Dozier Trade Discussion Thread

[Otto von Ballpark]

I don't know what the Twins have been offered right now.

 

I also don't know what the Orioles or Angels can offer in the future.

 

I'm trying to say the landscape will change because it always does and you are trying to make me project the current landscape into that changed landscape.

 

Could it be worse for the Dozier market? Yes

Could it be better. Yes

 

The only thing I know is that it obviously isn't good enough right now because no deal has been made despite an obvious fit.

I get caution about our limited knowledge as fans, but this is taking that to ridiculous extremes. There is no reasonable probability that the Angels can bid on Dozier in the near future at anywhere near the De Leon level. It is fair to point that out, and you pretty much have to be actively ignoring evidence to claim otherwise. It is not very helpful to the discussion to repeatedly dismiss those points with generic "I don't know, anything can happen" platitudes.

[biggentleben]

 

(we had to freaking trade for Bud Norris!)

 

Thanks for that, by the way!

[Riverbrian]

 

I get caution about our limited knowledge as fans, but this is taking that to ridiculous extremes. There is no reasonable probability that the Angels can bid on Dozier in the near future at anywhere near the De Leon level. It is fair to point that out, and you pretty much have to be actively ignoring evidence to claim otherwise. It is not very helpful to the discussion to repeatedly dismiss those points with generic "I don't know, anything can happen" platitudes.

 

A. I didn't bring the Angels into the discussion.

 

B.  What evidence am I ignoring?

 

 

[Otto von Ballpark]

That's why the "surplus value" argument isn't worth the paper it's written on.

 

Ignoring the problems with WAR itself, if your goal is to win baseball games:

 

10 WAR over 2 years >>>>> 10 WAR over 6 years.

 

I would hope Falvey and Levine are smart enough to find 1.5 WAR pitchers without giving up 5 WAR players.

Nobody is saying we should trade for De Leon because he will give us a bunch of 1.5 WAR seasons. No one. When you encounter an argument that seems so easily refutable, maybe pause to consider that is not the argument at all!

 

What people are saying is, a 10 WAR over 6 year projection is actually pretty good for a prospect (Bellinger has the same projection at Fangraphs right now), so there is decent chance that De Leon could be better than that, and that's the kind of chance the Twins should probably be taking if the cost is just ~8 projected WAR over the 2 seasons immediately following a 103 loss season (with 4 out of 5 90+ loss seasons preceding that).

 

And even if he isn't better than that, if he still achieves 10 WAR over 6 years, it could provide more value than a consistent 1.5 WAR per season. Concentrated in 3 seasons, or a spike to 4 WAR one season, could mean an asset that's not that far off from Dozier in terms of usefulness and value. And before ypu say "why teade Dozier for something you hope will be as useful/valuabls as Dozier", let me emphasize again that this isn't De Leon's best case scenario, but rather just another way for the Twins to get value out of the deal if De Leon fails to achieve his better case scenarios.

 

In the worst case, if De Leon achieves zero WAR over 6 years, well, you were going to get zero WAR from Dozier in years 3-6 anyway. A comp pick of some kind, hopefully, in year 3, probably not even in MLB by year 6.

 

If you think the second/third pieces of the trade could be flawed but interesting prospects like Calhoun/Sheffield, that of course adds a bit to the De Leon side of the ledger too.

[Otto von Ballpark]

A. I didn't bring the Angels into the discussion.

 

B. What evidence am I ignoring?

When you say "I don't know what the Angels can offer" you are participating in that discussion and ignoring copious amounts of evidence about the state of the Angels organization.

[Riverbrian]

 

When you say "I don't know what the Angels can offer" you are participating in that discussion and ignoring copious amounts of evidence about the state of the Angels organization.

 

OK.. I apologize for using his specific example when trying to make a much broader point. 

 

[darin617]

 

Well the best player available is kinsler, plus he fills the need of lead off hitter a lot better than Dozier.

