But that's not really how this works. Dozier is a known commodity while De Leon has risk.

 

Sure, it's likely De Leon ends up with a higher WAR over the next six years compared to Dozier's two years but it's also possible De Leon ends up with 0 WAR while it's highly unlikely Dozier posts no value over the next two seasons.

 

The two aren't equal because of that risk.

 

No one said the two are equal risks. No two players ever are. Nonetheless, this is still "how this works." How you answer the question I offered to you is exactly how you determine if the trade makes sense. (Though maybe you don't use WAR, likely a front office uses other measurements that are more particulate). 

 

To you, it seems the trade does not make sense. That's fine. You can say that instead of saying, "that's not how this works" while then giving an example that supports my point. If you think De Leon might give 0 WAR and Dozier definitely will not, you just answered my question.

Edited January 1, 20179 yr by Doomtints

No one said the two are equal risks. No two players ever are. Nonetheless, this is still "how this works." How you answer the question I offered to you is exactly how you determine if the trade makes sense. (Though maybe you don't use WAR, likely a front office uses other measurements that are more particulate).

 

To you, it seems the trade does not make sense. That's fine. You can say that instead of saying, "that's not how this works" while then giving an example that supports my point. If you think De Leon might give 0 WAR and Dozier definitely will not, you just answered my question.

Okay, then I'll put it in simple terms:

 

If the Twins traded Dozier for De Leon, they would be universally criticized by baseball analysts and media outlets.

 

That's a clear indication the two are not of equal value.

I think most posters are vastly over rating Doziers value. Obviously we don't know what's being offered but I think keeping Dozier has very little upside for the Twins.

More upside than giving him away

 

If the Twins traded Dozier for De Leon, they would be universally criticized by baseball analysts and media outlets.

 

Oh my god noooooo.

 

People in positions of power don't consider such things.  They go with what they believe in, not what is popular. 

 

(Also, I disagree that they would be "universally criticized" -- but I guarantee you that this isn't anything they are worried about). 

Oh my god noooooo.

 

People in positions of power don't consider such things. They go with what they believe in, not what is popular.

 

(Also, I disagree that they would be "universally criticized" -- but I guarantee you that this isn't anything they are worried about).

Probably more worried about making a clearly bad trade than being reminded about it.

 

Trading their best player for a clearly poor return would further demoralize a beaten down fanbase and lead to more criticism of ownership (cheap Pohlads!). The honeymoon would be over quickly.

Oh my god noooooo.

 

People in positions of power don't consider such things. They go with what they believe in, not what is popular.

 

(Also, I disagree that they would be "universally criticized" -- but I guarantee you that this isn't anything they are worried about).

Where did I say the Twins should care what the media thinks?

 

You're the one arguing that De Leon is fair value for Dozier. My point is that few, if any, professional journalists would agree with you.

 

Where did I say the Twins should care what the media thinks?

You're the one arguing that De Leon is fair value for Dozier. My point is that few, if any, professional journalists would agree with you.

 

You clearly think the Twins should care about what people think. You brought it up as being an important way to value a player. No one else went there.

 

You changed the subject to social popularity because you had no argument against player valuation with accepted metrics, now you're changing it back? Are you just trying to make people run around in circles?

Edited January 1, 20179 yr by Doomtints

 

The Dodgers don't need to offer the Twins an equivalent return. It just needs to be better than any other club is willing to offer. They don't need to outbid themselves. They know the Twins need pitching long term and Dozier is controlled for the short term.

The Dodgers need to offer a package the Twins will accept. It does no good for them to offer the most only to still lose out on Dozier because the Twins didn't like the return.

Didn't you pivot to talking about how the Twins shouldn't do this for fear of being mocked? You changed the subject to social popularity because you had no argument against player valuation, now you're changing it back? Are you just trying to make people run around in circles?

I didn't change the subject, you interpreted my point to suit your purposes.

