Article: Impasse

[Nick Nelson]

Are the Twins and Dodgers moving on from Brian Dozier trade talks? It's beginning to look that way. Let's break down the latest developments and potential ramifications.Earlier this week, Ken Rosenthal of FOX Sports reported that the two sides had reached an impasse in their negotiations with "no momentum toward deal." That's an ominous sign at this late stage of the offseason and Rosenthal later wrote that the Dodgers were "back to square one in their search for a second baseman."

 

Derek Falvey and Thad Levine took over the Twins front office with a tremendous opportunity to leverage a high-quality player at peak value in order to bolster the organization's lackluster pitching corps. But it appears that timing may have been against them.

 

For one thing, they've been unable to develop much of a market for Dozier. The list of contenders with high-caliber young arms and a need for an impact hitter at second base was short to begin with, and shrunk when the Mets decided to bring back Neil Walker.

 

Los Angeles was a very obvious fit from the start but unfortunately, no others really emerged. While a few clubs were loosely connected with Minnesota, it was evident all along that no one was going to press hard enough to create a bidding war. This placed the Twins at a rather disadvantageous negotiating position.

 

Beyond these isolated circumstances, there is a larger trend at play. Baseball teams, in general, seem to be losing their thirst for power. It's the name of Dozier's game, but the home run doesn't carry the same appeal it once did.

 

Consider this: Most expected Edwin Encarnacion, who ranks second in baseball since 2012 in both homers and RBI, to land a deal in excess of $100 million as a free agent this offseason. Instead, he settled for $60 million from Cleveland. His former Toronto teammate Jose Bautista, another of the game's premier power bats, has yet to find a job. Same for Mark Trumbo, whose 47 bombs led the majors in 2016.

 

In other years, it would feel crazy that a second baseman coming off a 42-homer campaign wouldn't generate an aggressive market. In this current environment, though, it's kinda par for the course.

 

Every report on the matter has made sure to emphasize that trade discussions are not considered dead. Levine said this week that a point might come where the Twins would stop initiating calls, but they would never stop listening.

 

However, Rosenthal's note about how the Minnesota front office "wanted to give Dozier a heightened peace of mind about his status with the club" matches a similar relay from Mike Berardino of the Pioneer Press a week earlier.

 

Reading between the lines, one can infer that Falvey and Levine have informed Dozier he'll be back in 2017 barring an unforeseen development. They're wise to keep their antennas up but at this point, it's tough to see what would change to precipitate a deal. More than a month after discussions began, there has been little in the way of evident progress.

 

The Dodgers might feel they've done their part by offering up Jose De Leon, who is viewed by some as a top five prospect in the entire game. The Twins, meanwhile, are understandably opposed to giving up their best and most popular player for a single lottery ticket whose future could be thrown into question with a reoccurrence of his shoulder soreness, or an extension of his initial big-league struggles.

 

It looks like the trenches that have been dug here. And while it's odd to see no accord despite such a natural match, it's not like either team is in a corner.

 

Dodgers president Andrew Friedman, who gained notoriety while running operations for the Tampa Bay Rays, understands as well as anyone the value (and fickleness) of cheap young pitching talent. He'll be content keeping his full arsenal of young hurlers and looking elsewhere for an offensive boost. Maybe someone like Bautista could be an option.

 

Meanwhile, the Twins can hang on to Dozier, who still doesn't turn 30 until May. He's in his prime and the possibility exists that we still haven't seen his best campaign. With two years left on his contract, he figures to retain strong value going forward, and if Minnesota surprisingly jumps out to a competitive start this season, he'll almost certainly be a big reason for it.

 

That's a precarious gamble, though. Outside of adding Jason Castro, the Twins haven't done much to meaningfully upgrade a 100-loss team. It's reasonable to expect significant improvements from a contingent of returning players, but gaining 20-plus wins on that basis is a tough sell. If the shiny new front office brings back a largely untouched roster in 2017, the luster is going to quickly wear off in the eyes of fans and season ticket holders.

 

So if Dozier stays, what's the plan? Spend some money to supplement the team around him and hope to catch lightning in a bottle? That definitely would not jibe with Falvey's initial talk of building for the future and looking at the big picture.

 

But then again, you've got to work with what you've got. All that the Chief Baseball Officer and his GM can do is play the hand they're dealt. Now, we'll see if they push in their chips or continue to slow-play and straddle the line between trying to rebuild or retool.

 

Click here to view the article

[gunnarthor]

Who has De Leon as a top five prospect?

