Article: Impasse

[Otto von Ballpark]

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.

If you argue that point , you're argument is invalid immediately. (imo)

 

Stewart's exclusion is based less on his prospect ranking, and more on the fact that his absense would weaken the exact same area as De Leon's absense. Imagine if the Twins were willing to move Berrios to make a big upgrade somewhere on the field -- it sorta makes sense that we might want to hold on to Mejia, so we can still maintain some MLB ready SP reinforcements. Or Garza circa 2007 but we wanted to keep Baker...

 

I won't argue with this list of exclusions too much except Calhoun, although Verdugo has oddly been excluded from most reports that meanwhile bothered to name Bellinger and Alvarez. And from your earlier list, De Jong. It's not clear to me that those guys are off the table, or that talks even progressed to the point where the Dodgers felt it was worth offering them up (if the Twins made it clear that they would accept nothing less than Bellinger/Alvarez as the second piece, the Dodgers don't have much to gain from making a counteroffer that is unlikely to be accepted).

Edited January 16, 2017 by nicksaviking

[jimmer]

 

Can we just state our opinions without the claim that other opinions are "immediately invalid"? That's especially rich coming from someone who seemed to suggest a 40+ WAR career (Javier Vasquez) would be a negative outcome from Jose De Leon...

 

53+ WAR according to Fangraphs :-)

[diehardtwinsfan]

Of note, I find it interesting in Stewarts case that there's a lack of mention about some of the other guys in the situation.  LA still has DeJong or whatever his name is and guys like McCarthy as well.  Even without Stewart and JDL, they are sitting about 8 or so deep for options. Don't get me wrong, Stewart and JDL are certainly better options than some of them, but they are hardly hurting for SP help in that scenario.  If that's the concern, then throw in Buehler instead... but again, he's not an option. 

 

Shs_59 is right.  If a guy like Stewart isn't an option for a second piece, then there's a big problem.  Like or not, that problem is JDL + junk. 

[Otto von Ballpark]

The Dodgers SP depth chart has Ryu (missed virtually all of 2015-2016), McCarthy (missed most of 2015-2016), and Kazmir whom the Dodgers would probably prefer to unload. Not to mention Hill who has had some trouble staying on the field too. It's not unreasonable that they would resist trading both of their top 2 MLB ready SP prospects right now, but would be willing to move similarly ranked guys like Calhoun, just from a strategic standpoint for 2017.

 

It's not clear that the teams have engaged in much real negotiation on pieces beyond De Leon. If the Twins have shown no willingness to accept less than De Leon + Bellinger/Alvarez, then it doesn't make sense for the Dodgers to even offer a guy like Calhoun right now. It doesn't get a deal done now, and just increases the baseline expectation for future negotiations.

Edited January 16, 2017 by spycake

[nicksaviking]

Moderator Note:

 

Keep the discussion away from personal attacks and dismissive insults. I have edited a couple of posts as opposed to hiding them entirely as most of the content is acceptable. However let's not make this debate combative; nearly everyone is on the same side in that most think Dozier should be traded, the disagreement is only on what is an acceptable return. This shouldn't be contentious. 

[IndianaTwin]

 

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 don't think I'm selling them short. And I don't think I've said that they NEED extended inactivity to get familiar. Rather, I've tried to say that I think they should have the freedom to jump into the pond at the time they are ready.

 

Rather than selling them short, I give them props for making what they think is an educated judgment on what is best for the organization and not trading him if they haven't gotten what they think he's worth. I also give them credit for not jumping to an assumption that many of us on this Web site (and many in the national media) are making -- an assumption that says, "I've got to trade Brian Dozier for whatever I can get by the start of spring training, because there's no other way forward." 

 

Sorry if "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?" feels too specific to be helpful. It's intended to be pretty general. I'm fine if you prefer it as "How often do rookie GMs come to an organization and win a blockbuster trade early in their tenure?" I stuck in 3-5 months because they've been on the job about three months and it will be roughly five months into their tenure when the season starts. Some of us on this site probably think waiting a week was too long, and some of us probably think waiting 9 months is too long, so I was trying to emphasize our current situation. Similarly, I said "best player" because we've been talking about Dozier. If you want to expand that to "guys as good as Dozier or Santana," I'm fine with that too.

 

My underlying points still stand: 

1. I think it's human nature to be pretty cautious in a new job.

1.1 That may be even more the case when you're new to the organization.

1.1.1. And even more so when it's your first job at that level.

2. They're still early in their job. 

3. Given 1 and its subpoints and given 2, I'm cool with the fact that they haven't traded Dozier (or Santana) yet. 

 

I also heard someone say recently that we should pay attention to the anomalies, because it's in the anomalies that we are typically pushed into new and better ways of thinking. I was asking for a little help in finding the anomalies.

 

The best possible anomaly I've heard so far is Matt Klentak trading Ken Giles. Probably too early to tell if he won the trade, but we'll see. Even if it was anomaly in coming early in his tenure, he did seem to follow conventional wisdom in forcing both quality and quantity by making it a 2 for 5 trade, something that for what we know, the Dodgers haven't offered. That we don't have others swarming to mind makes me think that it probably is pretty common for new GMs to be cautious, and I'll continue not getting too worked up about the fact that he hasn't been traded yet.

 

And if they make a trade tomorrow, I'll either give them credit for making a good trade or say, "Hmm -- they must know something I don't."