Dozier Trade Discussion Thread

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

They don't get their draft pools back if Alvarez stays either, they're just gone. Alvarez is just another commodity now, the means by which he was acquired would only matter to the sentimental.

True, but the price paid for Alvarez is a good indication how highly the Dodgers value him as a player.

[DaveW]

 

He also could be worth 6 war over the next two seasons, (which is still good, but not elite) or anything in between.

And JDL+Alvarez could combine to have less than 6 WAR in their entire career. That is where the risk comes into play.  The odds of those two being busts are much higher then Dozier turning into a 3 WAR player IMO

 

The last 3 years (which are the most important when figuring out what a 29 year old player will do moving forward) Dozier has averaged a 4.6 WAR.

So I'd say the Dodgers can expect anywhere from 9 WAR to 12 WAR (or even higher) the next two years. Anything less would be because of an injury or a decent chunk of production falling off.

[nicksaviking]

 

True, but the price paid for Alvarez is a good indication how highly the Dodgers value him as a player.

 

I don't disagree, I'm just trying to point out that his current value is independent of his original cost.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

I don't disagree, I'm just trying to point out that his current value is independent of his original cost.

Definitely. Teams, especially ones as smart as the Dodgers, don't hang on to players because they paid a lot for them. They hang on to players because they place a high value on them.

[DaveW]

 

It's funny that you say that, cause I was thinking that, IMO, anyone who believes that Dozier is likely to accumulate 12 WAR over the next two years also hasn't been watching baseball for that long :-)

Maybe if Dozier's 2016 was luck driven I could see this, but it wasn't. His ISO has improved for 4 straight years now, the power is real and not a fluke, the majority of his home runs were absolute bombs that would be clear the fences in pretty much every ball park in baseball, he is still in the prime of his career and 28-32 is when a players power typically hits it's peak as well.

He additionally is a + defender at 2B and a ++ runner on the base paths, you are looking at a guy who should at the very least give you 30 HR and close to 20 SB. That's pretty freaking good.

If he continues to hit like he did after his slow start in 2016, then you are looking at a guy who is knocking on the door for 50 HR next year.

[DaveW]

The Dodgers may have paid a ton of money and given up a lot in future intl signings etc for Alvarez, but let's not pretend that they would suddenly prefer to trade Urias or Bellinger over him for that reason.

It has everything to do with current value.

[Vanimal46]

 

This just in:  Twins have signed pitcher Jim Miller to a MiLB contract and purchased the contract of indy OF Leandro Castro.

 

http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2017/01/twins-sign-jim-miller-rangers-sign-jaye-chapman.html

 

This message was brought to you by the "Free Brian Dozier" committee.  You may now continue with your blog    

​

 

TOUCHDOWN!! My top 2 FA targets are signed now. 

[gunnarthor]

I have no idea if the Twins will get Alvarez but I'm not sure the cost of obtaining Alvarez is that relevant.  He wasn't the Dodger's biggest international signing that year - Hector Olivera was.  And the Dodgers traded Olivera in the Mat Latos trade.  

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

I have no idea if the Twins will get Alvarez but I'm not sure the cost of obtaining Alvarez is that relevant.  He wasn't the Dodger's biggest international signing that year - Hector Olivera was.  And the Dodgers traded Olivera in the Mat Latos trade.  

Technically you are correct, but due to his age (30 at the time), Olivera wasn't subject the bonus pools.  He was much more like a MLB FA transaction, thus his subsequent trade means very little in regards to how they view/treat a 20 year old amateur prospect like Alvarez.

[gunnarthor]

 

Technically you are correct, but due to his age (30 at the time), Olivera wasn't subject the bonus pools.  He was much more like a MLB FA transaction, thus his subsequent trade means very little in regards to how they view/treat a 20 year old amateur prospect like Alvarez.

True, they aren't the same but the Dodgers did sink nearly 30m into his signing bonus.  

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

No problem. Here is another one link I found for one. This was over a month ago, but this return would wow all of us.

http://news2sports.com/mlb-trade-ideas-based-on-latest-offseason-week-5-news-rumors-and-speculation/

I don't think these people are well respected sports writers, but its interesting because they are neutral parties.

