Players have fans, they buy their Jerseys and like to see them play. I have had several less fanatical Twins fans than me this fall/early winter tell me "why would they trade their only decent player?" and question whether they would even be interested in going next year if he isn't on the team. Those types of fans would be less likely to go to games without Dozier.

 

This team does not have many good to great players right now. Attendance will be hurt, especially early in the season, by trading their best player because the assumption is we will be bad/worse without him. Also, fans will go to see someone on a 90 loss team who is hitting 40 home runs from 2nd base. Attendance would have been down more without him this past fall.

 

Heck, want evidence? I've gone to games just because Radke or Johan were pitching. I went to games just to see what Thome would do. I drove to Cedar Rapids to see Buxton. People do go just for a person.Yes Spycake, overall record is the key factor but there is a point at which a trade is just not worth it.

We're talking about maybe a couple more walk-up sales for tickets. No one is buying season tickets to watch Brian Dozier or any other player. 

And I'm willing to bet a ton of money that the less fanatical fans will eagerly buy tickets no matter who is on the team if they were on a win streak and/or contending for a playoff spot. 

 

Their offense was pretty blah, actually.  7th in NL in runs, 98 OPS+ is a bit low for a playoff team.  And they got some huge years from some players, too.  Obviously, their home park suppresses offense a bit but I was still surprised.  With that lineup, I just figured they were better than they really were.

The Dodgers pitchers hitting (-23 wRC+) was actually by far the worst among playoff teams.  Not much they can do to fix that!

 

For non-pitchers, the Dodgers ranked 4th in the NL and 7th in MLB with a 105 wRC+, ahead of the Giants, Blue Jays, Nationals, Mets, Indians, Orioles, and Rangers among playoff teams:

 

http://www.fangraphs.com/leaders.aspx?pos=np&stats=bat&lg=all&qual=0&type=8&season=2016&month=0&season1=2016&ind=0&team=0,ts&rost=0&age=0&filter=&players=0&sort=16,d

Right, casual fans that go to one or two games aren't worth factoring in. If Dozier was going to lose 5000 season ticket packages, I guess maybe it's a factor.

 

But that isn't the case and as spy pointed out, the casual fan will just pick up a new casual favorite anyway.

More on splits:

 

Here are 2016 playoff team non-pitcher ranks in wRC+ overall: 1, 2, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 19

 

Here are their ranks vs LHP: 1, 4, 5, 7, 13, 17, 18, 22, 28, 30

 

By nature of the smaller sample, it's more spread out, and it also follows that it is more volatile (and less meaningful) year-to-year.  Again, not to say the Dodgers can't look to improve in that regard, but I would be surprised if it's a major area of emphasis at the moment.

 

FWIW, Dodgers non-pitchers ranked 3rd in all of MLB in wRC+ vs LHP in 2015, with a 118 mark, and 6th in 2014 at 111.

But, Your missing that he affects wins, season ticket holders AND casual fans. What percentage of attendance is casual fan vs season ticket? You combine the three to get overall effect and it becomes a factor. The question is how big a factor? You also have merchandise and the other ways that player impacts the team.

 

All of this is off the original point and that original point still stands. The amount of returns you get for trading a player vs keeping is factored into what you have to get back in return and if you are not getting enough in return there is a point at which keeping the player is better business. THAT was my point. 

 

The Dodgers pitchers hitting (-23 wRC+) was actually by far the worst among playoff teams.  Not much they can do to fix that!

 

For non-pitchers, the Dodgers ranked 4th in the NL and 7th in MLB with a 105 wRC+, ahead of the Giants, Blue Jays, Nationals, Mets, Indians, Orioles, and Rangers among playoff teams:

 

http://www.fangraphs.com/leaders.aspx?pos=np&stats=bat&lg=all&qual=0&type=8&season=2016&month=0&season1=2016&ind=0&team=0,ts&rost=0&age=0&filter=&players=0&sort=16,d

Yeah, that might be the reason.  Looking at their b-r page, their offensive players seemed pretty good and yet, meh.  Just another reason to get rid of the DH.

 

Yes Spycake, overall record is the key factor but there is a point at which a trade is just not worth it.

Of course there is a point at which a trade is just not worth it.  This whole discussion is about determining that point.  But evidence/logic suggests that Dozier's level of popularity has nothing to do with that determination.

Players have fans, they buy their Jerseys and like to see them play. I have had several less fanatical Twins fans than me this fall/early winter tell me "why would they trade their only decent player?" and question whether they would even be interested in going next year if he isn't on the team. Those types of fans would be less likely to go to games without Dozier.

