Article: Impasse

[Physics Guy]

 

"Established All-Star"?  Since when?  A single All Star appearance (2 seasons ago mind you) does not establish anything.  Is Edwardo Nunez an established All Star?  How about Ron Coomer?  Or Kurt Suzuki.  Exactly as many All Star appearances as Brian Dozier. 

Are you really trying to argue that Dozier = Nunez/Coomer/Suzuki????    If you want hyperbole, throw in Dave Engle as well.

[Nick Nelson]

We need to get past the idea that Brian Dozier's production was somehow not valuable because the Twins lost 100 games. That's a very shallow way to look at it. The Twins were terrible because of catastrophic issues preventing runs – issues which will require a lot more to fix than adding one rookie pitcher. The offense was good enough to compete, in large part because of Dozier.

[TheLeviathan]

No one is saying it was not valuable.  But it wasn't valuable enough to overcome those run prevention issues.  And likely won't be for the remainder of his contract.  

 

So I guess the same question that keeps being asked is asked again - if not by trade, particularly of Dozier - than how does our run prevention get better?  How do we improve our pitching?  Hell, how do we improve run prevention with a left side of the infield set to be Sano and Polanco?

 

Only Willihammer has backed up his stance by actually responding.  I wish more of you who keep saying "we'll fix it while Dozier is here!" would give us a roadmap, even a general one, for doing that.  Instead we get that same line thrown out there and then people slink away from backing it up with some actual ideas.

Edited January 15, 2017 by TheLeviathan

[Physics Guy]

 

Then you and I need to talk about buy low and sell high,

 

If I'm the Dodgers, I'd rather give Kinsler a contract extension than overpay for Dozier on the chance 2016 wasn't a fluke. 

My impression was that the Dodgers probably would avoid Kinsler due to their impending luxury tax situation.    Kinsler would certainly fit the  "more of a track record" your mentioned in a previous post more than Dozier, but he is 36 I believe.    Utley would fit that bill as well, but the Dodgers seem to pretty clearly be interested in an upgrade from him.    Isn't three years of 20+ HR and .750+ OPS a pretty good track record?    The other guys that would fit a longer track record are most likely not available.

[TheLeviathan]

 

My impression was that the Dodgers probably would avoid Kinsler due to their impending luxury tax situation.    Kinsler would certainly fit the  "more of a track record" your mentioned in a previous post more than Dozier, but he is 36 I believe.    Utley would fit that bill as well, but the Dodgers seem to pretty clearly be interested in an upgrade from him.    Isn't three years of 20+ HR and .750+ OPS a pretty good track record?    The other guys that would fit a longer track record are most likely not available.

 

All good points, my guess is the Dodgers see Dozier as a nice patch for two years, but I doubt they see him as anything longer than that either.  Which may play into this as well.  

 

2B is a position deep enough around the league that it isn't unreasonable for them to think they may get better value than Dozier for DeLeon later in the year if they so choose.  But that is also a risky move on their part with JDL's injuries.

[Physics Guy]

 

All good points, my guess is the Dodgers see Dozier as a nice patch for two years, but I doubt they see him as anything longer than that either.  Which may play into this as well.  

 

2B is a position deep enough around the league that it isn't unreasonable for them to think they may get better value than Dozier for DeLeon later in the year if they so choose.  But that is also a risky move on their part with JDL's injuries.

Fair enough, but who do you think could become available that you think has higher value?    I'm not sure I can think of anybody that would have more control, would be made available in trade and would produce near Dozier's level.

[TheLeviathan]

 

Fair enough, but who do you think could become available that you think has higher value?    I'm not sure I can think of anybody that would have more control, would be made available in trade and would produce near Dozier's level.

 

Well, we may disagree about what to expect from Dozier.  

 

Caesar Hernandez is likely to not produce as much as Dozier but he would be a better fit for them and be a longer term fit.  And he may even cost less despite his age and control.  

 

Forsythe and Harrison may be options as well.  Not as productive as Dozier, but likely less cost as well.  By midseason Kinsler may be down for a trade if Detroit is out of it.  Segura may get re-flipped.  

[Physics Guy]

 

Well, we may disagree about what to expect from Dozier.  

 

Caesar Hernandez is likely to not produce as much as Dozier but he would be a better fit for them and be a longer term fit.  And he may even cost less despite his age and control.  

 

Forsythe and Harrison may be options as well.  Not as productive as Dozier, but likely less cost as well.  By midseason Kinsler may be down for a trade if Detroit is out of it.  Segura may get re-flipped.  

