Article: Falvey's First Stand

[TooSmartForEweNow]

 

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. 

 

but this year still has to be played. Why not make some money off of Dozier if you think you can get the same deal a little later one? Then sure, trade him and do what you said - move polanco over and put Gordon up. even better if he's ready by the deadline. 

 

I fully agree that recent trades have been terrible. I'd actually argue that Carlos Gomez was a good enough piece to warrant that Santana deal. but we traded him... in another good deal to get Hardy. Everything after that has been pure insanity. We traded Hardy for nothing. We traded Ramos for nothing. Revere, Span... all of them, we just get junk in return. And while that doesn't mean you should get gun-shy it does mean when you have flexibility you hold out for something better. You don't continue to make questionable trades, which DeLeon very much would be, in a 1-for-1. FWIW I would have gladly taken any second pitching prospect with DeLeon and said let's do it. Alvarez for sure, even Buehler, Stewart, something to pad the chances of actually turning out to be a good deal. But I would have been very unhappy if they pulled the trigger on the 1-for-1

[TheLeviathan]

 

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?

 

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. 

 

A couple things:

 

1) Pitching prospects this highly regarded for a hitter ARE hard to come by.  Look back at the last decade, the trade history does not favor your expectations.  

 

2)  Higher demand MAY happen, but when it does Dozier will be a year older, with a year less of team control, and likely will not have replicated his 2016 success.  How much of a bite do those factors take out of that demand?

[drivlikejehu]

 

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. 

 

I'm not sure what your point is here - I hope you're not suggesting baseball fans need to rigorously apply the Rules of Evidence to discuss rumors? There were reports that the Twins were offered more than De Leon, and it logically makes sense. There's no "proof" that the Dodgers ever made the Twins any formal offer at all, if you want to be really technical about it.

 

If something has been reported by decent journalists and is supported by multiple other factors, it's reasonable for the purposes of discussion to assume it's true. Otherwise all trade discussions would be precluded as overly reliant on hearsay, etc. So your viewpoint was really out of place in this context.

[TooSmartForEweNow]

 

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

 

They might. I don't really know what teams might be needing a second baseman at this deadline, so that's really tough one to call. 

[jimmer]

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?

when did I slam the FO on this? My posts have centered more on what I think Dozier is worth, how I feel about the Dodgers prospects and the amount of players I though were offered. I have also said about 200 times that De Leon for Dozier wouldnt be a good trade for us and that De Leon and junk for Dozier wouldnt be a good trade. I havent been slamming the FO. I am disappointed, though completely unsurprised, nothing got done.

 

My issue stems from people saying dont criticize the FO because we dont know what the offers were and then they pat the FO on the back for standing strong saying it was a 1:1 offer or it was De Leon and junk for Dozier.

If we dont know what the offer was, we dont know, right? Cant slam other people criticisms based on those people not knowing exactly what the offers were and then pat the FO on the back, while making your own assumptions about what the offers were, even though you also dont know exactly what the offers were.

Edited January 25, 2017 by jimmer

[Mike Sixel]

 

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. 

 

You expect the A's, Reds, or WS to give the Twins a top 10ish or better pitching prospect? I can't see that happening. The Reds will be rebuilding, the WS are in their division, and the As are unpredictable. I can see the Mets doing that, but they have Gavin Cecchini who should be up this year or next. I bet they roll with him.

[TooSmartForEweNow]

 

A couple things:

 

1) Pitching prospects this highly regarded for a hitter ARE hard to come by.  Look back at the last decade, the trade history does not favor your expectations.  

 

2)  Higher demand MAY happen, but when it does Dozier will be a year older, with a year less of team control, and likely will not have replicated his 2016 success.  How much of a bite do those factors take out of that demand?

 

RE: 1. I think all the trade talks have ended up overhyping DeLeon. Nobody is expecting this guy to be ace caliber. Sure he's a ranked pitching prospect, but those have been moving with more frequency recently. He's expected to be a contributing piece, nothing really more. 

 

RE: 2. He doesn't really need to replicate his 2016 success to be desirable. Just like we are talking about DeLeon's potential ceiling, we now have a basis for Dozier's actual ceiling. DeLeon's floor is just being an absolute bust with a 7 ERA like in his callup. Dozier's floor is 20 homers/15 steals/60 RBI and pretty good defense. Even for 9 million next year, someone would bite on that. 