 

But why would Detroit want to give up one of their best hitters with no internal replacement? As well as the fact they will be giving Cleveland a run for division. 

[diehardtwinsfan]

 

I get caution about our limited knowledge as fans, but this is taking that to ridiculous extremes. There is no reasonable probability that the Angels can bid on Dozier in the near future at anywhere near the De Leon level. It is fair to point that out, and you pretty much have to be actively ignoring evidence to claim otherwise. It is not very helpful to the discussion to repeatedly dismiss those points with generic "I don't know, anything can happen" platitudes.

 

You are most likely right about the Angels, but the "anything can happen" argument is very real.  For one, the extra wild card has created far more buyers than sellers. 

 

The second point is that no one knows who will be competing in July.  There will be plenty of teams in it, whether they match up with us who knows, but I'd be shocked if there were less than a dozen teams in buy mode at the deadline, some of which will need help at 2B.  There will probably be 20 or so teams in contention, even if many are pretenders.  While I wholeheartedly agree that our chances of doing so are pretty slim, it's hardly unrealistic.  We were lucky in 2015.  We were unlucky in 2016.  I get all that, but the offensive core is here now, and the chance that most of those guys (Sano, Kepler, Escobar, Buxton, Vargas, Rosario, Park, and Polanco) take steps forward is pretty good. It's the pitching that is the wild card, but envisioning a scenario where Santana picks up where he left off, Berrios taking a big step forward, May picking up from 2015, and Gibson picking up from 2015 suddenly puts this team in that map too.. Yeah, a lot of variables, I get that.  But that's why anything can happen. None of this unreasonable to expect on its own.  All of it happening is what makes our odds so low.

 

This is my long winded way of saying not to just trade for the sake of a trade. LA needs to add value, and JDL + some very minor pieces doesn't do that. I wish I was a fly on the wall for these negotiations, but based on everything said in the press, there was no significant piece other than JDL.  That's not good. I'd go with the unknown in that scenario 11 times out of 10. I don't care if he's a top 20 prospect. Those have risk.  LA could add some decent pieces that aren't top 100 to get this done, but apparently those guys (Stewart and Buehler in particular) aren't even in the conversation. Again, that's not good. I'd take either one with a decent additional piece and a C+ lotto pick at this point (so yes, I've come down a bit on my own demands), but no way would I take JDL alone.

[jorgenswest]

I am not sure where the 1.5 comes from. is it KATOH?

 

Somehow that must have come from 10.1/6. Is that what this debate is all about? KATOH?

 

KATOH is a nice tool. I really doubt there will be any prospects that are going to compare to projections for veterans in their prime. It doesn't make mathematical sense to compare them. Otherwise no team would ever trade a veteran hitter for prospects if they wanted comparable WAR projections.

 

How many pitchers exceed De Leon's 10.1? Any of them exceed 10.1 significantly? A year ago Urias was a 12. That is a whopping extra 0.3 per year. The last KATOH I found for Giolito was at the trade deadline last year. It was 4.5 WAR for 6 years. De Leon was 10.4 at the time.

 

I think the 10.1 projection might support that De Leon is one of the best starting pitching prospects and possibly the best pitching prospect on the market.

[drivlikejehu]

 

That's why the "surplus value" argument isn't worth the paper it's written on.

Ignoring the problems with WAR itself, if your goal is to win baseball games:

10 WAR over 2 years >>>>> 10 WAR over 6 years.

I would hope Falvey and Levine are smart enough to find 1.5 WAR pitchers without giving up 5 WAR players.

 

Well you can't really use a WAR prospect projection like that, because in a lot of scenarios the prospect, say De Leon, isn't even on the team. In other scenarios, he's giving you 4 WAR a year and is really valuable.

 

The problem is just that pitching prospects don't turn into good starters very often, so the average results from the possible scenarios returns a small WAR number.

 

No matter what, prospects will have a much higher variance in performance than an established major leaguer. But surplus value is still a useful concept to probabilistically evaluate the future production both sides can expect.  