Yes, we probably disagree.    Shouldn't LA be looking for a way to improve their WS chances?    Outside of two years of control, Dozier's fit gives them exactly what they should be looking for IMO.    If he is still producing in two years, they can resign him since they will have a number of large contracts coming off the books at that time.    This trade just makes too much sense, I just with there was one other team out there that would increase the demand for Dozier enough that our FO could find a trade they can accept. 

[Physics Guy]

I will go on record as saying I very much want the Twins to trade Dozier.    Trading him for SP prospects could help improve an area that has hurt the Twins for much of the recent past.    At this point, the Twins have to realize that the market isn't what they had hoped it would be, but I also don't want to trade Dozier for one pitcher who hasn't proven anything more than Berrios.    I am OK with the Twins walking away from a JDL+filler trade.    It is very possible they may regret it, but it is also possible the Dodgers may decide that they need to upgrade their offer sometime in the next month.  I am OK with gambling that the market improves even if the downside is that they don't trade Dozier at all.

 

I support Willinghammer's statement that the Twins' rotation should improve next year without major changes.  Their starting staff in 2015 produced an ERA just above 4.00 with Gibson 194 IP, Pelfrey 164 IP, Hughes 155 IP, Milone 128 IP, Santana 108 IP, May 83 IP (as a starter) an Duffey 58 IP.  Outside of Gibson having his best season, nobody had a great year (maybe Duffey but only for 58 IP).

 

I think that some combination of Sanana, Gibson, Santiago, Hughes, May, Berrios and Meija has a decent chance to produce between a 4 and 4.50 ERA this coming season.  

[TheLeviathan]

 

Yes, we probably disagree.    Shouldn't LA be looking for a way to improve their WS chances?    Outside of two years of control, Dozier's fit gives them exactly what they should be looking for IMO.    If he is still producing in two years, they can resign him since they will have a number of large contracts coming off the books at that time.    This trade just makes too much sense, I just with there was one other team out there that would increase the demand for Dozier enough that our FO could find a trade they can accept. 

 

There is more than one way to skin a cat.  And once you're talking about getting from the NLCS to the World Series you are talking a margin for improvement that is really difficult to predict or pin down.  What they need to do that on April 1st make look a lot different on July 1st.  Injuries and a variety of other things could make something else a far more pressing need than 2B. 

 

They're a WS contender without Dozier.  They may be better off hoarding assets for July to improve their odds rather than doing it while there is still snow on the ground.  

[Physics Guy]

 

They're a WS contender without Dozier.  They may be better off hoarding assets for July to improve their odds rather than doing it while there is still snow on the ground.  

Which it appears they may be content to do unless the Twins take the offer they've been given. 

[TheLeviathan]

 

I think that some combination of Sanana, Gibson, Santiago, Hughes, May, Berrios and Meija has a decent chance to produce between a 4 and 4.50 ERA this coming season.  

 

Perhaps, by most advanced measures the Twin's defense dramatically fell off from 2015 to 2016.  It was bad in 2015, catastrophic in 2016.  

 

Now I believe Castro will help.  I also think a full time OF of Bux-Kep-Rosario helps.  But keeping Dozier gives us a left side of the infield I am much more unsure of.  

[Physics Guy]

 

Perhaps, by most advanced measures the Twin's defense dramatically fell off from 2015 to 2016.  It was bad in 2015, catastrophic in 2016.  

 

Now I believe Castro will help.  I also think a full time OF of Bux-Kep-Rosario helps.  But keeping Dozier gives us a left side of the infield I am much more unsure of.

Can you point me to where I would see these defensive metrics?    I'm not sure why the defense should have been so poor in 2016 as compared to 2015.    Middle IF is also my biggest concern if Dozier sticks around since it likely means Polanco starts the year at SS.    One positive is that all of those young players at least stand a chance at improving their defense.    If I remember correctly, Kepler wasn't rated very well.    In watching him, I have a hard time believing he won't at least be average in RF.

[TheLeviathan]

 

Can you point me to where I would see these defensive metrics?    I'm not sure why the defense should have been so poor in 2016 as compared to 2015.    Middle IF is also my biggest concern if Dozier sticks around since it likely means Polanco starts the year at SS.    One positive is that all of those young players at least stand a chance at improving their defense.    If I remember correctly, Kepler wasn't rated very well.    In watching him, I have a hard time believing he won't at least be average in RF.