Edited January 25, 2017 by TooSmartForEweNow

[TooSmartForEweNow]

 

I'm not sure what your point is here - I hope you're not suggesting baseball fans need to rigorously apply the Rules of Evidence to discuss rumors? There were reports that the Twins were offered more than De Leon, and it logically makes sense. There's no "proof" that the Dodgers ever made the Twins any formal offer at all, if you want to be really technical about it.

 

If something has been reported by decent journalists and is supported by multiple other factors, it's reasonable for the purposes of discussion to assume it's true. Otherwise all trade discussions would be precluded as overly reliant on hearsay, etc. So your viewpoint was really out of place in this context.

 

No, my point was just that it was asserted that because the Rays got DeLeon, the Dodgers *must* have offered more than that to the Twins. And I was just pointing out that that really didn't make any sense. 

[USAFChief]

At the risk of repeating myself: I was happy with the hiring of both Falvey and Levine. They appear to me--from a distance--to be exactly the type of hires I wanted. They seem to me to be smart, experienced execs with sound baseball backgrounds. Young, analytically savvy, from outside the org...pretty much the exact guys we all screamed for.

 

So...if they discuss a trade for months, and end up not making it, I am going to assume they did so because they didnt get the right offer. We all sort of agree, if the offer was De Leon plus another legitimate prospect, say Alvarez or even Beuhler, we'd take that. If that's the consensus here...seems plausible Falvine would agree.

 

Which leads me to believe either that was never offered, or the Twins don't place as much value on De Leon as prospect mavens.

 

I trust this new front office. I think they deserve that, for a while at least. They can see everything we can and have actual facts from which to base their decision. Criticisng them at this point seems unfair.

[nicksaviking]

 

when did I slam the FO on this?

My issue stems from people saying dont criticize the FO because we dont know what the offers were and then they pat the FO on the back by for standing strong saying it was a 1:1 offer or it was De Leon and junk for Dozier.
If we dont know ehat the offer was, we dont know, right.

 

So you're not criticizing the front office, you just don't want people TELLING you not to criticize the front office?

 

Also, I don't see anyone patting the front office on the back. I see people agreeing that not accepting the offer was for the best, but it seems odd that you'd be upset with that unless you actually are criticizing the front office.

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

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. 

Thanks for the response.

 

No, I don't think it makes the Dodgers "horribly incompetent".  Even if they preferred Dozier to Forsythe, they perhaps don't project a huge difference.

 

I think "best offers" are withheld all the time, because there are risks to making them.  Once you offer a guy, it's incredibly bad form to pull him back or try to change it.  Maybe the Dodgers would have been ultimately willing to pull the trigger on De Leon plus Stewart, but making that offer when the Twins were steadfast in demanding 3 players (per Morosi) would have effectively ended any chance of settling on their preferred package of De Leon plus, say, Calhoun, and it still wouldn't have gotten the deal done.  Even offering "one of" Stewart or Calhoun as the second piece would have probably just emboldened the Twins to demand all 3. Not to mention the trickle down effects -- if the Rays know the Twins turned down De Leon plus Stewart or Calhoun, they are more likely to try to squeeze those players into their demand too.  Or if the Dodgers don't acquire Forsythe and they re-visit the Twins later, the Dodgers earlier offer might become the "starting point" regardless of how circumstances may have changed since then.

 

I'm not saying this is exactly what happened, but these are examples of reasonable possibilities that could have led to only De Leon being on the table.  Real-world negotiations with multiple moving parts aren't just an isolated math problem, where one side says X and they other says Y, and if they are near equal, the deal happens, and if they're not, the page is erased.  It's a lot more complicated than that.

 

And to re-iterate, I'm not picking on the Twins too much here, I think it's fine to walk away because of your high demands for Dozier -- that's what many folks here endorse, and that's likely what the Twins did.  I just don't think you get to further justify your walking away because the Dodgers "only" put De Leon on the table, when it was only done in the face of much higher demands.

[jimmer]

So you're not criticizing the front office, you just don't want people TELLING you not to criticize the front office?

 

Also, I don't see anyone patting the front office on the back. I see people agreeing that not accepting the offer was for the best, but it seems odd that you'd be upset with that unless you actually are criticizing the front office.

wow, if you want to believe thats what I am saying, whatever. Its not, but whatever.

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

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.

That's fair Brock, although given the Twins inactive offseason overall, it would appear Falvey and Levine have similar confidence in many parts of the current roster that probably isn't warranted.

[TheLeviathan]

 

RE: 1. I think all the trade talks have ended up overhyping DeLeon. Nobody is expecting this guy to be ace caliber. Sure he's a ranked pitching prospect, but those have been moving with more frequency recently. He's expected to be a contributing piece, nothing really more. 

