Article: Jorge Polanco At SS Could Be Disastrous

[gunnarthor]

 

What's the alternative?  Retaining him for fear of taking a non-optimal deal gets us in the boat of Glen Perkins.  How'd that turn out?

 

I'd suggest none of the deals you've found match.  They're either much lighter for a similar player (Zobrist, Cespedes) or they are better for a deal that included a far better player (Lucroy) or a package deal.  (Gomez)

 

And the point of that is to show you that perhaps this is not a "bad return".  Perhaps it's this, soemthing worse, or Dozier languishes for two years as we lose 10-7 every other day.

Well, we disagree on the trade comps, fine.  I do think you need to find a trade that you think sets Dozier's value.  You might say Dozier and Forsythe are equal therefore that's his value (I would disagree, of course). But I'm pretty much in the camp that the Twins didn't trade Dozier out of fear.  They kept him because they weren't acting afraid.  What you are suggesting is actually doing something out of fear.

 

And I think pretty much everyone agrees that De Leon would be a bad return for Dozier.  Those who disagree with you don't think anything remotely close to Dozier's value was ever on the table - I continue to believe it was basically just De Leon and junk but it might have been just De Leon.  

 

As for Perkins, had he pitched better in Sept 2015, we might have made the playoffs so I'm 'meh' on not trading him.  I was for it before he signed the extension but understood why and was ok with keeping him.  He was pitching in important games for us.

[Linus]

Falvey stated a the beginning of this process that they liked Dozier and were setting the bar high for any trade returns. I think this mindset was a mistake and lends credence that a realistic proposal was not going to be accepted.

[nicksaviking]

 

What's the alternative?  Retaining him for fear of taking a non-optimal deal gets us in the boat of Glen Perkins.  How'd that turn out?

 

I'd suggest none of the deals you've found match.  They're either much lighter for a similar player (Zobrist, Cespedes) or they are better for a deal that included a far better player (Lucroy) or a package deal.  (Gomez)

 

And the point of that is to show you that perhaps this is not a "bad return".  Perhaps it's this, soemthing worse, or Dozier languishes for two years as we lose 10-7 every other day.

 

I sincerely doubt Ryan ever made a concerted effort to move Perkins, this is not the same situation. Why does there have to be a comp for this? There probably isn't one, this is fairly unique.

 

And again, the fear would be in taking the sub-optimal deal, not refusing it. Being afraid would be to take the money and run; saying this ain't going to cut it and laying the bet on larger odds for a better reward is the bold move. No one has to agree with the tactic but I think calling it fear isn't very genuine.

[TheLeviathan]

 

Well, we disagree on the trade comps, fine.  I do think you need to find a trade that you think sets Dozier's value.  You might say Dozier and Forsythe are equal therefore that's his value (I would disagree, of course). But I'm pretty much in the camp that the Twins didn't trade Dozier out of fear.  They kept him because they weren't acting afraid.  What you are suggesting is actually doing something out of fear.

 

And I think pretty much everyone agrees that De Leon would be a bad return for Dozier.  Those who disagree with you don't think anything remotely close to Dozier's value was ever on the table - I continue to believe it was basically just De Leon and junk but it might have been just De Leon.  

 

I took your post as it was written and in the context of the disagreement.  Please do the same, you put at least three thoughts on me that I nowhere expressed.

 

It's not just we that disagree, the people attempting to acquire these players flat out disagree with you.  You seem to be placing a trade value on Dozier that the last decade of comparables doesn't support.  And clearly the demand this offseason didn't support.  

 

Secondly, I wouldn't characterize just DeLeon as a "bad" return.  I just would've pushed for more.  And it's clear there was in fact more on the table.  What that more constituted we may never know.  But a top 10ish prospect in all of baseball is not a "bad" return.  

 

Thirdly, I'm proposing not to act out of fear or inflexibility, but out of probability.  The probability of attaining a better prospect considering known factors that diminish his value (age, team control, likelihood of repeat performance) combined with the recent trade history tells me the probability of ever getting a better deal is about zero.  So what's the alternative?  Keep him?  Well, again this causes a host of issues.  Polanco either doesn't play or poorly fields a non-natural, key position.  It also risks us giving him an extension into his mid 30s.  Or just letting him languish for two years while we get our pitching together in some other way.  