 

Okay, but if you want to argue "player valuation", here goes:

 

10 WAR over six seasons is worth FAR less than 10 WAR over two seasons. One of those players is borderline elite, the other is a below average starting player. Comparing combined WAR over contract length overvalues mediocrity and undervalues good players.

 

And that's not including the risk involved with any prospect versus the lack of risk of an established player.

You clearly think the Twins should care about what people think. You brought it up as being an important way to value a player. No one else went there.

I clearly think the Twins should care what people think?

 

I explained my point clearly. Stop assuming you know what I think.

You clearly think the Twins should care about what people think. You brought it up as being an important way to value a player. No one else went there.

 

You changed the subject to social popularity because you had no argument against player valuation with accepted metrics, now you're changing it back? Are you just trying to make people run around in circles?

In addition to the accurate point made by Brock, I would even add the Twins should care what people think. Namely the fans who buy tickets and sponsors who shell out the big money.

 

A universally panned deal of their best player would be a big problem.

I would bet on the under of De Leon over 6 years vs Dozier next 2.

 

I like De Leon as a prospect and he's a worthy centerpiece in return, but there's so much more risk with pitchers. Has to mitigated to move Dozier

exactly why it's prospect packages for veterans.

 

Oh my god noooooo.

 

People in positions of power don't consider such things.  They go with what they believe in, not what is popular. 

 

(Also, I disagree that they would be "universally criticized" -- but I guarantee you that this isn't anything they are worried about). 

And they shouldn't be either, since it's difficult to gauge trades until a few years down the road.

 

 

I didn't change the subject, you interpreted my point to suit your purposes.

Okay, but if you want to argue "player valuation", here goes:

10 WAR over six seasons is worth FAR less than 10 WAR over two seasons. One of those players is borderline elite, the other is a below average starting player. Comparing combined WAR over contract length overvalues mediocrity and undervalues good players.

And that's not including the risk involved with any prospect versus the lack of risk of an established player.

You also need to consider where the teams are on the competition curve, 10 war over two years for a team that is awful isn't worth as much as it is to a team that's good.

Conversely 10 war over 5 years is worth more to a team that's bad than it is to a team that's good. The other thing is we don't know how that 10 war will be divided up over the years. It could go 1, 1, 2, 3,3 then he suddenly has decent trade value even though that just averages to 2 war a year, because he'll have shown the ability to be a mid rotation starter for two straight years. 

 

BTW where is this 10 war for DeLeon coming from?

 

(btw even if Dozier is good and healthy there is no guarantee that he'll produce 10 war over 2 years anyway, I think he'll be closer to 6-8)

BTW where is this 10 war for DeLeon coming from?

 

(btw even if Dozier is good and healthy there is no guarantee that he'll produce 10 war over 2 years anyway, I think he'll be closer to 6-8)

The numbers were only meant to illustrate a comparative point, not project any real performance.

Things I think I learned from reading this thread:

 

1. Market value can be determined without the existence of a transaction.  In fact, the absence of a transaction is an even better indicator of market value than a transaction would be.

 

2. Brian Dozier's market value is eroding as of January 2, and will continue to erode on a daily basis up to and including the first day of Spring Training.

 

3. Time Value of Money concepts are misused more than the word irregardless

 

4. It is apparently possible to laugh out out out out out loud

I don't usually check out the message boards on MLBTR but I was curious about this topic.

 

Perhaps there is an inordinate amount of Braves fans who comment on that site, or Braves fans are more interested in a Dozier trade than we might think. Anyway, most of the comments were from that fanbase.

The problem is that I view it as quite unlikely that Dozier will play as well in 2017 as he did in 2016. I view 2016 as an aberration for his career & now is the time to trade him. If the Twins keep him to try to trade him during the season his value may well decline substantially.

