Article: Falvey's First Stand

[TwinsWonWithHunter]

This is not a win for Falvey.

He took over the worst team in

baseball, one that sports the worst rotation in the history of the franchise. It is also a team that has had a sucking chest-wound of a leadership void since Hunter retired.

 

To date, he has replaced one mediocre catcher with another, albeit one who "frames" well, which is a way of saying he helps his

pitchers better than some others do. OK. If that was our only

problem last year--that our catchers did not "frame" well ...

 

So, now we are supposed to venerate Falvey for standing his ground? He is to be applauded for hardballing the league?

Just what is he protecting, the sanctity of his 59-win club?

 

I have no real opinion on whether he should trade Dozier. What I

do think, however, is that when you win 59 games, you turn the

roster over. Period.

 

Oh well. The catcher frames well. Look out, October baseball!

[Squirrel]

Sure, 99.9% certainty. Morosi and many others have reported a package. But it's misleading to keep framing this as a 1:1 deal we turned down. That isn't what happened.

If there wasn't anyone else of significance offered, then in my mind yes, it basically was a 1:1 offer. If there was no one else with real potential offered, then I'd rather buy an actual lottery ticket. And that's what I think happened. There was no one else worth having, that had the potential to make us better. Then all we are really talking about is Dozier for DeLeon. And I think that was the Dodgers' plan ... to see how much they could get for DeLeon to fill 2nd base with someone better, and how much that was was Forsythe. I also think that was what they thought, too, and all of this talk with the Twins was to see if they could possibly squeeze out more, and they couldn't. So they made the deal they knew they could. It's the only thing that truly makes any logical sense. And NO GM was going to make a better trade.They've improved their position without giving up more than they wanted to. Time will tell if they improved enough.

[Vanimal46]

50 nick Punto's or 1 Torii Hunter?

Could you imagine all of the GRIT and determination produced by 50 Nick Punto's?

 

If you put 50 Nick Punto's on bike generators, they could power all of NYC!

[Squirrel]

I was stating what my objective would have been.  Whether it was possible or not, I don't know.  But I would've fought tooth and nail to try.  

 

There were several reports early that stated we came out demanding DeLeon and Bellinger.  Which is asking for too much.  WAY too much.  We don't know if we ever budged off of that any more than we know what the Dodgers were willing to add. 

 

I sure hope we did.

And we don't know for sure if that's actually what we did. Your basis of argument is as much speculation as anyone else's. You don't even know how hard they negotiated but are certain that they couldn't have tried hard enough because the result isn't to your liking. It's not to my liking either, but yet, there it is. I'd certainly be far more willing to accept your premise and speculation if it were the old regime because there is history to support that, but that's not who was involved.

[Mike Sixel]

 

Until some of you all got MLB cred, i.e., more than a computer with internet and an opinion, hence a job in the system, I'm thinking our new brain-trust probably knew what they were doing better than they are gettting credit for here.

 

Baseless predictions, what ifs, shoulda woulda couldas: yeah I know that is what hot-stove is all about, but these guys are in the business of winning ballgames, and keeping Dozier seems like a solid move toward that goal.

 

How so? They won 59 last year, even if you think they were really a 65 win team, do you actually expect them to win 80+ this year? Dozier is signed for 2 more years, I'd bet a lot of money that this coming year is not a playoff year.....so what is Dozier really worth, in context of the overall team?

[Mike Sixel]

 

Has any one denied our top priority is starting pitching? That said, the most foolish thing to do would be deal your most valuable asset in a depleted market just fill a need.  

 

Bad teams can't waste valuable assets.   

 

Bad teams refuse to trade Perkins, Dozier, ESan, et. al......

[TooSmartForEweNow]

 

It was not a 1:1 swap.  "junk" doesn't tell me much other than, with 100% certainty, 1:1 was never being discussed.  So, please, let's stop ever saying this was 1:1.  

