Article: Impasse

[Mike Sixel]

 

How did they get Hendriks? Because they had the money to extend Dempster.  How did they get Chapman? Because they had 20m laying around.  How did they get Russell?  Because they signed Hammel in FA.  Yes, they made some great trades but they were able to do them because signing a bad 4/50m pitcher didn't cripple their options.  Constantly comparing a 200m+ payrolll team to the Twins is useless.  And they didn't make bad trades. They held onto Samardzija when they didn't get an offer they liked in 2012 and saw him pitch worse in 2013.  

 

They kept trading, and didn't quit because they made bad ones. Bad ones happen. We get it, you don't think the trades mattered, and you don't think they should get credit for making good ones, because they have money to use. We don't agree. How about the White Sox, or Braves? Do they get no points for their trades if they later sign free agents? 

 

Putting that aside.....this reminds me of the don't trade Adrian Peterson situation, only worse, because AP could carry an offense almost on his own. Imagine if they had dealt him 2 or 3 years ago for a couple early picks and a young player......that team would be better off right now.

[Mike Sixel]

 

You think that but that doesn't mean you're right.  Making a bad trade now - and we all agree it's a bad trade - isn't ok just because you don't think you'll get a better trade later.  If you don't get your value, you hold him.

 

And that's better how? How does that help 2018 or beyond? 

[JaleelWhite FanClub]

I think that at this point it's pretty obvious how badly the Twins have screwed up the last 6 years in terms of missing the chance to fully rebuild. No better example exists than not moving Perkins. But I don't think the Dozier situation is the same.

 

The old regime kept Perkins because they liked him, he's a Minnesota guy, and that he promised to sign a friendly deal if they didn't trade him. Three horrible reasons that show just how backward, inept, and foolish Ryan & Co. were.

 

I also don't think the Plouffe situation from last offseason is applicable either. Ryan & Co. seemed to make the decision quickly that Plouffe would stay, as we heard Sano was taking OF reps over the winter. The team chose to screw with a potential franchise player rather than move a league-average 3B. Being league average, the return for Plouffe, if he actually would have been shopped, wouldn't have mattered as much in the long-run. Moving him to make room for Sano at his position of comfort was the value.

 

But Dozier is not league average. So the return is more important in his situation. 

And the fact is this FO actively marketed Dozier. They got screwed by a "down market" for 2B. But they didn't compound the situation by settling on a deal they didn't like.

[nicksaviking]

 

To me he is both, which is ideal.

But if it's high ceiling vs high floor, I pick ceiling everytime.

 

He throws in the low 90's without a strong breaking pitch and he's a flyball pitcher. That doesn't look like a high ceiling guy to me. He looks like he's a high floor guy due to his control.

[TheLeviathan]

You think that but that doesn't mean you're right.  Making a bad trade now - and we all agree it's a bad trade - isn't ok just because you don't think you'll get a better trade later.  If you don't get your value, you hold him.

For one, I don't buy the 1:1 deal. That isn't the offer on the table.

 

Your sense of value seems to ignore the enormous risks in holding on to Dozier. I understand the risks with DeLeon, I accept them because we need upside. He flops and we suck. We keep Dozier and we suck.

 

But if we deal Dozier we might net a stud. There is a solid chance of that. Far more solid than some mythical better deal we can't even imagine coherently much less actually attain.

[gunnarthor]

 

They kept trading, and didn't quit because they made bad ones. Bad ones happen. We get it, you don't think the trades mattered, and you don't think they should get credit for making good ones, because they have money to use. We don't agree. How about the White Sox, or Braves? Do they get no points for their trades if they later sign free agents? .

Who hasn't given them credit for trades?  My god, man.  Of course the trades mattered but comparing the Twins to a 200m payroll team is stupid.  They have resources that the Twins don't that let's them do things the Twins can't.  It's nice that the White Sox traded Sale.  Bully for them. That doesn't mean the Twins should take a bad deal for Dozier.  

 

Since 2012 the Twins have traded pretty much everyone not nailed down.  Only Span, Perkins and Dozier were players of a level to bring back huge returns.  They kept Perkins.  The Span 1:1 didn't work.  They now have two years to deal with Dozier.  

[TheLeviathan]

He throws in the low 90's without a strong breaking pitch and he's a flyball pitcher. That doesn't look like a high ceiling guy to me. He looks like he's a high floor guy due to his control.

And yet many experts disagree with you.

[Pardon My Dinger]

 

 we all agree it's a bad trade 

I respect your opinion, gunn, but please stop with this. It is clearly untrue. 

[Vanimal46]

 

Who hasn't given them credit for trades?  My god, man.  Of course the trades mattered but comparing the Twins to a 200m payroll team is stupid.  They have resources that the Twins don't that let's them do things the Twins can't.  It's nice that the White Sox traded Sale.  Bully for them. That doesn't mean the Twins should take a bad deal for Dozier.  

 

Since 2012 the Twins have traded pretty much everyone not nailed down.  Only Span, Perkins and Dozier were players of a level to bring back huge returns.  They kept Perkins.  The Span 1:1 didn't work.  They now have two years to deal with Dozier.  