When Dozier went off in the first half of 2015 we kept hearing how well he handled the up and in pitches as well as anyone in baseball and I kept wondering why he still got those pitches and what would happen if he did not.   Well, the 2nd half of 2015 gave me the answer.    We heard at the start of 2016 how he was working on plate coverage and going with the pitch which I considered a good thing but the transition was not so smooth and the first 75 games were pretty mediocre.  Then the 2nd half of 2016 happened and his spray chart was much more impressive.    Nothing wrong with being a pull hitter but there is a problem with trying to pull everything.   Dozier seems to have adjusted into a really good hitter.   Bottom line is there are very few 2nd basemen (or any position) that have hit 42 home runs.   Since that is the last thing he has done, that is who he is right now.  We dream of Sano hitting 40 homers and we dream of any 1st round draft pick hitting 40 homers.   Well, Dozier actually did it and should be right in his prime.    I get that maybe Uriah is off the table but to me the Twins should get DeLeon, Alvarez and Buehler.    If they get less than DeLeon and Alvarez it is a fail. 

I am starting to wonder if the reports that the Twins were offered De Leon only for Dozier might be right. If that is true the new Twins FO would look weak by taking that trade. They cannot afford that for themselves or for the Twins.

Alas...  Perhaps I'll just watch Brian Dozier batting leadoff (a ridiculous lineup construction) and enjoy him.

I wonder how much this offer is effected by Friedman's concern over how Dozier's bat will play in the cavernous Chavez Ravine (and the tough NL West stadiums in general).

 

At first glance, this deal seems like a no-brainer. The Dodgers need a bat to level the field with the Cubs and, while they're an impressive organization, there has to be some concern over whether their window will begin to close after the 2018 season when Kershaw can opt out of his contract.

 

It doesn't appear the Twins are asking for the sun and moon. De Leon is a good, not great, prospect and the Dodgers are rather loaded with arms.

 

I wonder how much this offer is effected by Friedman's concern over how Dozier's bat will play in the cavernous Chavez Ravine (and the tough NL West stadiums in general).

The NL West also includes the launching pads in Denver and Phoenix, so I doubt it's much of a consideration.

 

The NL West also includes the launching pads in Denver and Phoenix, so I doubt it's much of a consideration.

True, I guess PETCO is offset by those stadiums and I don't recall AT&T being that brutal on righties compared to lefties (but I'm drawing from hazy recollection here).

I wonder how much this offer is effected by Friedman's concern over how Dozier's bat will play in the cavernous Chavez Ravine (and the tough NL West stadiums in general).

 

At first glance, this deal seems like a no-brainer. The Dodgers need a bat to level the field with the Cubs and, while they're an impressive organization, there has to be some concern over whether their window will begin to close after the 2018 season when Kershaw can opt out of his contract.

 

It doesn't appear the Twins are asking for the sun and moon. De Leon is a good, not great, prospect and the Dodgers are rather loaded with arms.

One of the writers from a dodger site (dodgerblue perhaps?) overlayed his 2016 HRs onto Dodger stadium and found that Dozier would only have lost a few. Essentially LF is slightly farther but CF is closer and the net result was like 3-5 HRs less. In other words it shouldn't be enough to matter.

One of the writers from a dodger site (dodgerblue perhaps?) overlayed his 2016 HRs onto Dodger stadium and found that Dozier would only have lost a few. Essentially LF is slightly farther but CF is closer and the net result was like 3-5 HRs less. In other words it shouldn't be enough to matter.

Not to mention half of Dozier's HRs in 2016 came on the road.

 

Not to mention half of Dozier's HRs in 2016 came on the road.

Yeah, he didn't gain anything from Target Field, I was more concerned with how his bat plays in Dodger Stadium, which is big pretty much everywhere.

 

But it's been years since I was at Dodger Stadium and don't remember the typical wind patterns of the stadium.

 

Things I think I learned from reading this thread:

 

1. Market value can be determined without the existence of a transaction.  In fact, the absence of a transaction is an even better indicator of market value than a transaction would be.

 

2. Brian Dozier's market value is eroding as of January 2, and will continue to erode on a daily basis up to and including the first day of Spring Training.

 

3. Time Value of Money concepts are misused more than the word irregardless

 

4. It is apparently possible to laugh out out out out out loud

3. in the thread or just in general? irregardless!