 

We don't know what the "junk" was or the rest of the package, all we can say is there was a package headlined by JDL that the Twins didn't feel was enough.  But that is a wide range of possibilities.

Reputable sources quoted multiple places said 1:1 swap was what the Dodgers wanted but they were *discussing* additional pieces. That leads one to believe that the Dodgers never agreed that it would be anyone else besides just DeLeon, or at least they never actually officially offered anyone else.

[TheLeviathan]

 

And we don't know for sure if that's actually what we did. Your basis of argument is as much speculation as anyone else's. You don't even know how hard they negotiated but are certain that they couldn't have tried hard enough because the result isn't to your liking. It's not to my liking either, but yet, there it is. I'd certainly be far more willing to accept your premise and speculation if it were the old regime because there is history to support that, but that's not who was involved.

 

No, I don't.  I specifically said that there was a "wide range of possibilities" after the point we know to be true: JDL and Dozier were the main pieces and discussions of secondary pieces happened after that. No one knows who those pieces were.  Or even how many of them there were.  

 

I have acknowledged that the fault could go either way.  I simply stated that (without being in the room) my objective would've been to find a way to get that sucker done.

 

I'm not 100% convinced our new FO shared that objective.  Their version might have been "we won't deal him unless we're blown away".  And those two objectives are very different.

Edited January 25, 2017 by TheLeviathan

[TooSmartForEweNow]

 

Well, I guess we'll find out about JDL won't we?  He's one of the ten(ish) best pitching prospects in all of baseball, we may very well have just turned down a #2.  Or a bust.  Time will tell.

 

But he was a top ten(ish) pitching prospect by many accounts.  Good luck finding another offer with that on the table.

 

Top 10(ish) pitching prospects bust an a very high rate. You are right that time will tell, but it's too much of a risk for your one trade chip when that trade chip still has sand left in his trade hourglass.

[Mike Sixel]

 

Top 10(ish) pitching prospects bust an a very high rate. You are right that time will tell, but it's too much of a risk for your one trade chip when that trade chip still has sand left in his trade hourglass.

 

If you won't trade for top 10 prospects out of fear, you won't make many trades....

[Jham]

 

I am happy to admit that the best "offer" on the table was essentially De Leon in a 1-for-1 type swap.

My problem is, offers aren't produced independently in a vacuum -- they have a large dependence upon the requests and demands on the other side. The 1-for-1 result might have been just as much a function of the Twins high demands as it was the Dodgers being cheap.

For example, we sort of know that once De Leon was initially agreed upon, the Twins still wanted one of Bellinger or Alvarez and talks stalled. Perhaps when talks picked up later, the Twins were willing to forgo Bellinger or Alvarez, but wanted two additional pieces (per Morosi) perhaps like Stewart and Lux. Again, from what we know, the Dodgers said no at this point, but it's unclear whether there was a legitimate opportunity for them to counteroffer, say, just De Leon plus Stewart. If that deal is still likely to be rejected, the Dodgers gain nothing from putting it out there, and it could actually hurt them -- it might put Stewart on the table where he is not easily retracted when they'd prefer a similar prospect like Calhoun in that place instead, etc. Might also set a precedent for other teams to ask for those players in trade too (I could see the Rays asking for De Leon plus Stewart for Forsythe if that was leaked to be on the table but rejected by the Twins, for example).

Given how lifeless the talks seemed, and that Morosi was still reporting the "two additional players" demand yesterday, I don't think it's far-fetched to say that the Twins were probably never receptive to a De Leon plus Stewart or Calhoun type proposal, so I can't fault the Dodgers too much for not submitting such an offer. And I can't put too much credence in the ultimate "1-for-1 offer" that was on the table as being truly indicative of what the Dodgers may have been willing to give up, given a different approach/demands by the Twins.

This would make the Dodgers front office horribly incompetent.  If Dozier was their guy, and Forsythe was always an available second option, why would they withhold their best offer?  That makes zero sense.  And literally, that's the definition of low-balling which would imply the Twins did right to walk away, and the Dodgers got what they deserved.  There is no possible advantage to withholding your best offer regardless of whether you think it will be fruitful or not. 