The source for that (a columnist at Bleacher Report) has been posting 3-5 trade ideas every week of the offseason.  He has posted 34 such trade ideas this winter, probably involving 100+ different players and prospects in total.  Do you know how many guys have actually changed teams according to his predictions?  One: McCann to the Astros, although he didn't correctly peg any of the Yankees return.  I think only three other players/prospects across all of those other trade ideas have changed teams at all (Sale, Giolito, and Wade Davis), and of course to different teams than he predicted.

 

Even in his article "Impact MLB Deals Most Likely to Be Pulled off During 2016 Winter Meetings" he only got 1 thing remotely correct out of 5 (Chapman re-signing with the Yankees).

 

He's fishing for clicks, not trying to judge fair value trades.

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

True, they aren't the same but the Dodgers did sink nearly 30m into his signing bonus.  

Yeah, but they basically turned that around and not only rented Latos like you mentioned, but they also got  Alex Wood, Luis Avilan, and Jose Peraza (the latter of whom they flipped for Montas, who in turn got flipped for Hill and Reddick at the deadline).

 

They got great value for moving Olivera early.

[Otto von Ballpark]

There has been much discussion about how Dozier's value might change over the next year.  Plenty of digital ink has been spent on De Leon too.

 

But very little has been said about the value forecasts of Alvarez and Buehler. A lot of people here want them to be added as valuable second pieces to this deal, but they signed so recently and with so much potential, their value has almost nowhere to go but up from that point over the next year.  It would be like asking the Twins circa December 2012 to add Buxton to a trade package.  (A real world example of a team getting burned by this might be the Padres including Trea Turner in a trade package -- he almost certainly wasn't losing value over the next year, and in fact he became one of the top prospects in the game in that time instead.)

 

So it makes sense that the Dodgers would be reluctant to part with those guys as second pieces at this moment.  Based on potential alone, they can easily be equivalent second pieces at the deadline or again next winter.  Or with a good showing in the minors, they could quickly rise to being a primary piece like De Leon too.

[gunnarthor]

 

There has been much discussion about how Dozier's value might change over the next year.  Plenty of digital ink has been spent on De Leon too.

 

But very little has been said about the value forecasts of Alvarez and Buehler. A lot of people here want them to be added as valuable second pieces to this deal, but they signed so recently and with so much potential, their value has almost nowhere to go but up from that point over the next year.  It would be like asking the Twins circa December 2012 to add Buxton to a trade package.  (A real world example of a team getting burned by this might be the Padres including Trea Turner in a trade package -- he almost certainly wasn't losing value over the next year, and in fact he became one of the top prospects in the game in that time instead.)

 

So it makes sense that the Dodgers would be reluctant to part with those guys as second pieces at this moment.  Based on potential alone, they can easily be equivalent second pieces at the deadline or again next winter.  Or with a good showing in the minors, they could quickly rise to being a primary piece like De Leon too.

It's true that a lot of what we as fans see is dated.  Sickels has slowly been rolling out his top team prospect lists as has fangraphs and BA.  But there isn't a new top 100 out yet. So we don't have a lot of new information.  But even among the different sites, there's a lot of disagreement.  Alvarez has some obvious flags but huge ceiling - nearly everyone agrees on that.  But how you weigh those is an open question.

 

At the end of the day, I figured Dozier would be worth a couple top 100 prospects and another piece or two - that seems comparable to the Gomez/Friers deal, the Zorbrist deal, the Giles deal.  I don't think two top 100 prospects means two top 30 prospects.  But I also know that I don't have an accurate read of all the prospects current valuation.  The Dodgers have 6 top 100 prospects per mlbpipeline's last list + Buehler, Sheffield, Stewart and Lux.  The teams should be able to come to some sort of agreement unless one side is just set on ripping off the other - which doesn't happen in real life that much.

[ALessKosherScott]

 

And you think Dozier can repeat those numbers at Dodger stadium? I hope the Dodger brass know he can't. 

 

Dodger Stadium is a better homerun park than Target Field. Albeit slightly worse on right handed hitters than Target Field.

 

It's not like park effect is going to drive Dozier's numbers off a cliff.

[markos]

 

Maybe if Dozier's 2016 was luck driven I could see this, but it wasn't. His ISO has improved for 4 straight years now, the power is real and not a fluke, the majority of his home runs were absolute bombs that would be clear the fences in pretty much every ball park in baseball, he is still in the prime of his career and 28-32 is when a players power typically hits it's peak as well.