 

So, based all the evidence we have for hitter values in trades the last decade, DeLeon was absolutely "remotely close", we just needed the icing on the cake.  

 

But you can't keep running around posting about how we'll "get a better deal" when the odds of that are stacked HEAVILY against it.  Just accept it, you're going to keep him and hope we pull a competent pitching staff out of our rear end.  Or use magic.  Or something.  But it's clear you won't do it by trading Dozier, because something better than DeLeon is extremely unlikely to center another deal.

[TheLeviathan]

 

I sincerely doubt Ryan ever made a concerted effort to move Perkins, this is not the same situation. Why does there have to be a comp for this? There probably isn't one, this is fairly unique.

 

And again, the fear would be in taking the sub-optimal deal, not refusing it. Being afraid would be to take the money and run; saying this ain't going to cut it and laying the bet on larger odds for a better reward is the bold move. No one has to agree with the tactic but I think calling it fear isn't very genuine.

 

If you're going to argue "we can deal him later", shouldn't there be some evidence that doing so will, in fact, do what you say it will?  If there is no such evidence, perhaps your suggestion is bogus.

 

And it seems the only people talking about fear are those fearing DeLeon busts.  I don't fear anything, I'm pretty confident in the knowledge that our pitching sucks.  I'm also pretty contfident in my knowledge that it ain't getting better with Polanco at short and no reinforcements on the way for a year or so.  Hell, I take this deal out of hope, not fear.  I turn it down out fear and being gun shy.

Edited January 25, 2017 by TheLeviathan

[Doomtints]

 

If you're going to argue "we can deal him later", shouldn't there be some evidence that doing so will, in fact, do what you say it will?  If there is no such evidence, perhaps your suggestion is bogus.

 

And it seems the only people talking about fear are those fearing DeLeon busts.  I don't fear anything, I'm pretty confident in the knowledge that our pitching sucks.  I'm also pretty contfident in my knowledge that it ain't getting better with Polanco at short and no reinforcements on the way for a year or so.  Hell, I take this deal out of hope, not fear.  I turn it down out fear and being gun shy.

 

The fear about De Leon "busting" is interesting. He can be a normal, run-of-the-mill rookie starting pitcher -- meltdowns and all -- and still be the team's #2 guy. This staff has 1 pitcher they can count on. Even a very green De Leon improves this team. If you are 4 starting pitchers down and scoffing at what you want to call a #3 starter coming in to help fill the gap, you're a weirdo. 

Edited January 25, 2017 by Doomtints

[old nurse]

 

Cespedes did not qualify, Fullmer was never ranked that highly.  Upton returned Delgado but he was a year removed from being on the prospect list, though he had been on it around the same area in 2011.  (The deal happened in 2013)

 

If you're trying to find an exactly parallel deal you probably won't, the key to look for is how often propsect talent of that magnitude is moving for any hitter and then approximate Dozier compared to that hitter.

 

The problem is that other than Lucroy, that hasn't happened.  And that's not hyperbole, it's just not happening.  Virtually every deal I looked at netted guys in the 50-100 range.

IWhat rank a player has when traded is of less than zero importance. What that player produces  is.  Kudos to Detroit for being smarter than the rankings people if Fulmer continues to produce.

 

[nicksaviking]

If you're going to argue "we can deal him later", shouldn't there be some evidence that doing so will, in fact, do what you say it will? If there is no such evidence, perhaps your suggestion is bogus.

 

And it seems the only people talking about fear are those fearing DeLeon busts. I don't fear anything, I'm pretty confident in the knowledge that our pitching sucks. I'm also pretty contfident in my knowledge that it ain't getting better with Polanco at short and no reinforcements on the way for a year or so. Hell, I take this deal out of hope, not fear. I turn it down out fear and being gun shy.

You clearly fear coming out of this situation and getting less or getting nothing. I don't fear that, and obviously neither does the front office.

 

No one is saying they can deal him later, we are saying we can try to deal him later. Maybe we can't, but so what, all we lose out on is De Leon, that isn't something I fear.

[OldTimeTwinkie]

Why not move Dozier to first base and Polanco to second. Gives us a power hitting first baseman. Let Mauer DH.