 

I sorted by team leaders on fangraphs and then compared 2015 to 2016.  I'm not a huge believer in all of those stats, but if you go stat by stat it is almost universal by those metrics that we were worse.

 

I'd like us to play a much better defensive SS next to Sano than Polanco has appeared to be so far.  I think that will do a world of good.  But even then we're hoping for a below average starting staff given the talents available to us without adding upside arms.

[IndianaTwin]

 

Copollela made a helluva move with Shelby Miller.  You could probabyl throw the Heyward and Upton deals on there too.  Hell, he's got quite a few.  We could probably come up with more if I felt like googling the hell out of every GM's history.

 

<<clipped>>

 

Okay, although there's also a pretty significant difference in that Coppolella was in the Atlanta system for at least eight years, including two years as assistant GM.

 

I probably should have phrased the question as "Can anyone think of someone who came in as a GM (particularly a first-time GM) from outside the organization and made a good move in trading away the team's best player within three (or even five) months?"

Edited January 15, 2017 by IndianaTwin

[Aaron Cross]

I think not making a single trade after losing 103 games is absolutely ridiculous. I think the problem here is that Dozier is being overrated here. He isn't as good as a lot of people want think due to natural homer bias. That's all it is. I say let it not be forgotten how brutal he was the second half of 2015 and the first part of last season. Suddenly, after a few months of playing the best baseball he's ever played, he's considered a star or "the face of the franchise"?

I'm not buying. The Twins are trying to finagle way too much. The market has spoken and unfortunately it's not giving us exactly what we want. So what? You trade Dozier for myriad reasons:

1. Even if he does play near an all star level (and next year) he will be 32 when that contract is up. It's highly unlikely we are contenders these next two seasons. What's the benefit?

2. His value will never be greater. His marketability is based on his team friendly 2 years, his power and the fact that he's got two or three prime years left. Extend that timeline forward and his value almost automatically drops. All of those favorable factors diminish with each game plays

3. Playing Polanco out of position might compromise his development. That kid should replace Dozier.at 2B. He's ready now. I'm so sick and tired of the Twins plugging young players into different positions all the time. Let Polanco develop in his NATURAL position. Gordon will be our SS someday soon anyway. Think two years forward for Gods sake

4. Dozier is a NOW player and by the time this team is good again his moment will be over, his contract will be up, see ya

5. He's been called a leader. I'm not so sure about that. He flew south rather badly when this team was contending in 2015. I thought Dozier was being goofball in spring training last year and was supposed to be leader. His surge came long after the season was over and to me that is too little too late

This isn't about trading him just to trade him. I just gave a bunch of solid reasons why you do it. I'd say if you don't agree please don't mischaracterize me as someone wants to trade for the sake of making a trade. moving a very capable young player (Polanco) to his actual position. It's about selling a guy at his peak value after a 103 loss season. Quite frankly, I have no idea why Dozier wants to even remain a twin. He's been playing for a loser his entire career. That right there says something.

Time to turn the page on this guy. As Branch Rickey once told Ralph Kiner....I came in last with you and I came in last without you. Dozier has little to do with the young ecenucleus of 22 and 23 year old players

I said my piece

Solid post. His value will never be higher. Must take what you can get for him now. I see a regression coming. I'll also agree his free fall in 2015 shouldn't be overlooked. Pressure of a pennant race too much for him to handle? Then heading into 2016 with playoff expectations he once again collapsed to start the season. Is he another Glen Perkins? Thrive on losing teams and fall apart when the games become meaningful?

[specialiststeve]

 

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

Then respectfully you would be simply wrong. Effing up would not be getting full value out of your best player. That is a good way to be a very bad team.

[Aaron Cross]

I'm still trying to process Dozier, Plouffe, Hughes, and Perkins having a "The Bachelor" season finale party last March during spring training. What does it say about your team when your supposed team leaders are throwing "The Bachelor" season finale parties? One of the many differences between the 2016 core, and the 1987 core of Kirby, Herbie, Bruno, and Gaetti.

[Otto von Ballpark]

I probably should have phrased the question as "Can anyone think of someone who came in as a GM (particularly a first-time GM) from outside the organization and made a good move in trading away the team's best player within three (or even five) months?"

Matt Klentak made the Ken Giles trade about a month and a half after being hired in Philadelphia.

 

Do you have a lot of examples of new GMs hired from outside organizations who made bad trades dealing their best players within 3-5 months? It doesn't seem a real common occurrence either way.

Edited January 16, 2017 by spycake

[IndianaTwin]

 

Matt Klentak made the Ken Giles trade about a month and a half after being hired in Philadelphia.