 

[TooSmartForEweNow]

 

I agree, I see a .248 average and 34 home runs.  The Dodgers were smart to trade for Forysythe.

huh?

 

I'm sure the Dodgers would be absolutely thrilled with .248 average and 34 home runs. Forsythe is incredibly unlikely to put up those numbers. Maybe the average, but OPS etc are more important.  

[PseudoSABR]

 

Bad teams refuse to trade Perkins, Dozier, ESan, et. al......

Perkins has no value.  Esan may have value, but not much.  Dozier's market is depleted.  Are you suggesting they trade these pieces at any cost?  And are you also suggesting such trades wouldn't affect their future dealings?

 

 

[Mike Sixel]

 

Perkins has no value.  Esan may have value, but not much.  Dozier's market is depleted.  Are you suggesting they trade these pieces at any cost?  And are you also suggesting such trades wouldn't affect their future dealings?

 

I'm suggesting they have failed for the last 5 years to rebuild this team with any speed at all, compared to the Cubs and Astros, and probably the Phillies and Braves.

[TooSmartForEweNow]

 

That's not right. My point is this - based off what we know, De Leon + junk was the minimum offer on the table. Maybe it was a bit more. But we know it was at least De Leon + junk because the Dodgers gave up De Leon for Forsythe, and would at least have given up a bit more for Dozier. 

 

I disagree with your logic here. That's not evidence that the Dodgers offer to the Twins was more than just DeLeon. That's your hypothesis, but it's not proof. One could just as easily say that based off of them *only* parting with DeLeon the Dodgers may have told the Twins it was just DeLeon and nothing else to start. They could have said DeLeon was the only major piece they were willing to part with and they had other options available (and likely had already discussed DeLeon for Forsythe with the Rays). And they could have been the listening party for offers (since we know Falvey said he was going to stop making calls) and willing to possibly budge if the Twins came up with something - but in the end just got a lesser second baseman for the price they were willing to part with.

 

That's just hypothesizing as well, but the point is... like in the court of law - if it *can* be explained another way, it's not proof. We still don't know what they offered, but media reports were saying the Dodgers really wanted 1-for-1. And that's what they got, elsewhere. 

[TooSmartForEweNow]

 

If you won't trade for top 10 prospects out of fear, you won't make many trades....

He's not a top 10 prospect. Top 10 prospect and "top 10ish" pitching prospects are two *vastly* different things.

 

The most recent prospect ranking that just came out about a week ago on ESPN had DeLeon ranked the 74th best prospect in baseball. Twins can get that at the deadline. 

[Mike Sixel]

 

He's not a top 10 prospect. Top 10 prospect and "top 10ish" pitching prospects are two *vastly* different things.

 

The most recent prospect ranking that just came out about a week ago on ESPN had DeLeon ranked the 74th best prospect in baseball. Twins can get that at the deadline. 

 

Why take it at the deadline, if not now? And how do you know that?

 

And fine, if you won't trade for a top 10ish pitching prospect, that is MLB ready, out of fear, you aren't making many trades.

 

And, KLAW loves upside. Other sites have him ranked higher.

Edited January 25, 2017 by Mike Sixel

[nicksaviking]

 

 

Additionally, you have no issues slamming people who are criticizing the FO with no idea who the other players offered were and at the same time, also without knowing who the other players offered were, you're comfortable with calling them junk.

 

I agree, I don't like calling players junk, even hypothetical ones. Unless a national guy actually used that phrase I think we can probably find a better word to refer to any possible throw-in type players.

 

On the other side of the coin though, are you seriously asking why people are "slamming" you for criticizing the front office when you have no idea who the other players were? Why is anyone criticizing the front office when we don't know what the offer was? Simply because we just wanted this so bad and now we're disappointed?

[TooSmartForEweNow]

 

Why take it at the deadline, if not now? And how do you know that?