 

This team does not have many good to great players right now. Attendance will be hurt, especially early in the season, by trading their best player because the assumption is we will be bad/worse without him. Also, fans will go to see someone on a 90 loss team who is hitting 40 home runs from 2nd base. Attendance would have been down more without him this past fall.

 

Heck, want evidence? I've gone to games just because Radke or Johan were pitching. I went to games just to see what Thome would do. I drove to Cedar Rapids to see Buxton. People do go just for a person.Yes Spycake, overall record is the key factor but there is a point at which a trade is just not worth it.

Anecdotes and tiny numbers do not move the needle. The data is all over the Internet if you are interested. The number of people that matter to the business is in wins and losses. Are there a few people here and there that care about one player? Sure. But those people are influenced greatly by marketing and individual success. If sano or buxton or polanco are marketed and good, these people will go see them. Or, all the data on line are wrong, or misleading.

Edited January 3, 20179 yr by Mike Sixel

 

We're talking about maybe a couple more walk-up sales for tickets. No one is buying season tickets to watch Brian Dozier or any other player. 

And I'm willing to bet a ton of money that the less fanatical fans will eagerly buy tickets no matter who is on the team if they were on a win streak and/or contending for a playoff spot. 

 

Was it Falvey that said "Get attached to winning, not players"?

 

I do agree that Doziers value to LA is increased because he hits lefties well. One of those dominant lefties could easily face that lineup twice in a NL series and shut it down. Now adding Dozier would help them out a ton as if he were to go 2-4 with HR 2RBI that would be huge for them in a playoff series as runs come at a premium. Also since they are elite pitchers I realize Dozier likely won't be great against them but he has a career .973 OPS vs Sale and an .829 OPS vs Quintana, so does still hit really good lefties well. Just a thought that should improve his worth to the Dodgers

 

Anecdotes and tiny numbers do not move the needle. The data is all over the Internet if you are interested. The number of people that matter to the business is in wins and losses. Are there a few people here and there that care about one player? Sure. But those people are influenced greatly by marketing and individual success. If sano or buxton or polanco are marketed and good, these people will go see them. Or, all the data on line are wrong, or misleading.

Data is almost always misleading if used the right way  but aside from the sarcasm, yeah, I am interested but have never seen the "evidence" if you have something handy to share...

 

Dozier had a career year.  OF COURSE there will be regression.  How much is the question.

Or maybe everything finally clicked with him and he is now coming to his prime years of production.

 

Or maybe everything finally clicked with him and he is now coming to his prime years of production.

Yes, while it's likely Dozier will regress in 2017, let's not forget that he posted a .634 OPS and only five home runs through the first 47 (!) games of the season.

 

He played 157 games last season so just a tick under 1/3rd of the season, he was a pretty bad hitter.

 

But... Dozier is a streaky hitter. We can't expect stabilization and a consistent, say, .750 OPS from month to month. His track record shows he's not that kind of hitter.

 

My point is that while Dozier had a (probably) career year in 2016, he doesn't need to mash like he did for the last 100 games of the season. If his "bad" months are a .670 OPS instead of a .620 OPS, his hot streaks don't need to be long or torrid to maintain a solid performance over the course of a year.

 

Time will tell but I'm not willing to accept significant regression as fact six weeks before pitchers and catchers report.

This is from the Fangraphs prospect chat today relating towards Yadier Alvarez:

Sonny

12:34 What is a realistic timeline for Yadi Alvarez in LA? Is 2017 too early?

 

Eric A Longenhagen
12:34 2017 probably way too fast, more like 2019 or 2020.

 

Or maybe everything finally clicked with him and he is now coming to his prime years of production.

 

Maybe he is, which would be great.

 

Question; if he does have a great first 4 months of 2017, do you offer him a contract extension? And if so, what years and money would you offer? Mind you, you would be offering him an extension for his age 32 and older seasons, starting the first year of free agency.

 

Maybe he is, which would be great.

 

Question; if he does have a great first 4 months of 2017, do you offer him a contract extension? And if so, what years and money would you offer? Mind you, you would be offering him an extension for his age 32 and older seasons, starting the first year of free agency.

No, even in a best case scenario - Dozier's hitting well, young players developing, etc - you don't extend him.  He's not Hunter (who also left).  But they shouldn't use their limited payroll for his age 32-36 years.

 

No, even in a best case scenario - Dozier's hitting well, young players developing, etc - you don't extend him.  He's not Hunter (who also left).  But they shouldn't use their limited payroll for his age 32-36 years.

Concur. I don't see any scenario in which Dozier gets an extension with the Twins.... That's why it's imperative to find a good deal between now and next off-season. Preferably ASAP. 