Do you have a lot of examples of new GMs hired from outside organizations who made bad trades dealing their best players within 3-5 months? It doesn't seem a real common occurrence either way.

 

I don't, but that's sorta my point.

 

I think most new GMs from outside an organization are naturally cautious, and that may generally be for the better. Talent's hard to come by, but it seems that 1) a bad trade can generally hamstring a team more than a good trade can help it; and 2) the likelihood of a bad trade increases when you're playing short-handed by not having a complete understanding of the value of your assets. I don't have a way of quantifying statement 1, but statement 2 seems pretty clear to me. 

Edited January 16, 2017 by IndianaTwin

[Otto von Ballpark]

I don't, but that's sorta my point.

 

I think most new GMs from outside an organization are naturally cautious, and that may generally be for the better. Talent's hard to come by, but it seems that 1) a bad trade can generally hamstring a team more than a good trade can help it; and 2) the likelihood of a bad trade increases when you're playing short-handed by not having a complete understanding of the value of your assets. I don't have a way of quantifying statement 1, but statement 2 seems pretty clear to me.

I just think you are setting parameters so strict as to be almost meaningless.

 

How often do teams trade their best player at all?

 

How frequently do teams hire a new GM from outside the organization?

 

I don't think it tells us much that these already rare circumstances overlap infrequently.

 

It's already an important situation for the Twins, no one is disputing that. But I don't think it gains any special importance by this reasoning.

 

Furthermore, stepping into a MLB GM spot isn't like you or I taking over a private business, where you quite literally don't know who people are. Falvey and Levine, in their former posts, likely dealt with collecting and reviewing data on every player in the Twins org, including 5 years of such data on Dozier at the MLB level specifically. I think you are selling them short by suggesting they need an extended period of inactivity just to familiarize themselves with the Twins org. (Not to mention, virtually every other part of the Twins org below them is unchanged -- every internal opinion they seek about Dozier, our pitching prospects, etc. are exactly the same opinions that would have been provided to TR.)

[TheLeviathan]

Right, at some point your question has so many caveats it's no longer generalizable and therefore no longer important. I mean, we are a layer or two from you asking if anyone named Levine has ever been in charge, traded their best player, for a good return, on a leap year, while using a Verizon phone.

 

Your original question had validity because it was generalized enough that the answer may be generalizable. I think we've ventured far past that now. Especially since five minutes on Google and I alphabetically found a counter example at Atlanta seems to take the teeth out of your question.

[drjim]

I thought it was a very interesting way to look at it. Every new GM will face a unique situation so nothing is perfectly replicable, but a little caution and conservatism when taking over a new and unfamiliar organization seems prudent.

 

We could have gotten AJ Preller.

 

Friedman to Dodgers, Preller to Padres, Epstein to Cubs, Stearns to Brewers, Klentak to Phils, Shapiro to Jays, Dipoto to Ms, Luhnow to Astros strike me as the most recent relevant comparisons.

[Oldgoat_MN]

 

Make it Two - if DeLeon has the potential that seems to be indicated then Dozier is expendable.  42 home runs meant 103 losses.  Losing him might have meant 106 if 4 WAR is correct and his replacement would not have helped win any game.  Big deal.  DeLeon is a pitcher and pitching wins games more than batting.   I would do it straight up.  We really cannot lose in this even if we eventually seen Dozier in the HOF. 

Man mikelink45, I really wanted to LIKE this, but I just can't do it.

 

Pitching wins games, you are right.  More correctly, pitching gives you an opportunity to win games.  If the Twins were holding out for Bellinger then they are being foolish.  Not because Bellinger would not be helpful, but because Bellinger is an intricate part of the Dodgers future plans.  If you grasp that then you need to be respectful in your demands.

 

I don't think asking for more than De Leon is inappropriate. Even if it's just Mitchell White.  Put he and John Curtiss together and see if one pans out,  If they both pan out we have two excellent starters in 3 or 4 years.

 

Cannot quite go for the 1:1.

[Hosken Bombo Disco]

Furthermore, stepping into a MLB GM spot isn't like you or I taking over a private business, where you quite literally don't know who people are. Falvey and Levine, in their former posts, likely dealt with collecting and reviewing data on every player in the Twins org, including 5 years of such data on Dozier at the MLB level specifically. I think you are selling them short by suggesting they need an extended period of inactivity just to familiarize themselves with the Twins org. (Not to mention, virtually every other part of the Twins org below them is unchanged -- every internal opinion they seek about Dozier, our pitching prospects, etc. are exactly the same opinions that would have been provided to TR.)