[Otto von Ballpark]

OK.. I apologize for using his specific example when trying to make a much broader point.

 

No prob, sorry if I was a little tough on you there. I do think these broader points kind of obscure some relevant specifics of this particular situation. De Leon level pitching prospects/packages are not that common, for example. The probability of another one cropping up soon to match a contender need at 2B, without additional names entering the 2B market, is pretty low.

[TheLeviathan]

 

I think the 10.1 projection might support that De Leon is one of the best starting pitching prospects and possibly the best pitching prospect on the market.

 

This.  We were offered the best available SP prospect on the market (or at least one of a very small handful) and people are scoffing at it.  Meanwhile the Twins are asking for the equivalent of Berrios and Kepler for Dozier.

 

Sorry RB, but throwing out the "anything can happen" is a lazy argument.  It ignores real probabilities in favor of some empty platitude that sounds like an argument, but isn't.  I feel so much of this discussion has revolved around similar problems.

 

I repeat again, if after 2015 someone was offering us a 30 year old coming off a spiked season that looks like a career outlier and that team wanted Kepler and Berrios for him we'd have near unanimous agreement to scoff at such a notion.  And yet, in the reverse, we're complaining we can "only" get Berrios and a few others for him.

 

Perspective people.

[drjim]

This. We were offered the best available SP prospect on the market (or at least one of a very small handful) and people are scoffing at it. Meanwhile the Twins are asking for the equivalent of Berrios and Kepler for Dozier.

 

Sorry RB, but throwing out the "anything can happen" is a lazy argument. It ignores real probabilities in favor of some empty platitude that sounds like an argument, but isn't. I feel so much of this discussion has revolved around similar problems.

 

I repeat again, if after 2015 someone was offering us a 30 year old coming off a spiked season that looks like a career outlier and that team wanted Kepler and Berrios for him we'd have near unanimous agreement to scoff at such a notion. And yet, in the reverse, we're complaining we can "only" get Berrios and a few others for him.

 

Perspective people.

I guess I would say that if the Twins had just lost the ALCS, had a clear hole at 2b, and had significant pitching depth in the minors, that they wouldn't hesitate to move De Leon for such a huge upgrade.

[drivlikejehu]

I'm not convinced De Leon is even a must-have for the Twins. All along it's felt to me like Friedman selling high on De Leon because he doesn't really believe in him.

[TheLeviathan]

 

I guess I would say that if the Twins had just lost the ALCS, had a clear hole at 2b, and had significant pitching depth in the minors, that they wouldn't hesitate to move De Leon for such a huge upgrade.

 

Wouldn't you have doubts how huge the upgrade actually is?  And, if you reasonably did and still offered Berrios, isn't that a helluva starting point regardless or the rest of the package?

 

We all agree there should be something else in the deal, but the delta seems to be akin to the difference between Kepler and Palka. 

[drjim]

Wouldn't you have doubts how huge the upgrade actually is? And, if you reasonably did and still offered Berrios, isn't that a helluva starting point regardless or the rest of the package?

 

We all agree there should be something else in the deal, but the delta seems to be akin to the difference between Kepler and Palka.

I would trade Berrios right now without hesitation if the Twins were WS contenders.

[jimmer]

 

I would trade Berrios right now without hesitation if the Twins were WS contenders.

and that makes sense since there's no evidence to suggest the Dodgers are hesitating to trade De Leon.

[TheLeviathan]

 

I would trade Berrios right now without hesitation if the Twins were WS contenders.

 

What about the other half of the issue?Dozier's profile, do you unload your best trade chips for a guy with what looks like one outlier season without serious doubts about what you are getting in return?

 

Perhaps you do.  As you said, you'd give up Berrios.  They're giving up DeLeon, so that makes you equal. 

 

Now consider, that you're one of the more reasonable people on this.  There are people who are demanding something akin to Kepler and Berrios.  Do you do that?  What else do you part with, along with your best chip (Berrios) for a guy like Dozier?