[Platoon]

I fear not having any decent starting pitching, and having Polanco at SS, or just as bad, on the bench while EE plays. I fear a FO that thinks you have to be the "winner" in a deal. I fear someone signing Dozier to a 4 year extension. I fear us winning at most 80 games each year due to no SP, and then losing Dozier for nothing in two years. What we seem to fail to realize is that second baseman are currently a dime a dozen, and that there are 29 other teams in the league. And not one of them made an offer better than the Dodgers did. While one can argue that the Twins deserved more than they were offered, you cannot argue what Doziers current value to MLB teams is at this present time. You can hope for a debilitating injury to a second baseman who happens to be on a team who can afford to give you a couple good SP prospects, of course this has to happen before the trade deadline. And of course you have to have the good BD to deal at that time, not the bad one. I fear that's a lot of "ifs.

Edited January 26, 2017 by Platoon

[TheLeviathan]

 

You clearly fear coming out of this situation and getting less or getting nothing. I don't fear that, and obviously neither does the front office.

No one is saying they can deal him later, we are saying we can try to deal him later. Maybe we can't, but so what, all we lose out on is De Leon, that isn't something I fear.

 

So you don't fear continuing to be a bad baseball team by making bad decisions?  Because if you're going to label that as "fear", I'd suggest you have the same "fear" wrapped up in your aversion to a bad deal.  

 

So if we're fearing the same thing but for different reasons, why do you and gunnathor keep trolling out that criticism?  It seems like an attempt to take out a valid argument at the knees without any real substance behind it.

 

 

[specialiststeve]

 

You clearly fear coming out of this situation and getting less or getting nothing. I don't fear that, and obviously neither does the front office.

No one is saying they can deal him later, we are saying we can try to deal him later. Maybe we can't, but so what, all we lose out on is De Leon, that isn't something I fear.

 

 

Bingo! Deleon is a nice prospect but there are a bunch of question marks on him. If he were part of a package of guys fine I am good but If as the report goes LA was not going to add other good pieces we would be stupid to move on.

 

There will be other opportunities and if the right deal comes fine... if not ... Fine. He is a VERY good player and not getting what the new FO believes is a very good return we don't move him.

 

 

[specialiststeve]

 

Falvey stated a the beginning of this process that they liked Dozier and were setting the bar high for any trade returns. I think this mindset was a mistake and lends credence that a realistic proposal was not going to be accepted.

 

? So we should set the bar low so that we can hit our bar?

That is a GREAT recipe for failure.

 

Actually what the statement meant was don't bring an offer that is not worthy of an all-star second baseman unless the value is high in what you are offering... I am proud of our FO for not "settling" for less than needed value. This is a GOOD thing!

 

We have to understand that the shiny new toy is not always better just shiny and new. Give me the Tonka Truck (Dozier) any day over - overhyped hot prospect.... we are here to win correct?

[drivlikejehu]

 

So you don't fear continuing to be a bad baseball team by making bad decisions?  Because if you're going to label that as "fear", I'd suggest you have the same "fear" wrapped up in your aversion to a bad deal.  

 

So if we're fearing the same thing but for different reasons, why do you and gunnathor keep trolling out that criticism?  It seems like an attempt to take out a valid argument at the knees without any real substance behind it.

 

The whole "fear" meme is silly but you are really trying to have it both ways - continually implying the Twins made a bad decision while also saying that we can't know for sure without knowing what was on the table. 

 

Following your line of reasoning, why won't you state that you'd have taken De Leon for Dozier, straight up? If not, why not? Because all of the arguments you make seem to support taking the best available deal.

 

Well, maybe that was the best offer the Twins ever got or ever will get for Dozier. What then?

[nicksaviking]

So you don't fear continuing to be a bad baseball team by making bad decisions?  Because if you're going to label that as "fear", I'd suggest you have the same "fear" wrapped up in your aversion to a bad deal.  

 

So if we're fearing the same thing but for different reasons, why do you and gunnathor keep trolling out that criticism?  It seems like an attempt to take out a valid argument at the knees without any real substance behind it.

Everyone but Dave Cameron seems to agree that taking the offer is a bad deal. But according to this post that's not even relevant because if the Twins say no to a bad deal, they're afraid. So if all the Dodgers offered was Gavin Lux and the Twins said no, that makes them afraid.

 

My fear of missing out on De Leon borders on apathy.

[TheLeviathan]

 

Well, maybe that was the best offer the Twins ever got or ever will get for Dozier. What then?