I agree that Falvey and Levine probably have Dozier valued pretty well, but I think you are really overstating the rest of it. Especially regarding the starting pitchers, I figure they will want at least spring training and several months of the season to get a better handle on those guys.

[TheLeviathan]

 

I thought it was a very interesting way to look at it. Every new GM will face a unique situation so nothing is perfectly replicable, but a little caution and conservatism when taking over a new and unfamiliar organization seems prudent.

 

We could have gotten AJ Preller.

 

Friedman to Dodgers, Preller to Padres, Epstein to Cubs, Stearns to Brewers, Klentak to Phils, Shapiro to Jays, Dipoto to Ms, Luhnow to Astros strike me as the most recent relevant comparisons.

 

Sure, but every situation is different.  From the assets you take over, to the position of the team relative to competing, to financial restraints, etc.

 

It was an interesting general question, but if we make it so narrow that it only applies to our new FO then what's the point of the exercise?

 

I would hope that anyone who takes a FO job does a thorough assessment of their situation to determine their actions.  Not go in hell bent to be passive or aggressive or some set strategy.

[Otto von Ballpark]

I agree that Falvey and Levine probably have Dozier valued pretty well, but I think you are really overstating the rest of it. Especially regarding the starting pitchers, I figure they will want at least spring training and several months of the season to get a better handle on those guys.

Look at the context of my post. Sure they need more data on some guys and will welcome it, but that doesn't really mean they need to be extra cautious with how they approach Dozier this winter, which was the other poster's claim. And before anyone jumps in, that doesn't mean they should exercise no caution in trading Dozier -- just the standard amount of caution for assessing any transaction is warranted, no real extra caution because they are unfamiliar with him or Kohl Stewart, etc.

[Otto von Ballpark]

I thought it was a very interesting way to look at it. Every new GM will face a unique situation so nothing is perfectly replicable, but a little caution and conservatism when taking over a new and unfamiliar organization seems prudent.

 

We could have gotten AJ Preller.

 

Friedman to Dodgers, Preller to Padres, Epstein to Cubs, Stearns to Brewers, Klentak to Phils, Shapiro to Jays, Dipoto to Ms, Luhnow to Astros strike me as the most recent relevant comparisons.

But I am not sure Preller's problem was early aggressiveness, that would have been cured with waiting a half season before making major moves. I think he has just exhibited suspect judgement, period.

 

It's not like Stearns is a better GM because he waited half a season to familiarize himself with Lucroy and other Brewers assets before trading him -- Lucroy was at a low value point when Stearns took over, so it wouldn't have been smart to deal him then. If he had been coming off a career year like Dozier, it doesn't make sense to pump the brakes extra hard before a potential deal just because he's new in town.

[shs_59]

 

This is not clear at all. Are you just going by prospect ranking, and assuming everyone above Stewart was unavailable? First of all, the Dodgers may have different rankings, and second of all, they were resisting giving up Stewart with De Leon specifically because they didn't want to give up two MLB ready SP who could contribute in 2017.

You may ultimately be proven right, but there is no real evidence to make this conclusion now. In fact, it is not even clear if discussions progressed to the point where those names could have been included -- if the Twins were insisting on Bellinger, maybe the Dodgers never felt it was worth making their best counteroffer. Even guys they are ultimately willing to deal, I think teams tend to resist offering them toward unlikely deals because once offered, it seems to affect the players value and their leverage.

No, it may not be totally clear.

 

But i can put 2 and 2 together .

 

Anyone with any semblance of minor league prospects (me)  knows if Brock Stewart~??!?!?!!?!??!!?!?!??

 

wasn't available as the 2nd PIECE

 

than ABSOLUTELY not was either Bellinger, alvarez, calhoun, verdugo, Buehler ect.

 

KUDOS to the Twins front office for not giving in to the nearly Pathetic low ball offer ...the overly prospective rich Dodgers are. 

[ewen21]

I'm still trying to process Dozier, Plouffe, Hughes, and Perkins having a "The Bachelor" season finale party last March during spring training. What does it say about your team when your supposed team leaders are throwing "The Bachelor" season finale parties? One of the many differences between the 2016 core, and the 1987 core of Kirby, Herbie, Bruno, and Gaetti.

That was supposed to show us that those guys were leaders. The favored veterans taking in the new guy

 

The culture needs to change.