 

[drjim]

Are you deliberately ignoring the other half of it? Dozier's profile, do you unload your best trade chips for a guy with what looks like one outlier season without serious doubts about what you are getting in return?

 

And, consider, that you're one of the more reasonable people on this. There are people who are demanding something akin to Kepler and Berrios. Do you do that?

I wouldn't move Kepler, but I would move someone like Gonsalves (if that helps).

 

Kepler is a great asset right now. I would need much more than De Leon to move him for instance.

[drjim]

and that makes sense since there's no evidence to suggest the Dodgers are hesitating to trade De Leon.

Agreed. I would move even more in this hypothetocal scenario.

[TheLeviathan]

 

I wouldn't move Kepler, but I would move someone like Gonsalves (if that helps).

 

So you'd take DeLeon and Buehler, give or take.  That's fine.  That's fair.

 

That's what most all of us on the pro-trade bandwagon are arguing for too.  

[jimmer]

Sorry, off topic a bit (though it is about Dozier) I'm watching MLB Network and man, Heyman is basically not worth listening to at all.

 

He has Dozier at 7th at 2B (that's low, but whatever.  Verduccci has him 5th on same show), and Heyman doesn't even say anything about him when he points out power at the position.  He makes a comment about everyone in his top 10 2B besides Dozier, and even forgets it's Dozier he had at #7, not Pedroia.

 

'Pedroia, I might have him a little low at 7 (and he actually has Dozier at #7 and Pedroia #8).'

[jimmer]

 

Agreed. I would move even more in this hypothetocal scenario.

So would I, it's why i said there should be more than just 1:1, and why I don't believe Dodgers JUST offered De Leon.

 

I'd also like to point out that teams have to figure out value of players in some way.  I know it's gross to think about, but MLB is a business and players are commodities in that business and they have value that needs to be identified.  

 

Figuring out values has to be looked at in terms of controllable years, salary during those years, and the kind of on field production that player is expected to give during those controllable years.  I hope our FO is doing that as opposed to using the Dave Stewart approach.

[jimmer]

 

So you'd take DeLeon and Buehler, give or take.  That's fine.  That's fair.

 

That's what most all of us on the pro-trade bandwagon are arguing for too.  

Bingo.  That's a trade that has De Leon and doesn't have the two prospects I've said from the beginning shouldn't be expected to be included: Alvarez and Bellinger.

 

I'd even be good with Buehler and Stewart, myself.  I like Buehler a lot.

[Hosken Bombo Disco]

Have the Dodgers offered Buehler or Stewart?

[TheLeviathan]

 

Have the Dodgers offered Buehler or Stewart?

 

No one really seems to know.  We know the Twins asked for Bellinger and DeLeon.  We can assume the Dodgers countered with DeLeon and something else.  (I give the only DeLeon offer almost no credibility)

 

What middle ground, if any, has been established is the issue.  

[diehardtwinsfan]

 

So you'd take DeLeon and Buehler, give or take.  That's fine.  That's fair.

 

That's what most all of us on the pro-trade bandwagon are arguing for too.  

 

except apparently the Dodgers as Buehler is off the table. 

 

With that, I'm really not even sure what we're arguing, since I think most of us on "the other side" would gladly take a package headlined by JDL and Buehler. 

[diehardtwinsfan]

 

Sorry, off topic a bit (though it is about Dozier) I'm watching MLB Network and man, Heyman is basically not worth listening to at all.

 

 

Just thought this was worth repeating

[diehardtwinsfan]

 

Have the Dodgers offered Buehler or Stewart?

 

According to several sources close to the situation, who have been cited in this thread... both are off the table. 

[TheLeviathan]

 

except apparently the Dodgers as Buehler is off the table. 

 

With that, I'm really not even sure what we're arguing, since I think most of us on "the other side" would gladly take a package headlined by JDL and Buehler. 

 

Maybe.  We've heard the extremes, we haven't heard the middle ground.

 

Most of that "off the table" talk was based on LEN's poorly written article.