He additionally is a + defender at 2B and a ++ runner on the base paths, you are looking at a guy who should at the very least give you 30 HR and close to 20 SB. That's pretty freaking good.

If he continues to hit like he did after his slow start in 2016, then you are looking at a guy who is knocking on the door for 50 HR next year.

As a counter-argument:
- Dozier hit 75% of his home runs against the AL Central, despite only playing 44% of his games against them: 11 v KC, 8 v CWS, 6 v CLE, 6 vs DET. He hit as many home runs against the Royals as he did against all non-AL Central teams combined.
- from June 1, 2015 through May 31, 2016 over 680 PAs, Dozier had a .685 OPS, 85wRC+ with only a .295 OBP.
- since 1996, roughly once a year there is an infielder (2B, 3B, SS) in his late twenties who has a single season with >=30 RAA_offense despite not having a single prior season of >20 (like Dozier). Of those, only two managed to meet the >=30 RAA_offense threshold again.
- if you expect Dozier to continue his second-half performance, you are basically arguing that Dozier will
1) continue to lead MLB in ISO by .030 points.
2) continue to exceed his career BABIP by .025 points.
3) continue to be among the top-10 in all of baseball in HR/FB ratio.

 

For me, there are just so many warning signs in Dozier's second half that expecting him to meet or exceed his performance from last year seems very unlikely. Not impossible, but unlikely. I'm not saying that he is going to fall off a cliff, but I think that an expected value of 7-9 WAR over the next two seasons is much more likely than 10+.

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

It's true that a lot of what we as fans see is dated.  Sickels has slowly been rolling out his top team prospect lists as has fangraphs and BA.  But there isn't a new top 100 out yet. So we don't have a lot of new information.  But even among the different sites, there's a lot of disagreement.  Alvarez has some obvious flags but huge ceiling - nearly everyone agrees on that.  But how you weigh those is an open question.

That's true, and I don't think I've ever been so anxious to see offseason prospect lists roll out.

 

But my point was, regardless of those rankings, the Dodgers have almost zero urgency to include Alvarez or Buehler as second pieces right now.  They are so young and new to pro ball that even without a great performance in 2017, they will still have similar value as second pieces (at minimum) for the next year or so.  With any luck, one of them could rise to headline a deal by the deadline or next winter.  Unless they are specifically pessimistic about one or the other, including them as a second piece right now is almost certainly selling low, like the Padres bundling Trea Turner in a package shortly after drafting him.

 

 

At the end of the day, I figured Dozier would be worth a couple top 100 prospects and another piece or two - that seems comparable to the Gomez/Friers deal, the Zorbrist deal, the Giles deal.  I don't think two top 100 prospects means two top 30 prospects.  But I also know that I don't have an accurate read of all the prospects current valuation.  The Dodgers have 6 top 100 prospects per mlbpipeline's last list + Buehler, Sheffield, Stewart and Lux.  The teams should be able to come to some sort of agreement unless one side is just set on ripping off the other - which doesn't happen in real life that much.

But that surplus of top prospects cuts both ways -- sure, they have the resources to make a deal happen now if they want, but they can also be confident in waiting to make a deal at the deadline or next winter.  And their team is good enough that waiting to address 2B isn't going to hurt them much in the meantime.

 

Viewed like that, it's less about them trying to rip off the other side, and more about them waiting to see how their owns needs develop (particularly around De Leon and Stewart, who could help the Dodgers immediately too), and perhaps betting that the Twins/Dozier or Rays/Forsythe will falter out of the gate and improve the Dodgers bargaining position.

[markos]

 

It's true that a lot of what we as fans see is dated.  Sickels has slowly been rolling out his top team prospect lists as has fangraphs and BA.  But there isn't a new top 100 out yet. So we don't have a lot of new information.  But even among the different sites, there's a lot of disagreement.  Alvarez has some obvious flags but huge ceiling - nearly everyone agrees on that.  But how you weigh those is an open question.

 

At the end of the day, I figured Dozier would be worth a couple top 100 prospects and another piece or two - that seems comparable to the Gomez/Friers deal, the Zorbrist deal, the Giles deal.  I don't think two top 100 prospects means two top 30 prospects.  But I also know that I don't have an accurate read of all the prospects current valuation.  The Dodgers have 6 top 100 prospects per mlbpipeline's last list + Buehler, Sheffield, Stewart and Lux.  The teams should be able to come to some sort of agreement unless one side is just set on ripping off the other - which doesn't happen in real life that much.

