" is a bad way to run a ball club. Particularly when there doesn't appear to be a lot of teams currently in the market.

 

Unless there's a good chance a trade makes the 2017 Twins better, don't do it.

A trade that makes us better in 2017 is virtually impossible.

Any team trading for Dozier wants to improve next year, so nobody is subtracting current production to get him.

I think a GM has to take a longer view than just next season. Especially coming off a 103 loss season.

I respect your consistency in thinking we can compete next year, but I hope the FO doesn't share it.

[TheLeviathan]

God I hope these negotiations have absolutely no care for 2017.  Screw next year, this is a move to be a World Series contender in the future when it may actually happen.

 

Worrying about 2017 screws us into an even bigger hole.

[Squirrel]

 

What if, what if, what if?

That's the point. If the Dodgers need Dozier more than the Twins do, then pay up.

"We need to trade Dozier this winter" is a bad way to run a ball club. Particularly when there doesn't appear to be a lot of teams currently in the market.

Unless there's a good chance a trade makes the 2017 Twins better, don't do it.

This. If the Dodgers need and want him, pay up. If not, then carry on. This whole concept of the Twins being desperate for pitching, while yes, not untrue that they need pitching, but if we are going into a trade scenario expressing OUR desperation, where is the leverage in that? Our new FO said from the very beginning ... pay up or no go. If it ends up being a no go, then the FO held their ground and the Dodgers obviously didn't give them a package worthy enough. That is not a failure, imo. All these rumors of what this trade includes is just that ... rumors. While I do trust that Dave was told certain information, and he has shared that information in good faith, I don't necessarily trust the source because I don't personally know exactly who his source is. But I do find it interesting that some of the same names he mentioned are being floated elsewhere, but again ... I'm not a fly on the wall and neither is anyone else.

[mudcat14]

 

Even if he keeps up his performance, he still loses value.
Why would anyone pay as much for 1.5 years of production as they would for 2 years? If he is a 5 WAR player, that is 2.5 wins that a team is forfeiting by waiting until the deadline instead of getting him now.

 

Agreed.  That's why I said he would maintain his 'on-field' value.  Though in terms of the Dodgers or any other big market team, I'm not sure that 2 years of control @ $15mil, or 1.5 years @ $12mil makes that much difference.

[mudcat14]

 

Agreed.  That's why I said he would maintain his 'on-field' value.  Though in terms of the Dodgers or any other big market team, I'm not sure that 2 years of control @ $15mil, or 1.5 years @ $12mil makes that much difference.

 

Sorry.  Just reread your comment.  You weren't referring to the cost, you were talking about wins.  Can't disagree.  Hopefully someone will be a couple of games back, and desperation will increase their willingness to part with prospects.  I guess that's another unpredictable factor in trade negotiations.  In December you can always assume that you will have time to fill a hole with a usable piece.  In July when looking up in live standings, the need gets much more urgent. 

[Mr. Brooks]

This. If the Dodgers need and want him, pay up. If not, then carry on. This whole concept of the Twins being desperate for pitching, while yes, not untrue that they need pitching, but if we are going into a trade scenario expressing OUR desperation, where is the leverage in that? Our new FO said from the very beginning ... pay up or no go. If it ends up being a no go, then the FO held their ground and the Dodgers obviously didn't give them a package worthy enough. That is not a failure, imo. All these rumors of what this trade includes is just that ... rumors. While I do trust that Dave was told certain information, and he has shared that information in good faith, I don't necessarily trust the source because I don't personally know exactly who his source is. But I do find it interesting that some of the same names he mentioned is being floated elsewhere, but again ... I'm not a fly on the wall and neither is anyone else.

Except we won't actually know that it didn't happen because the Dodgers weren't willing to pay up.

It could be that the Twins had unrealistic demands for a return.

[Mr. Brooks]

Sorry. Just reread your comment. You weren't referring to the cost, you were talking about wins. Can't disagree. Hopefully someone will be a couple of games back, and desperation will increase their willingness to part with prospects. I guess that's another unpredictable factor in trade negotiations. In December you can always assume that you will have time to fill a hole with a usable piece. In July when looking up in live standings, the need gets much more urgent.

I get your theory, I'm just not sure there is actually any evidence that the trade deadline overpay actually happens all that often.

[Squirrel]

 

Except we won't actually know that it didn't happen because the Dodgers weren't willing to pay up.
It could be that the Twins had unrealistic demands for a return.

We won't know either way ... so there shouldn't be praise or condemnation if it doesn't go through. I'd be more willing to praise or condemn an actual trade because that is an actuality and no longer speculation. Then again, if it's prospects, the immediate excitement or disappointment can't really be judged until pieces either work out or don't. And again, we don't know how it came to where it is, so any praise or condemnation won't include what they should or shouldn't have gotten. Yeah, i'm boring that way ... just can't do the speculation thing and then get upset over speculation.