 

RE: 2. He doesn't really need to replicate his 2016 success to be desirable. Just like we are talking about DeLeon's potential ceiling, we now have a basis for Dozier's actual ceiling. DeLeon's floor is just being an absolute bust with a 7 ERA like in his callup. Dozier's floor is 20 homers/15 steals/60 RBI and pretty good defense. Even for 9 million next year, someone would bite on that. 

 

Well, his ranking as a prospect sort of is what it is.  It was there prior to talks ever firing up.  

 

He's a top ten pitching prospect in baseball, those don't move often.  And when they do it's pretty much always for other pitchers.  I highly encourage you to go back and look at the last decade or so of trades.  It doesn't support what you're arguing.

 

And someone may bite on a reduced Dozier performance as you say.  But I doubt they bite with nearly as big a return.  That's the crux of it.  We can't know for sure, but I know which side of it I'd bet on.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

That's fair Brock, although given the Twins inactive offseason overall, it would appear Falvey and Levine have similar confidence in many parts of the current roster that probably isn't warranted.

It's possible that's the case.

 

It's also possible they don't really care about 2017 and plan to just throw **** at the wall and see what sticks while they reorganize the entire franchise.

 

If anything, I lean toward the latter. They know they have something resembling a free pass in 2017 and plan to first straighten out scouting, analytics, coaching, etc. and then worry about the actual on-field product in Minnesota.

 

The biggest question mark for me is where Falvey and Levine feel the organization is today. That changes the entire dynamic for 2017 and beyond. Are the Twins 90% of the organization they envision or 50%?

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

It's possible that's the case.

 

It's also possible they don't really care about 2017 and plan to just throw **** at the wall and see what sticks while they reorganize the entire franchise.

 

If anything, I lean toward the latter. They know they have something resembling a free pass in 2017 and plan to first straighten out scouting, analytics, coaching, etc. and then worry about the actual on-field product in Minnesota.

Personally, I'd be disappointed if that's the case.  It's not like they have to be overly worried about the on-field product to just identify an interesting reliever project or something.  Still may come yet this offseason, but so far... bare minimum.

[Mike Sixel]

 

It's possible that's the case.

 

It's also possible they don't really care about 2017 and plan to just throw **** at the wall and see what sticks while they reorganize the entire franchise.

 

If anything, I lean toward the latter. They know they have something resembling a free pass in 2017 and plan to first straighten out scouting, analytics, coaching, etc. and then worry about the actual on-field product in Minnesota.

 

The biggest question mark for me is where Falvey and Levine feel the organization is today. That changes the entire dynamic for 2017 and beyond. Are the Twins 90% of the organization they envision or 50%?

 

I agree, and disagree. I think they are clearly doing that, but that doesn't preclude them making trades or signing FAs, imo.

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

I'm frustrated by the FO's inaction too, but I don't think we can properly deduce that the inaction is the result of overvaluing the rest of the roster. I think it's equally as plausible that that no one else wants the rest of the roster other than the young players, players the Twins would be stupid to trade unless they brought in a proven starter.

That's fine, and that speaks to the inactivity of trades.  But how about cutting some of these guys that no one else wants?  How about dropping out some fungible 40-man parts and replacing them with more interesting projects?

[Mike Sixel]

Next year, when the FA market is good, they will sign some good players, I assume, based on all these comments...

[drivlikejehu]

The criticism of Falvey and Levine is 100% predicated on the idea that there are unknown 'things' they could have done to improve the state of the organization. However, none of these criticisms is supported by any facts or concrete analysis. 

 

Sure, I'd have dumped Danny Santana by now, but what is the impact of them not dumping him yet? Realistically, there is zero impact.

 

Now, if May stays in the bullpen, I'll be very displeased. There's a meaningful and concrete issue. 

 

Non-existent trade opportunities and the like? Not so much. 

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

Personally, I'd be disappointed if that's the case.  It's not like they have to be overly worried about the on-field product to just identify an interesting reliever project or something.  Still may come yet this offseason, but so far... bare minimum.

Yeah, I tend to agree, which is why I'm mildly disappointed in the offseason.

 

But we have no idea what Falvey and Levine plan to do on Opening Day. I think we're mired in the mindset of the Terry Ryan years and projecting his flaws onto the new front office.

 

Maybe they didn't pick up a reliever because they plan to aggressively push guys like Chargois, Melotakis, and Burdi to Minnesota either out of Spring Training or sometime in May. Or maybe they already have Duffey slotted into the pen and haven't told anyone. That's half of a bullpen right there, not including the guys they have on the roster or wildcards like Perkins.