[Otwins]

The Dodgers

[Seth Stohs]

In my opinion, the plan doesn't change if the Twins don't trade Dozier, at least big picture. The plan should be all about playing the young guys as much as possible and giving them opportunities. 

 

Sano, Kepler, Buxton, Polanco, Rosario, Berrios, .. these guys are the key, and hopefully each of them will improve in 2017. Castro should help the defense, or at least that is the assumption. Santana is a solid guy in the rotation, and we have to assume that Gibson and Santiago will be better (if healthy)... Hughes can be solid (if healthy)... and Mejia likely works his way into the rotation at some point. The bullpen, well maybe they can add another option, but I want to see Pressly, Chargois, Rogers and soon Reed, Melotakis, Hildenberger, Burdi, etc. 

 

if they'd like a DH, I'd be good with Chris Carter (if the front office is ready to give up on Park or Vargas). Target Field has been good for right-handed power hitters, and Carter - despite all the Ks - could hit 40 HR in his year. 

 

This is a 59-win team that could/should jump up to 75 wins in 2017 just with improved youth and some health. 

[Nick Nelson]

 

Who has De Leon as a top five prospect?

http://www.minorleagueball.com/2016/9/24/12932956/top-100-prospects-end-of-2016

[Tom Froemming]

Who has De Leon as a top five prospect?

Sickels had him fifth on his end of 2016 list in Sept.

Edited January 13, 2017 by Tom Froemming

[gunnarthor]

 

Sickels had him fifth on his end of 2016 list in Sept. http://www.milb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20170105&content_id=212857000&fext=.jsp&vkey=news_milb

Guess that makes sense, Sickels is the high guy on De Leon but that list also excluded draftees.  But it's probably a fair guess that Sickels will have him in his top 10 when he gets around to his 2017 list.

[jimmer]

 

Guess that makes sense, Sickels is the high guy on De Leon but that list also excluded draftees.  But it's probably a fair guess that Sickels will have him in his top 10 when he gets around to his 2017 list.

It excludes draftees?

 

In Sickels Sept 24 article that had De Leon 5th, the #1 pick of the 2016 draft was ranked 48th and another draftee was ranked 47th. Kirloff was 84th.  Quite a few 2016 draft picks on that top 100 list.

Edited January 13, 2017 by jimmer

[gunnarthor]

 

It excludes draftees?

 

 

Yeah.  The part where Sickels wrote "Players who exceeded rookie qualifications are not included. The list does include 2016 draftees" I read as "Players who exceeded rookie qualifications are not included. The list does not include 2016 draftees." 

[NoCal]

The Dodgers have won 4 straight division titles and are probably heavy favorites to win a fifth. They can wait to see if they have an internal answer at second base. If not, revisit the Twins in June.

[Badsmerf]

It's the right decision for the twins. Don't trade dozier because you think you have to. It would have been nice to get some value, but there is still a chance something happens and the offer is better. No sweat. Hopefully he his another 40 next year!

[Han Joelo]

By keeping Dozier, the Twins will avoid an historic 106 loss season, which will keep that stink off the young core. Good non-move.

[beckmt]

I still feel that Dozier will be traded, injuries do happen in spring training and players do not pan out in the early going.  Neil Walker may not come back from his injury, Dodgers 2B players may stink up the joint.  If offer was lowball, and it seems like many writers feel it was, than it is possible the Twins could get a better offer if something goes wrong with a contender early in the year.

Twins have a lot of starting pitcher talent in the minor leagues, just not top end except for Romero and possibly Jay.  Otherwise would like to see them sign some relievers to take the pressure off the starting pitching and shorten the game by having a great to very good bullpen.

[tobi0040]

I still think we trade him for DeLeon and a save face throw in. My view won't change until they sign a 2B

[Dave The Dastardly]

 

In my opinion, the plan doesn't change if the Twins don't trade Dozier, at least big picture. The plan should be all about playing the young guys as much as possible and giving them opportunities. 

 

Sano, Kepler, Buxton, Polanco, Rosario, Berrios, .. these guys are the key, and hopefully each of them will improve in 2017. Castro should help the defense, or at least that is the assumption. Santana is a solid guy in the rotation, and we have to assume that Gibson and Santiago will be better (if healthy)... Hughes can be solid (if healthy)... and Mejia likely works his way into the rotation at some point. The bullpen, well maybe they can add another option, but I want to see Pressly, Chargois, Rogers and soon Reed, Melotakis, Hildenberger, Burdi, etc. 

 

if they'd like a DH, I'd be good with Chris Carter (if the front office is ready to give up on Park or Vargas). Target Field has been good for right-handed power hitters, and Carter - despite all the Ks - could hit 40 HR in his year. 