You're approximately $90+ million off in your payroll estimation. That's like saying the Twins have a $175 million payroll. 

http://www.stevetheump.com/Payrolls.htm

[gunnarthor]

 

For one, I don't buy the 1:1 deal. That isn't the offer on the table.

Your sense of value seems to ignore the enormous risks in holding on to Dozier. I understand the risks with DeLeon, I accept them because we need upside. He flops and we suck. We keep Dozier and we suck.

But if we deal Dozier we might net a stud. There is a solid chance of that. Far more solid than some mythical better deal we can't even imagine coherently much less actually attain.

Well, the 1:1 is what's been reported.  Steve Adams at mlbtraderumors said, in his chat, "The Twins aren't trading Dozier for De Leon and junk or just for De Leon straight up. Dodgers will either up their offer or the Twins will hold onto him. Right now, the latter looks considerably more likely."  That pretty clearly indicates that the Dodgers deal is low.  

 

What is the risk of keeping Dozier?  He has a four year track record of being a pretty good player.  He's not turning into a pumpkin.  He'll likely be an all-star this year.  You think his value will plummet?  Considering they aren't getting offers for his value now, it doesn't really matter.  

 

And you really seem to be overrating De Leon's chances, which is why teams don't trade guys like Dozier for just De Leon.

[gunnarthor]

 

You're approximately $90+ million off in your payroll estimation. That's like saying the Twins have a $175 million payroll. 

http://www.stevetheump.com/Payrolls.htm

https://www.baseballprospectus.com/compensation/cots/national-league-central/chicago-cubs/

[Vanimal46]

 

https://www.baseballprospectus.com/compensation/cots/national-league-central/chicago-cubs/

Touche. I don't know why there's that big of a delta between the 2 sites. 

[nicksaviking]

 

For one, I don't buy the 1:1 deal. That isn't the offer on the table.

 

 

Then look at who may have been included by checking out their prospect lists:

 

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/top-21-prospects-los-angeles-dodgers/

 

Aside from De Leon the Dodgers had three other starting pitchers in their top ten, Alvarez, Buehler and Stewart, all of whom are not currently being offered. One other guy, who is ranked 10th by Fangraphs, is going to be a relief pitcher. The Dodgers have four other arms in the 15-21 range but only one of them is above A ball.

 

It doesn't matter if the offer was 1:1 or if the offer is De Leon and various other players, the other players either aren't starting pitchers, or are much, much lower quality starting pitchers. Which means the Twins aren't upgrading their rotation now or in the future by any more than De Leon. If that's fine by you, great, but please stop insisting that there's a big difference between a 1:1 deal or De Leon plus parts. 

[gunnarthor]

 

Touche. I don't know why there's that big of a delta between the 2 sites. 

They have the payrolls labeled 2016 but your site is almost certainly using 2015 payrolls.  I just randomly compared the two sites on the Twins, Angels and Cardinals.  They're using 2015 for 2016.

[TheLeviathan]

All the reporters are recycling the same mush mouthed report by LEN. I don't buy it, it doesn't pass the smell test.

 

Dozier will age right?

 

His contract will reduce in team control right?

 

It's not speculation his value will decrease, it's near certain fact. Unless you think he's going to hit 50 home runs or agree to an extension at the same price or some other ridiculous notion he will lose value.

[Vanimal46]

 

They have the payrolls labeled 2016 but your site is almost certainly using 2015 payrolls.  I just randomly compared the two sites on the Twins, Angels and Cardinals.  They're using 2015 for 2016.

Then that makes sense. Just googled Cubs payroll by season and that was one of the first results on the page. 

[TheLeviathan]

Then look at who may have been included by checking out their prospect lists:

 

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/top-21-prospects-los-angeles-dodgers/

 

Aside from De Leon the Dodgers had three other starting pitchers in their top ten, Alvarez, Buehler and Stewart, all of whom are notcurrently being offered. One other guy, who is ranked 10th by Fangraphs, is going to be a relief pitcher. The Dodgers have four other arms in the 15-21 range but only one of them is above A ball.

 

It doesn't matter if the offer was 1:1 or if the offer is De Leon and various other players, the other players either aren't starting pitchers, or are much, much lower quality starting pitchers. Which means the Twins aren't upgrading their rotation now or in the future by any more than De Leon. If that's fine by you, great, but please stop insisting that there's a big difference between a 1:1 deal or De Leon plus parts.

 

So now a top 25 prospect isn't enough we need, what? Multiple top 50 specs? What's enough?

[gunnarthor]

 

Then that makes sense. Just googled Cubs payroll by season and that was one of the first results on the page. 

Cots is the best website for baseball payroll.  He has each team on an xcel worksheet as well.  

[Loosey]

 

How does keeping him move the needle? 

It doesn't.  But I don't think getting bent over by the Dodgers is good for future dealings.  I think if this was not the first major deal the new regime was in it would have a different outcome.  It seems like the Dodgers are posturing as not to lose to some "Kid GM's" working on their first deal, and Twins are trying to show they won't be pushed around now or in the future.