 

I may have taken it, depending on the tenor of the negotiations.  But I wasn't in that room.

[TheLeviathan]

 

Everyone but Dave Cameron seems to agree that taking the offer is a bad deal. But according to this post that's not even relevant because if the Twins say no to a bad deal, they're afraid. So if all the Dodgers offered was Gavin Lux and the Twins said no, that makes them afraid.

My fear of missing out on De Leon borders on apathy.

 

I don't want to pass up on the deal because I don't like the ramifications for the Twins team going forward.  You call it fear.  

 

You don't want to take the deal because you dont like the ramifications of taking less value for the Twins going forward.  Not fear.

 

WTF?  Lets drop this "fear" characterization.  Its BS.

Edited January 26, 2017 by TheLeviathan

[drivlikejehu]

 

I may have taken it, depending on the tenor of the negotiations.  But I wasn't in that room.

 

Keep it simple. Friedman texts you and says, 'De Leon straight up or I get Forsythe.'

 

That's a pretty straightforward yes/no question. I think if you're going to question the front office on this you have to say it's 'yes' - take what you can get, or 'no' - the offer still needs to be reasonable.

 

We don't know the exact details but the real issue here is whether you take what you can get or require something close to fair value.

Edited January 26, 2017 by drivlikejehu

[TheLeviathan]

 

Keep it simple. Friedman texts you and says, 'De Leon straight up or I get Forsythe.'

 

Since that wasn't what happened, you should try again.  I'm not going to indulge you in hypotheticals if you're going to indicate no effort on your part to make it worthwhile.

[nicksaviking]

I don't want to pass up on the deal because I don't like the ramifications for the Twins team going forward.  You call it fear.  

 

You don't want to take the deal because you dont like the ramifications of taking less value for the Twins going forward.  Not fear.

 

WTF?  Lets drop this "fear" characterization.  Its BS.

It has been your insistence on characterizing a non-move as fear to try to better position your argument; you're using an inflammatory trigger word in an attempt to justify your minority opinion.

[drivlikejehu]

 

Since that wasn't what happened, you should try again.  I'm not going to indulge you in hypotheticals if you're going to indicate no effort on your part to make it worthwhile.

 

You don't know that for sure. But fine, Friedman texts and says,'final offer - De Leon + Player X.'

 

Who is the least-heralded Player X that you say yes to? You seem to be saying there's a line somewhere. Where is it?

[TheLeviathan]

 

It has been your insistence on characterizing a non-move as fear to try to better position your argument; you're using an inflammatory trigger word in an attempt to justify your minority opinion.

 

Actually, I really don't think that's been my position at all.  I used the words "for fear of" not as being some over-arching point and you seem to have run with it well past the context it was used in.  And other threads are pounding this "fear" concept too, that hasn't ever been the way I characterize things.

 

I've consistently said I'm doing this because developing competent pitching takes a lot of bullets in the chamber and I doubt we find a better opportunity to add another bullet than this one.  I think the opposition to it has a range of reasons, some I've openly said I understood but disagreed with.  Others I can't make a lick of sense out of.

[TheLeviathan]

 

You don't know that for sure. But fine, Friedman texts and says,'final offer - De Leon + Player X.'

 

Who is the least-heralded Player X that you say yes to? You seem to be saying there's a line somewhere. Where is it?

 

You don't know anything for sure either.  But only one of us keeps acting like they do.  (Hint: you)  I only claim to know what we know: DeLeon was the centerpiece and secondary pieces were discussed.

 

I've said before I probably do this for DeLeon and Stewart.  Sheffield or Lux would appeal to me too.  But I don't know what secondary pieces were discussed and that makes a huge difference.

[Doomtints]

This thread got hijacked a bit.

 

But let's be honest here. The people on the side saying it's great that this deal did not go through simply did not want Dozier to be traded. The conversation about De Leon and secondary assets is not the issue.

 

The market has spoken. The Twins didn't make the trade either because they disagree with the market or they were being "too cute" and annoyed the Dodgers. 

 

This is a value judgement. Some of us value Dozier > adding pitching talent. Fine. I don't know why the conversations went elsewhere when this is what it boils down to. Perhaps those defending Dozier refuse to see it that way because this position is a bit silly and instead argue other points, I don't know.  