 

This is a 59-win team that could/should jump up to 75 wins in 2017 just with improved youth and some health. 

I agree whole-heartedly. I've argued against trading Dozier for prospects all along. The Twins have plenty of prospects already in the system. If they're going to build a team for the future they need to find out if the young guys mentioned can play at the major league level now. If they can, Dozier fits. If they can't, we need more than a Dozier trade to build a winning team.

[JaleelWhite FanClub]

I was one who went into this offseason thinking that Dozier HAD to be traded. It was the "sell high" opportunity that the old FO regime never took advantage of. Trading Dozier would be a sign of truly competent management.

 

But as the article mentioned, it was cruddy timing for the deal. The game is stacked with impact second baseman, especially among the contenders. With only one team in the running for Dozier, the Twins were all but guaranteed to get the short end of any deal made.

 

A one-for-one deal with Dozier and DeLeon would have been a ridiculous move for the Twins to make. An established All-Star for a single Dodger prospect arm not named Julio Urias would have been a crazy move to make.

 

I actually applaud the FO for their patience here. As the article also mentions, Dozier is still in his prime with 2 years left on his friendly deal. There's no one saying he won't be traded down the line. The Twins haven't had a chance for a big prospect return like Dozier could bring back since the Johan deal. No need to look back farther than that trade to see the risk a team runs when "settling" on a deal late in the winter.

[Mike Sixel]

 

I agree whole-heartedly. I've argued against trading Dozier for prospects all along. The Twins have plenty of prospects already in the system. If they're going to build a team for the future they need to find out if the young guys mentioned can play at the major league level now. If they can, Dozier fits. If they can't, we need more than a Dozier trade to build a winning team.

 

So, don't add more prospects, because adding 1-2 good ones from trading Dozier won't fix everything? So, basically, do no moves, because no one move will fix everything? Is that your argument? If not, help me understand that last sentence, please.

 

I guess we'll find out if the young guys play. Plenty of people expect Berrios in AAA to start the year, to work on whatever Neil Allen thinks he's missing. If they do that, and he stays down in AAA for long, I can't imagine my interest in this team will increase. For a rebuilding team, not much rebuilding is going on.....

[Mike Sixel]

 

I was one who went into this offseason thinking that Dozier HAD to be traded. It was the "sell high" opportunity that the old FO regime never took advantage of. Trading Dozier would be a sign of truly competent management.

 

But as the article mentioned, it was cruddy timing for the deal. The game is stacked with impact second baseman, especially among the contenders. With only one team in the running for Dozier, the Twins were all but guaranteed to get the short end of any deal made.

 

A one-for-one deal with Dozier and DeLeon would have been a ridiculous move for the Twins to make. An established All-Star for a single Dodger prospect arm not named Julio Urias would have been a crazy move to make.

 

I actually applaud the FO for their patience here. As the article also mentions, Dozier is still in his prime with 2 years left on his friendly deal. There's no one saying he won't be traded down the line. The Twins haven't had a chance for a big prospect return like Dozier could bring back since the Johan deal. No need to look back farther than that trade to see the risk a team runs when "settling" on a deal late in the winter.

 

your contention is that someone is going to offer more than a top 10 pitching prospect in the future?

[Vanimal46]

I have a bad feeling the Twins got too greedy here, and we'll be kicking ourselves 6 months, 1 year, or 1.5 years down the road for not taking a trade including a top prospect in the game. 

[iTwins]

It has been an interesting saga to say the least - because on the surface a deal between the Dodgers and Twins made too much sense. 

 

However, while Dozier's value may never be higher, if the market has said the value is one prospect...I'd hesitate to pull the trigger too. (Once bitten, twice shy in the position player for one prospect deal - after Alex Meyer / Denard Span). 

 

It'll be fascinating to see if the Dodgers are embroiled in a close race come July, and Dozier is doing well, how these valuations change.  

[Loosey]

Since non of us know what was really offered, I am going to give the Front Office the benefit of the doubt for now.  If in fact, It was DeLeon for Dozier straight up I would have held strong as well and not gave in until more value was returned.

 

Since the trade Dozier movement was highly publicized, I am surprised at how well Falvey and Levine stayed strong and committed to their no trade unless blown away statement.  In the Ryan/Smith era this trade would have been made once it became public knowledge.  The difference is they maybe would have traded him at a discount (my opinion).  

 

So in reality they are still looking at the bigger picture and one trade of a all-star quality player for one pitching prospect doesn't move the needle of the future enough.  