I agree. Looking at past trades for similarish players (Lucroy, Gomez, Eaton, Donaldson, Kendrick, Zobrist (twice), Frazier, Upton, Tulowitzki, Simmons) and adjusting for context (for example, the Gomez trade included Mike Fiers, Kendrick was for a single season, Eaton has a longer contract, etc), Dozier is worth a top-50 prospect, a top-75-150 prospect and another piece of marginal value. For me, De Leon fits the top-50 piece and Stewart is in the top-75-150. That's why I have said a deal centered around those two is fair. As you pointed out, we are kind of flying blind with so little up-to-date prospect reports and rankings, but right now I feel pretty strongly that Alvarez is also a top-50 guy (I'd argue that if he was at, say, UCLA right now with his results and stuff, he would be on the short list for potential 1-1 in next years draft). So getting 2 top-50 guys plus another top-75-150 guy is a better deal for Dozier than any of the other trades from the past few years.

 

For everyone who is arguing that minimally acceptable deal involves 3 top pieces, what are you using to set that expectation?

[Steve Lein]

 

Three young controllable pitchers (6 years each) for a good not great player (2 years of control)?Get ready to be disappointed. 

 

Three young controllable pitchers. That's literally all they are right now. They are all risks. And then there is Dozier, a player already with multiple 5+ WAR seasons in the majors.

 

I don't understand how anybody can think that Dozier is not a "great" player.

 

And don't get me wrong, I would guess De Leon + Alvarez + Stewart is too much. I would be ecstatic for that return. But there absolutely is a combination of De Leon + Alvarez or De Leon + Stewart that could/should work.

[Vanimal46]

 

I don't understand how anybody can think that Dozier is not a "great" player.

Easy. 2nd half stats in 2015:

.210/.280/.359 9 HR 34 RBI

Stats through the end of May 2016:

.202/.294/.329 5 HR 17 RBI

He's sometimes is a great player, and other times he's a below replacement level player. Which evens out that he's a good player. 

[Steve Lein]

 

And you think Dozier can repeat those numbers at Dodger stadium? I hope the Dodger brass know he can't. 

 

Dozier hit 21 home runs at Target Field, and 21 on the road last year. Yeah, he's not going to hit 20 in Dodger Stadium, but how many right-handed hitters did for the Dodgers last year? The year before? The year before that? 2013? 2012?

 

The answer is none. 

 

And you do realize what other stadiums are in the NL west division, right?

 

[Steve Lein]

 

He has to play as many games in S.F. and S.D. as he dose in Zona and Col.

 

JDL pitched in AAA and the majors last year, he could help the dodgers win games out of spring training if they named him to the rotation.

 

S.F. and S.D. don't suppress HR's to dead pull LF. That's where Dozier hits 'em.

[Oxtung]

There has been much discussion about how Dozier's value might change over the next year. Plenty of digital ink has been spent on De Leon too.

 

But very little has been said about the value forecasts of Alvarez and Buehler. A lot of people here want them to be added as valuable second pieces to this deal, but they signed so recently and with so much potential, their value has almost nowhere to go but up from that point over the next year. It would be like asking the Twins circa December 2012 to add Buxton to a trade package. (A real world example of a team getting burned by this might be the Padres including Trea Turner in a trade package -- he almost certainly wasn't losing value over the next year, and in fact he became one of the top prospects in the game in that time instead.)

 

So it makes sense that the Dodgers would be reluctant to part with those guys as second pieces at this moment. Based on potential alone, they can easily be equivalent second pieces at the deadline or again next winter. Or with a good showing in the minors, they could quickly rise to being a primary piece like De Leon too.

That is possible. It's also possible it would be like adding Kohl Stewart following 2013, Delmon Young anytime before he broke into the majors, or Alex Meyer circa 2014. Prospect value declines just as often as it rises even for top prospects.

[ShouldaCouldaWoulda]

I am a huge skeptic of Dozier and his ability to remain this level of success due to aging and his inconsistency. However, I do think he is at least a case where we can point to where and how he succeeded, which might make it repeatable. For instance, his swing and approach change was chronicled in Fangraphs interviews about how he was addressing his struggles....it worked. I'm assuming he's continuing with that approach and perfect My it more.