 

And fine, if you won't trade for a top 10ish pitching prospect, that is MLB ready, out of fear, you aren't making many trades.

 

  

Why *not* take it at the deadline instead of now? Then you still get a half season of a fan favorite and something to root for in an otherwise dull off-season. And the only real roll of the dice is injury - if it's Dozier getting injured then it'll obviously make it tougher to get value for him. If another team's second baseman gets injured, well then that bare minimum 1 pitching prospect return has now just gone up. There's no rush to move him and you can get *at least* the current deal later. So you don't do the move.

 

And as far as that second sentence goes, the reverse is more true. If you aren't willing to move significant prospects, you aren't going to land any of the top players (of their position) in the league. One potential middle of the rotation guy with recent injury history is not equal to someone like Dozier. At least not when the selling team isn't in a position of *needing* to trade. 

Edited January 25, 2017 by TooSmartForEweNow

[nicksaviking]

 

If you won't trade for top 10 prospects out of fear, you won't make many trades....

 

I doubt fear had anything to do with it. Most people don't see De Leon as a top 10 prospect in baseball. Falvey came from Cleveland, I would guess he values velocity and breaking balls, two things De Leon does not have.

 

Even if they did like him, they wanted more, that's not based off of fear. Being fearful would cause them to succumb to the offer of the more powerful and experienced Dodgers brass. This was the opposite of fear.

 

 

[Mike Sixel]

 

Why *not* take it at the deadline instead of now? Then you still get a half season of a fan favorite and something to root for in an otherwise dull off-season. And the only real roll of the dice is injury - if it's Dozier getting injured then it'll obviously make it tougher to get value for him. If another team's second baseman gets injured, well then that bare minimum 1 pitching prospect return has now just gone up. There's no rush to move him and you can get *at least* the current deal later. So you don't do the move.

 

And as far as that second sentence goes, the reverse is more true. If you aren't willing to move significant prospects, you aren't going to land any of the top players (of their position) in the league. One potential middle of the rotation guy with recent injury history is not equal to someone like Dozier. At least not when the selling team isn't in a position of *needing* to trade. 

 

I'd argue the Twins absolutely need to trade Dozier, because he does nothing for this team this year that matters in terms of wins and losses, and he's only signed for 1 year beyond that. Also, he blocks Polanco, who will now play SS, a position they have not really let him play in the minors for some time now.....

[Mike Sixel]

 

I doubt fear had anything to do with it. Most people don't see De Leon as a top 10 prospect in baseball. Falvey came from Cleveland, I would guess he values velocity and breaking balls, two things De Leon does not have.

 

Even if they did like him, they wanted more, that's not based off of fear. Being fearful would cause them to succumb to the offer of the more powerful and experienced Dodgers brass. This was the opposite of fear.

 

I'm responding to the posts, not to what the FO did.

 

And, no, not acting can be out of fear. There are two sides (or more like 6-8) of what would cause someone to act, or not.

 

You can be afraid to trade for a prospect because, as the poster said "they bust all the time", and want to keep the more proven MLB player. If that wasn't clear, I hope it is now.

[Mike Sixel]

 

Why *not* take it at the deadline instead of now? Then you still get a half season of a fan favorite and something to root for in an otherwise dull off-season. And the only real roll of the dice is injury - if it's Dozier getting injured then it'll obviously make it tougher to get value for him. If another team's second baseman gets injured, well then that bare minimum 1 pitching prospect return has now just gone up. There's no rush to move him and you can get *at least* the current deal later. So you don't do the move.

 

And as far as that second sentence goes, the reverse is more true. If you aren't willing to move significant prospects, you aren't going to land any of the top players (of their position) in the league. One potential middle of the rotation guy with recent injury history is not equal to someone like Dozier. At least not when the selling team isn't in a position of *needing* to trade. 

 

Again, how do you know you can get at least a top 10ish starting pitching prospect in the future?