[Pardon My Dinger]

 

 It seems like the Dodgers are posturing as not to lose to some "Kid GM's" working on their first deal, and Twins are trying to show they won't be pushed around now or in the future.

If these discussions have in fact been that vain and petty (and I'm not saying you're wrong), that would really be a shame. Both teams might have really gotten something good out of a deal. 

[Loosey]

 

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.

I think the problem is the Twins have no one other teams are willing to give up prospects for, especially pitching prospects.  

 

Dozier should have been but as we have seen the interest isn't exactly there as most thought it would. Ervin Santana is another guy who could fetch prospects but, again, isn't exactly the guy who will move a playoff contender to WS contender.  So what do they use to get future parts? 

 

The only other tradeable assets are the Twins prospects like Buxton, Sano, Berrios, Kepler, etc.  I don't want to trade those for more prospects since those guys are still unknowns.

[KirbyDome89]

 

The Cubs spent their way out of the cellar.  The Astros had 6 losing seasons in a row - three worse than our worse year - and have topped out at 86 wins two years ago.  The White Sox are the very definition of a team constantly winning 71-79 games, having done so in 6 of the last 9 years with two winning seasons (2010 and 2012) and a disaster year mixed in.  The Phillies have had four straight losing seasons.  They don't seem out of the rebuild yet.  

 

The Twins have a very strong offensive nucleus in place that just needs experience.  There's no reason to think the Twins can't be like the 2001 Twins or the 2014 Astros.  They have a lot of good pieces that should come together.

You might want to check the ages and salaries of that Cubs core.

 

I don't think anybody is thrilled with JDL + small pieces for Dozier but I also don't think its unfair to ask if this might be their best offer. If the list of teams in the market for a 2B is short and this was the best offer the Twins could get for Dozier at his peak value then I agree with the previous sentiment that we need to be realistic about what kind of package he'll bring back. 

 

By holding onto Dozier you're banking on him repeating his career year through the first half, the market for a 2B expanding, and a contending team deciding they're willing to pay more for 1.3 years of Dozier than they were for 2 this offseason. That seems like a lot to ask for.  

[Loosey]

 

If these discussions have in fact been that vain and petty (and I'm not saying you're wrong), that would really be a shame. Both teams might have really gotten something good out of a deal. 

I'm not saying they went into it with those thoughts, but it could be a subconsious thing.  I know when I get a new job I want to really do well at least early on to make an impact and set a precedent.  A year later I gradually start to not care as much about my impact in each thing I do since I already have built up credibility.  (I still care about my work, but the impact thing diminishes).

[Mike Sixel]

Putting it all aside, the fact they are at an impasse (if they are) and deal might not get done.....that makes me unhappy as a Twins' fan....

[nicksaviking]

 

So now a top 25 prospect isn't enough we need, what? Multiple top 50 specs? What's enough?

 

One prospect has NEVER been enough for Dozier.

 

A month ago nobody here would have thought so. Now it seems a lot of people have resigned themselves to accepting whatever the Dodgers deign to bestow upon the Twins. It's January 13th, if the Twins had taken this offer, we would have spent the next three months complaining about how little the team got.

 

Also, if the Dodger fans that come to this site aren't upset about this proposed deal, that's a pretty big heads up that it's a bad deal.

[Mike Sixel]

 

One prospect has NEVER been enough for Dozier.

 

A month ago nobody here would have thought so. Now it seems a lot of people have resigned themselves to accepting whatever the Dodgers deign to bestow upon the Twins. It's January 13th, if the Twins had taken this offer, we would have spent the next three months complaining about how little the team got.

 

Also, if the Dodger fans that come to this site aren't upset about this proposed deal, that's a pretty big heads up that it's a bad deal.

 

We have more information now than we did 3 months ago....no one is offering "enough" or "fair" value.....so, do we take less value, or take our ball and go home?

[gunnarthor]

 

 

By holding onto Dozier you're banking on him repeating his career year through the first half, the market for a 2B expanding, and a contending team deciding they're willing to pay more for 1.3 years of Dozier than they were for 2 this offseason. That seems like a lot to ask for.  

By holding onto Dozier, you don't make a bad deal.  And, aside from one poster, no one here seems to think the Twins should have taken the Dodgers deal for De Leon, although some are suggesting that the Dodgers offer may have been more than, as Steve Adams described "and junk" but without any specifics.  

[nicksaviking]

 

By holding onto Dozier you're banking on him repeating his career year through the first half,

 

No, you're not. You're banking that the market changes for Dozier. We've long ago established that Dozier's value is not derived from his stats but instead demand.

 

Demand is low, which means so is his value. Everyone always complained that Ryan sold off the players at their low point. Well through no fault of his own or the Twins, Dozier is at a low value point.

[gunnarthor]

 

We have more information now than we did 3 months ago....no one is offering "enough" or "fair" value.....so, do we take less value, or take our ball and go home?

I think almost everyone has agreed that the Twins are right to take the ball and go home.  

[nicksaviking]

 

We have more information now than we did 3 months ago....no one is offering "enough" or "fair" value.....so, do we take less value, or take our ball and go home?

 

Sure, we have a phone at home. We can still go out to play later, it's only January 13th.