 

Now, the age and "just enough" pull HR's might disappear in a heartbeat with just a little loss of batspeed and exit velocity...making those approach changes obsolete. I can see the case of why he can continue as monster because it was clear and tangible of how he did it. I'm also skepticle to his age and bat speed making him about useless if he can't pull the ball over the fence. When he loses his bat speed...he will be done for good and the drop off won't be gradual and pretty.

[gunnarthor]

I'm fairly comfortable saying that neither the Dodgers nor the Twins are going forward on the assumption that Dozier will repeat a 6 WAR season.  Maybe the Twins value him at 4.5 (closer to his avg over 4 years) and the Dodgers value him at 3 (in line with steamer).  But likewise, neither team is valuing him at falling off a cliff either.  

[Oxtung]

The new rules prevent them from doing what they did before though, in fact being a big market team means they have less to spend on amateurs than small market teams.

So if he produces another career year, that seems unlikely. And how much better dose he really make them, even if he dose produce another career year, they were already a 90 win team with a record setting number of injuries. They'll probably win their division again regardless of Dozier.

It's pretty clear the Dodgers FO doesn't feel the same as you otherwise these trade talks would have gone something like this:

 

Falvey: Hello?

Friedman: Hey I'm just checking in to see what you'd want for Dozier.

Falvey: Well I'm not sure exactly from your system but I'd be interested in 3 top 100 prospects with the headliner being a MLB ready pitcher.

Friedman: Well it was nice to talk to you, good luck with your rebuild.

[TheLeviathan]

 

I'm fairly comfortable saying that neither the Dodgers nor the Twins are going forward on the assumption that Dozier will repeat a 6 WAR season.  Maybe the Twins value him at 4.5 (closer to his avg over 4 years) and the Dodgers value him at 3 (in line with steamer).  But likewise, neither team is valuing him at falling off a cliff either.  

 

From 6 to 3 is a rather substantial fall, if it doesn't quite match a "cliff"

[BuxtonBandwagon]

 

The source for that (a columnist at Bleacher Report) has been posting 3-5 trade ideas every week of the offseason.  He has posted 34 such trade ideas this winter, probably involving 100+ different players and prospects in total.  Do you know how many guys have actually changed teams according to his predictions?  One: McCann to the Astros, although he didn't correctly peg any of the Yankees return.  I think only three other players/prospects across all of those other trade ideas have changed teams at all (Sale, Giolito, and Wade Davis), and of course to different teams than he predicted.

 

Even in his article "Impact MLB Deals Most Likely to Be Pulled off During 2016 Winter Meetings" he only got 1 thing remotely correct out of 5 (Chapman re-signing with the Yankees).

 

He's fishing for clicks, not trying to judge fair value trades.

Yes that's what TyTY said also and I agreed. I was just showing this trying to find it from a neutral party. Also FWIW it's really hard to just make a prediction of a trade when it's just an idea and get the players right. He's not trying to predict trades, he's just throwing out ideas. Nobody is actually taking it seriously like it's a trade that's going to happen.

[jimmer]

From 6 to 3 is a rather substantial fall, if it doesn't quite match a "cliff"

if he was a consistent 6 war player, dropping to a 3 WAR, that would be a huge drop, but he isnt a consistent 6 WAR guy nor should he be expected to be in the future.

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

That is possible. It's also possible it would be like adding Kohl Stewart following 2013, Delmon Young anytime before he broke into the majors, or Alex Meyer circa 2014. Prospect value declines just as often as it rises even for top prospects.

You are arguing something completely different from my point.  Delmon circa 2006 and Meyer circa 2014 were ranked much higher than Alvarez and Buehler right now.  Delmon and Meyer would not have been "second pieces" in trades at those times, they would have been headliners.

 

Alvarez and Buehler, on the other hand, are ranked lower and capped at "second piece" status because of the recency of their signings and their inexperience.  Whatever speculative potential is fueling those modest ratings right now will still be present in 6-12 months almost regardless of short term performance.  They've got nowhere to go but up.

 

Kohl Stewart kinda proves my point -- he was so green in 2013 he wasn't going to be a trade headliner anyway, and I'd guess his value was more or less the same a year later even after a so-so full season debut (he dropped off BA's list, but his ranking actually improved on the MLB and BP lists).  There would have been no real upside to dealing him after 2013 as compared to after 2014.