Edited January 26, 2017 by Doomtints

[gunnarthor]

 

 

 

So, based all the evidence we have for hitter values in trades the last decade, DeLeon was absolutely "remotely close", we just needed the icing on the cake.  

 

But you can't keep running around posting about how we'll "get a better deal" when the odds of that are stacked HEAVILY against it.  Just accept it, you're going to keep him and hope we pull a competent pitching staff out of our rear end.  Or use magic.  Or something.  But it's clear you won't do it by trading Dozier, because something better than DeLeon is extremely unlikely to center another deal.

Yes, everyone who disagrees with your view of the trade thinks the Twins are going to use 'magic'.  

 

You have yet to find a comparable trade to Dozier (in your view).  You have yet to even find one but you keep coming back to this myth that De Leon was close to Dozier's trade value.  It's kind of insulting how much you refuse to listen to other people - and, frankly, insult other people.  You've made no attempt to understand other people's views and you continually misinterpret them to make points that don't fit.  

 

To summarize, based on trades made in the last few years, a team that trades off a package comparable to Dozier should expect to receive two top 100 prospects + a couple lottery ticket pieces. 

 

The Twins made the right decision to not trade Dozier yet you have continuously labeled the Twins as making decisions based out of fear.  It gets annoying.  Your song has been played.  

[TheLeviathan]

 

Yes, everyone who disagrees with your view of the trade thinks the Twins are going to use 'magic'.  

 

You have yet to find a comparable trade to Dozier (in your view).  You have yet to even find one but you keep coming back to this myth that De Leon was close to Dozier's trade value.  It's kind of insulting how much you refuse to listen to other people - and, frankly, insult other people.  You've made no attempt to understand other people's views and you continually misinterpret them to make points that don't fit.  

 

To summarize, based on trades made in the last few years, a team that trades off a package comparable to Dozier should expect to receive two top 100 prospects + a couple lottery ticket pieces.

 

Well, if not magic...what?  I've asked you no less than three times and you refuse to answer that.  So, what would you like me to assume since you won't trade, you know we can't pay for it (it's not even there to pay for), so....what?  I've heard mike ask you about 10 times too and you slink away from the conversation.  

 

And your summary is based on completely debunked examples.  You have yet to provide any examples that approximate Dozier.  You have offered package deals (which was not what we were offering) or Lucroy.  That's the best you've managed to verify your stance.  Those have been thoroughly debunked.  So if you're view is going to be a summary of things that don't add up, you'll have to excuse me if I don't put much stock in it. 

[gunnarthor]

 

 

And your summary is based on completely debunked examples.  You have yet to provide any examples that approximate Dozier.  You have offered package deals (which was not what we were offering) or Lucroy.  That's the best you've managed to verify your stance.  Those have been thoroughly debunked.  So if you're view is going to be a summary of things that don't add up, you'll have to excuse me if I don't put much stock in it. 

"Thoroughly debunked" is not the same as "Levi doesn't agree."  

 

If you want to find out Dozier's worth, you look at similar trades, and compare the value a team traded away along with its position and length of control and see what the return was.  That's why we know Dozier's value is much higher than De Leon and junk.  

[TheLeviathan]

 

"Thoroughly debunked" is not the same as "Levi doesn't agree."  

 

If you want to find out Dozier's worth, you look at similar trades, and compare the value a team traded away along with its position and length of control and see what the return was.  That's why we know Dozier's value is much higher than De Leon and junk.  

 

Well the list of people that have taken you to task for you interpretations includes me, mike, spycake, jimmer, and biggentleben among several others.  And all of us have a range of opinions on the matter.  

You have yet to provide a "similar trade".  What trades do you think you've presented that are similar?

 

(Also note you completely ignored the first part.  I guess magic may not be so far off afterall....)

[gunnarthor]

 

Well the list of people that have taken you to task for you interpretations includes me, mike, spycake, jimmer, and biggentleben among several others.  And all of us have a range of opinions on the matter.  

You have yet to provide a "similar trade".  What trades do you think you've presented that are similar?

 

(Also note you completely ignored the first part.  I guess magic may not be so far off afterall....)

What's the first part?  Do we ever trade Dozier?  Not unless we get a deal we value.  

[TheLeviathan]

 

What's the first part?  Do we ever trade Dozier?  Not unless we get a deal we value.  

 

What do you do about the pitching?

 

And I'd like to know what the similar deals are too, that'd help.