[Major League Ready]

 

A trade that makes us better in 2017 is virtually impossible.
Any team trading for Dozier wants to improve next year, so nobody is subtracting current production to get him.
I think a GM has to take a longer view than just next season. Especially coming off a 103 loss season.
I respect your consistency in thinking we can compete next year, but I hope the FO doesn't share it.

Dont' worry ... For the most part, any trade that would make us better in 2017 would involve trading players considered to be part of our young core or our very best minor league prospects.  There is not a front office in all of baseball that would take that tact coming off 103 losses and holes all over the team, not to mention a horrible pitching staff.  A short term focus would be horrendously incompetent.  Again, not to worry because Lavine and Falvey had been very clear that they are taking a patient/long-term approach.

 

The one exception might be to trade Santana for a position player.

[HitInAPinch]

So, Dozier has been traded??

[nytwinsfan]

 

So, Dozier has been traded??

 

Link?

[HitInAPinch]

 

Link?

Oops.  Typo.  Has Dozier been traded??

[diehardtwinsfan]

 

Except we won't actually know that it didn't happen because the Dodgers weren't willing to pay up.
It could be that the Twins had unrealistic demands for a return.

 

All we need is a guy from the Indians organization who has Falvey's password and can dump the contents of the super secret Twins DB into the public for the world to see.

[nytwinsfan]

 

Oops.  Typo.  Has Dozier been traded??

No.

[gunnarthor]

Heyman mentioned the Giants have interest but probably not a fit.

 

[Squirrel]

 

Heyman mentioned the Giants have interest but probably not a fit.

 

I wonder if that's a way for the Giants to push the Dodgers to give up more for him?

[USAFChief]

God I hope these negotiations have absolutely no care for 2017. Screw next year, this is a move to be a World Series contender in the future when it may actually happen.

 

Worrying about 2017 screws us into an even bigger hole.

Not one person here, nor the "experts" for that matter, can predict with any degree of accuracy what the 2017 season will look like. Much less what any specific player will do. And you think you can predict what a current minor leaguer will be five years from now?

 

So I'm skeptical that it makes much sense for a major league team to operate under the premise that adding 2 or 3 specific minor leaguers in December 2016 makes the 2021 World Series more likely by any significant amount.

 

The most likely result of that trade would be to make the 2017 Twins worse while having little to no effect on the 2021 team. That's the nature of iffy minor league players...and make no mistake, EVERY rumored return is still in the "iffy" category.

 

So I think you have to have a good chance for immediate benefit, and DeLeon is a start on that, or you keep Dozier and the Dodgers can just go blank themselves.

[Hosken Bombo Disco]

 

Dozier didn't even have a .900 OPS in 2016.

Obviously anyone can make up a scenario where the leverage shifts to favor the Twins, but that is pretty meaningless without accounting for likelihood. And you scenario is probably not among the more likely.

Plus, I could add a variety of factors to your scenario that could largely neutralize the Twins leverage. What if the Dodgers rotation is banged up again, and De Leon and Stewart are already up and contributing? Unlikely the Dodgers subtract from their MLB club significantly to add Dozier, so those guys could probably be more untouchable than they are now. What if the Mets are out of it and make Neil Walker available? What if Forsythe or Solarte has a strong first half and Tampa and San Diego show their usual aggressiveness toward trading? What if the Tigers are out of the race and Kinsler has a change of heart about his extension demands? If any of those things happen, it could largely neutralize the leverage bonus from Dozier's performance

And what if all that is true, and meanwhile the Twins are 15-20 games over .500 and don't even want to part with Dozier after all?

 

Oh I forgot that's impossible  

[mudcat14]

 

I get your theory, I'm just not sure there is actually any evidence that the trade deadline overpay actually happens all that often.

 

Maybe not too often, but it does happen.  Wilson Ramos for Matt Capps?

[Hosken Bombo Disco]

 

Dont' worry ... For the most part, any trade that would make us better in 2017 would involve trading players considered to be part of our young core or our very best minor league prospects.  There is not a front office in all of baseball that would take that tact coming off 103 losses and holes all over the team, not to mention a horrible pitching staff.  A short term focus would be horrendously incompetent.  Again, not to worry because Lavine and Falvey had been very clear that they are taking a patient/long-term approach.

 

The one exception might be to trade Santana for a position player.

Just curious, but where are the "holes all over the team" not counting pitching? I see many young guys who have yet to play full seasons at their positions, but I do not see "holes" per se, and certainly not all over.