Giving Dozier an extension would be an almost certain failure.

 

Giving Dozier an extension would be an almost certain failure.

I don't disagree, but here is a thought experiment for everyone...

 

If instead of having 2yr-$15M, he instead had 3yr-$26M with a team option for $14, is he more valuable or less valuable than he is right now?

Giving Dozier an extension would be an almost certain failure.

Yeah, it's a recipe for disaster.

 

If Dozier was entering free agency at 30, it's a possibility. I probably wouldn't do it then, either, but it'd be considered.

I don't disagree, but here is a thought experiment for everyone...

 

If instead of having 2yr-$15M, he instead had 3yr-$26M with a team option for $14, is he more valuable or less valuable than he is right now?

Definitely more valuable. That's still "average starter" money in the third year and a team option if he's still good.

 

I don't disagree, but here is a thought experiment for everyone...

 

If instead of having 2yr-$15M, he instead had 3yr-$26M with a team option for $14, is he more valuable or less valuable than he is right now?

 

Why would Dozier sign a 1 year 11 million dollar extension when he is worth WAY more than 11 million per season?

 

Don't you think, if he is signing an extension, it is for minimum 3-4 years? And he shouldn't ask for a hometown friendly discount, and the Twins shouldn't be shooting for huge discounts anyway.

 

Why would Dozier sign a 1 year 11 million dollar extension when he is worth WAY more than 11 million per season?

 

Don't you think, if he is signing an extension, it is for minimum 3-4 years? And he shouldn't ask for a hometown friendly discount, and the Twins shouldn't be shooting for huge discounts anyway.

I don't think markos believes Dozier would sign a deal like that... It was more of a hypothetical question. 

 

Most everyone thinks Dozier will regress, but that might not be the case. After the first 2 months last year, something clicked with him. He became a different hitter. Every year his HR production has increased. Now that might not happen in 2017, but I think he will have a very good year. I think his BA will be about the same as last, and his BB's will increase because pitchers will pitch around him more. I am guessing 33 or 34 HRs.

IDK he had the exact same BB and K rates two years in a row.

 

The Dodgers need a 2B, they need right handed power and they need a guy who can hit at the top of the lineup.

 

So is it going to be easier to address those problems with one player? Or with three different players?

 

I'm not sure what will happen here, but this off season a team has to overpay and give up awfully uncomfortable prospects to get what it wants, I don't know why the Dodgers would be the exception. The Dodgers can try to spin this any way they want, but only one of the teams involved is trying to win right now, the only desperation from the Twins side is our posters (me included) who are simply anxious for some action this offseason because we likely won't be getting any this summer.

Can he lead off? Because even his career best .345 obp in 2014 still isn't ideal for a lead off hitter, and he just as easily could go back to his 2013/2015 OBP of .309 and .312

Can he lead off? Because even his career best .345 obp in 2014 still isn't ideal for a lead off hitter, and he just as easily could go back to his 2013/2015 OBP of .309 and .312

Sure, he CAN lead off but it won't make any more sense than it did in the past.

 

2016 Dozier is ideally suited to the 5 slot. 2013-15 Dozier is ideally suited to the 6-7 slots.

 

I don't disagree, but here is a thought experiment for everyone...

 

If instead of having 2yr-$15M, he instead had 3yr-$26M with a team option for $14, is he more valuable or less valuable than he is right now?

He would be more valuable, however he doesn't have that contract, and he wouldn't take a 1 year extension with a team option at this point.

 

 

Sure, he CAN lead off but it won't make any more sense than it did in the past.

2016 Dozier is ideally suited to the 5 slot. 2013-15 Dozier is ideally suited to the 6-7 slots.

I'd be O.K. batting 2014-2016 Dozier higher up in the order because of the base stealing, but yeah, I do agree with you.

 

I don't disagree, but here is a thought experiment for everyone...

 

If instead of having 2yr-$15M, he instead had 3yr-$26M with a team option for $14, is he more valuable or less valuable than he is right now?

I'm not sure what you are getting at with this experiment?

 

A little more control and especially a team option would certainly make him more valuable, as is the case with most players.  But that's not the deal he signed, nor is it achievable now.

 

I think any extension now would involve at least 3/60 on top of his current deal, and possibly more.

Edited January 3, 20179 yr by spycake

I'd be O.K. batting 2014-2016 Dozier higher up in the order because of the base stealing, but yeah, I do agree with you.

If Mayer wasn't on the team, I'd also consider Dozier in the two slot, maybe even the three slot during those months he turns into a home run machine.

 

Or hell, maybe even fourth with Sano third.

 

But not leadoff. He hits too many homers and too few other hits to be a leadoff guy.