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

That theory makes no sense. First of all, the email leak a little while back showed that MLB front offices make high initial trade demands without batting an eye. Second, there's no evidence that the Twins are even the ones that wanted to build the deal around De Leon - they may well have preferred Alvarez at the center. We do know that the Dodgers wanted to cash in De Leon, for whatever reason.

 

We have close to zero facts about what the Twins asked for, except they weren't happy with De Leon plus junk. That's all we know. Yet there are posters saying or implying that the Twins somehow blew a deal, I guess because by asking for a B- prospect like Stewart they offended Friedman, who now will never speak to Falvey again?

 

I don't know why people are writing fiction to criticize the Twins front office. They will make plenty of decisions as time goes on that will be ripe for discussion. 

Let me try again.

 

I don't fault the Twins for making an initial high demand.  My issue is that there's no evidence they backed down from that demand in any meaningful way, even as they saw those demands generating very little activity with the Dodgers or other clubs.

 

Which is again fine if you are extra skeptical of De Leon (and the Twins might have been), or if you really peg Dozier at high value (which again the Twins very well do), and you don't mind passing up the Dodgers as a potential partner and kicking this can down the road.

 

But I don't think you get to endorse that skepticism and those high demands, and then further justify a deal not getting done because the Dodgers only put De Leon on the table.  The latter is a product of the former.  You can't blame the Dodgers for not putting a second name like Stewart on the table if it wasn't going to get the deal done anyway, it would only hurt their future bargaining position.

 

Hopefully it's clear that I'm not being too critical of the Twins here, like perhaps other posters are.  At worst, I am a little disappointed that they didn't lower their demands a bit to generate more interest at what might be Dozier's peak value point.  At best, even if one endorses their high demands, I think the Twins strategy was inelegant (the gambit of leaking specious interest by other teams certainly didn't seem to help their Dodger situation).

 

But as I've said on another thread, I think I am more disappointed that they haven't done anything this offseason at all.  The bare minimum was to sign a catcher and make a Rule 5 pick, and that's pretty much all they have done.  I get not forcing a Dozier trade -- but was there really nothing else they could manage with this roster?

[TooSmartForEweNow]

 

I'd argue the Twins absolutely need to trade Dozier, because he does nothing for this team this year that matters in terms of wins and losses, and he's only signed for 1 year beyond that. Also, he blocks Polanco, who will now play SS, a position they have not really let him play in the minors for some time now.....

 

I disagree fully that they need to trade Dozier right now. He's incredibly affordable for 2 more seasons and a fan favorite. I do think they need to move him before his contract ends and I'd rather see that than any kind of extension, but that can be done this deadline, next off season, or next deadline. there's no reason to take a below-value offer just because there's an offer for a pitcher than might be a #2 only if he hits his ceiling, but is much more likely to be a #3-4. I don't know how much you've really looked into DeLeon but he's got a 92 MPH fastball and a really really good changeup. But nothing else. His movement pitches haven't done much for him. Add shoulder injury and a really bad callup to that resume and he's just a huge gamble. Way too big of a gamble to make a 1-for-1 deal for when you have flexibility.

 

Also, if you moved Polanco to second, who do you have playing short?

[Mike Sixel]

 

I disagree fully that they need to trade Dozier right now. He's incredibly affordable for 2 more seasons and a fan favorite. I do think they need to move him before his contract ends and I'd rather see that than any kind of extension, but that can be done this deadline, next off season, or next deadline. there's no reason to take a below-value offer just because there's an offer for a pitcher than might be a #2 only if he hits his ceiling, but is much more likely to be a #3-4. I don't know how much you've really looked into DeLeon but he's got a 92 MPH fastball and a really really good changeup. But nothing else. His movement pitches haven't done much for him. Add shoulder injury and a really bad callup to that resume and he's just a huge gamble. Way too big of a gamble to make a 1-for-1 deal for when you have flexibility.

 

Also, if you moved Polanco to second, who do you have playing short?

 

Gordon is the SS next year, don't care this year. 