[Mike Sixel]

 

Since non of us know what was really offered, I am going to give the Front Office the benefit of the doubt for now.  If in fact, It was DeLeon for Dozier straight up I would have held strong as well and not gave in until more value was returned.

 

Since the trade Dozier movement was highly publicized, I am surprised at how well Falvey and Levine stayed strong and committed to their no trade unless blown away statement.  In the Ryan/Smith era this trade would have been made once it became public knowledge.  The difference is they maybe would have traded him at a discount (my opinion).  

 

So in reality they are still looking at the bigger picture and one trade of a all-star quality player for one pitching prospect doesn't move the needle of the future enough.  

 

How does keeping him move the needle? 

[gunnarthor]

This debate is somewhat surprising to me.  Everyone agrees that the Dodgers offer of De Leon was not enough for Dozier.  Not a single person has said that they think the FO should have taken a De Leon for Dozier swap.  No one has suggested that their was an offer out there that was sufficient for the Twins that has been credibly reported.  And yet people are ripping the FO for not trading him.  

[Pardon My Dinger]

If there ever was an opportunity to get DeLeon for Dozier, then the Twins FO eff'd up hard. To me, it's simple. 

[Mike Sixel]

 

This debate is somewhat surprising to me.  Everyone agrees that the Dodgers offer of De Leon was not enough for Dozier.  Not a single person has said that they think the FO should have taken a De Leon for Dozier swap.  No one has suggested that their was an offer out there that was sufficient for the Twins that has been credibly reported.  And yet people are ripping the FO for not trading him.  

 

who ripped them in this thread? Not me, I'm asking people questions about:

 

1. not trading for prospects at all (wow)

2. not trading for pitching, because 1 player can't fix every problem

3. How keeping Dozier moves the needle for the future.

 

None of those actually rip anyone, I'm trying to understand people's arguments....nothing more or less.

[gunnarthor]

 

If there ever was an opportunity to get DeLeon for Dozier, then the Twins FO eff'd up hard. To me, it's simple. 

OK, I guess that's one person who was ok with the proposed deal.

[Pardon My Dinger]

 

OK, I guess that's one person who was ok with the proposed deal.

Dozier's going to have to put up Barry Bonds numbers for the next three years if we're going to win games without pitching. 

[Mike Sixel]

 

Dozier's going to have to put up Barry Bonds numbers for the next three years if we're going to win games without pitching. 

 

Still not enough.....

[gunnarthor]

 

who ripped them in this thread? Not me, I'm asking people questions about:

 

1. not trading for prospects at all (wow)

2. not trading for pitching, because 1 player can't fix every problem

3. How keeping Dozier moves the needle for the future.

 

None of those actually rip anyone, I'm trying to understand people's arguments....nothing more or less.

You've been ripping the team pretty good in the other thread.  The offers for Dozier haven't been sufficient.  It's that simple.  Move on.  If you don't get a good deal, you don't take the bad deal.  (And imagine the pessimism around Berrios if he had missed two months last year with injuries, including shoulder soreness.  We'd be measuring him for a coffin).

 

How does taking a bad trade move the needle in the future?  I cannot get my head around how many times you've asked variations of this question without seeing the obvious problem of it and ignoring everyone who has pointed it out.  The Twins haven't gotten a good offer for Dozier.  Taking a bad deal doesn't make sense.  If you don't get good deals you don't make bad trades.  How is that so difficult to follow?  The Twins have two top 100 prospects entering the rotation this year.  They have two more at AA.  They have the #1 pick in a college pitching deep draft.  And that ignores Thorpe, Stewart and Romero.  The 2019 rotation is probably going to be pretty good without moving Dozier.  Moving Dozier MIGHT help but it might not.  And moving Dozier will almost certainly make the 2017 and 2018 teams worse unless the return is ML ready NOW.  

[Mike Sixel]

If people are worried about 2017 wins and competitiveness, then we are at an impasse completely. This team has lost 90+ games how many times in the last 6 years? There is no realistic path to 2017 wins having any meaning at all.

 

I haven't actively ripped the team, I've been asking questions of people. I have been pretty clear (early on) that a 1:1 deal was not a deal I liked. I have posted that my thinking is evolving on that.

 

I do think not finding a way to trade Dozier is a failure. It will be 5 years of being bad, and not making any good trades of veterans for prospects. That's a failure of the team, imo. 

 

How did not trading Perkins or Plouffe work out? Everyone happy on not taking 50 cents on the dollar for Plouffe last year? Or keeping Perkins around because he was cheap?