 

it sounds like we agree Dozier needs to be traded, and yes, I have looked at De Leon, and yes, he makes me nervous......but Berrios makes me nervous, every prospect makes me nervous. But as either Theo or Friedman pointed out, if you are always rational, you always finish third in FA bidding (and, probably don't trade a lot either). At some point, you trust your scouts. I have no idea what the offer was, nor how they feel about De Leon, but if they think he's a legit 3, I do a 1:1, let alone whatever else was offered.

 

My disappointment (that's the word, not anger, not "they are idiots") stems from 5 years of the Twins not trading (or badly trading) veterans during a rebuild, when every other team seems able to make those kinds of trades and speed up their rebuild. 

[nicksaviking]

 

I'm responding to the posts, not to what the FO did.

 

And, no, not acting can be out of fear. There are two sides (or more like 6-8) of what would cause someone to act, or not.

 

You can be afraid to trade for a prospect because, as the poster said "they bust all the time", and want to keep the more proven MLB player. If that wasn't clear, I hope it is now.

 

In that situation I would argue that fear would cause someone to balk at not taking an offer that was favorable to them. According to everyone but Dave Cameron, this was nowhere close to a fair deal. I seriously doubt the front office was frightened to act because prospects bust all the time, why would they have been shopping Dozier at all then?

 

I think it's more than fair to believe that they have taken the position that they'll take their chances that they can get a better deal later, no matter how slim, because the chances that De Leon himself will be a front line starter are still slimmer.

[TooSmartForEweNow]

 

Again, how do you know you can get at least a top 10ish starting pitching prospect in the future?

 

I'd argue that your argument is the one negotiating out of fear. You seem to be under the assumption that there's no way we'll ever get better than whatever we are offered right now so we have to pull the trigger... because what if his trade value goes down?

 

Dozier has a several season track record of being one of the better second basemen in baseball. Even his "bad" first half last season was actually pretty decent using analytics. I am pretty comfortable in assuming that he'll continue to be a productive second baseman and someone will make a similar offer. It's not like one pitching prospect offers are historically hard to come by.

 

Keep in mind also that next season there are several more teams losing their 2B to free agency. Neil Walker (mets), brandon Phillips (reds), Jed Lowrie (A's), Brett lawrie (CWS)... even Logan Forsythe could hit free agency next year if the Dodgers decide he's a bust and don't pick up his option. 

 

While you could argue that that means more competition in the fact that they could just sign a free agent instead of giving up prospects to get one, there is also the fact that Brian Dozier is better than literally every single one of those guys and would be cheaper than some of them. Someone would be willing to part with a pitching prospect to get him. 

[Brock Beauchamp]

I've noticed we talk quite a bit about how the Twins might evaluate various Dodgers prospects but one thing we haven't talked about much is the guy we know they've evaluated a lot, both from the Cleveland perspective and the Minnesota perspective: Brian Dozier.

 

We talk a lot about how the Twins need to make developmental changes up and down the organization but we're not really talking about how that might impact Brian Dozier, the best player on the team.

 

It's entirely possible Falvey and Levine refuse to budge on Dozier because they're confident he's a perennial 35 homer guy now. They've seen Dozier play, evaluated both his 2013-2015 and 2016 mechanics, and have internal evaluation tools that dig much deeper than we can as outsiders.

 

Combine that with a new hitting coach and it's possible they didn't move Dozier because the Dodgers were offering 3-4 WAR value for a player they believe is a 5+ WAR guy going forward.

 

It's a risk either way but I don't think we've really considered where Falvey and Levine place Dozier and how confident they are about his 2016.

[Doomtints]

 

He's not a top 10 prospect. Top 10 prospect and "top 10ish" pitching prospects are two *vastly* different things.

 

The most recent prospect ranking that just came out about a week ago on ESPN had DeLeon ranked the 74th best prospect in baseball. Twins can get that at the deadline. 

 

Maybe. But they won't get a guy who is so close to being ready.