 

Lots of options there and we haven't seen how this front office moves on pitching. Are they aggressive, Terry Ryan, or somewhere in the middle?

[jimmer]

Next year, when the FA market is good, they will sign some good players, I assume, based on all these comments...

one wonders how many of these projected FAs next year actually end up FA as opposed to signing extensions.

[Mike Sixel]

 

one wonders how many of these projected FAs next year actually end up FA as opposed to signing extensions.

 

Or how the Twins will outbid the other teams.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

Or how the Twins will outbid the other teams.

I'm not so sure of that part. Again, we have no track record for Falvey or Levine as decision-makers. Levine was part of an aggressive front office, Falvey not so much.

 

Going into 2018, the Twins will shed Santiago, Perkins, and a few other players... But more importantly, they'll be entering the last season of Mauer's giant contract.

 

Which is why I'm giving the front office something resembling a free pass right now. We're seeing a tiny fraction of the picture and we don't have an established baseline to project their future plans.

[Mike Sixel]

 

I'm not so sure of that part. Again, we have no track record for Falvey or Levine as decision-makers. Levine was part of an aggressive front office, Falvey not so much.

 

Going into 2018, the Twins will shed Santiago, Perkins, and a few other players... But more importantly, they'll be entering the last season of Mauer's giant contract.

 

Which is why I'm giving the front office something resembling a free pass right now. We're seeing a tiny fraction of the picture and we don't have an established baseline to project their future plans.

 

Agreed, we have no idea. But you think the Twins outbid someone for a TOP FA? It's possible, is it likely?

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

Agreed, we have no idea. But you think the Twins outbid someone for a TOP FA? It's possible, is it likely?

They're already well under past payrolls (somewhere around $15m under, IIRC).

 

Then you get to remove a full quarter of that payroll when Mauer exits.

 

The median MLB payroll is somewhere around $140m, I believe. The Twins could enter 2018 with just $75m on the books.

 

What do they do at that point? I have no idea.

 

And they won't have to worry about arbitration for quite some time. For every guy that gets a pay raise in arb, you drop another guy like Santana or Hughes through 2020.

[Mike Sixel]

 

They're already well under past payrolls (somewhere around $15m under, IIRC).

 

Then you get to remove a full quarter of that payroll when Mauer exits.

 

The median MLB payroll is somewhere around $140m, I believe. The Twins could enter 2018 with just $75m on the books.

 

What do they do at that point? I have no idea.

 

And they won't have to worry about arbitration for quite some time. For every guy that gets a pay raise in arb, you drop another guy like Santana or Hughes through 2020.

 

Sign Buxton and Sano to large extensions would be my guess.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

Sign Buxton and Sano to large extensions would be my guess.

That's likely way up their list of tasks to accomplish in the next 12-24 months but even that won't seriously constrain payroll through 2020. Even those big extensions usually pay in gradually increasing numbers through what would have been arbitration seasons.

 

While a Buxton/Sano extension would like pay them $25m+ per season, those numbers wouldn't kick in until 2021-2022.

[Mike Sixel]

 

That's likely way up their list of tasks to accomplish in the next 12-24 months but even that won't seriously constrain payroll through 2020. Even those big extensions usually pay in gradually increasing numbers through what would have been arbitration seasons.

 

While a Buxton/Sano extension would like pay them $25m+ per season, those numbers wouldn't kick in until 2021-2022.

 

let's hope you are right, and they sign a huge FA (like they did back when they signed Jack Morris, also not under Ryan.....).

[gunnarthor]

So just looking at mlbpipeline list of top pitchers over the years (they divide by handiness), a few have been traded (and I certainly missed some trades) although not necessarily in the years they were ranked (that's just too much work) Shelby Miller (dumb Arizona trade), Jacob Turner, Tyler Skaggs, Andrew Heaney (Dee Gordon trade), Taijon Walker, Mark Appel (for Giles), Trevor Bauer, Giolito, Max Fried, Sean Newcomb (Simmons trade), Sean Manaea (Zorbrist trade), De Leon (Forsythe), Kopech, Lopez.  

 

I'm not sure it tells us much.  Levi and Mike have made the point that top 10ish pitchers aren't often traded for hitters but that's not quite true.  They aren't often traded at all. The bolded ones were traded for hitters.  Most trades involved multiple pieces.  There just aren't that many trades of a guy like Dozier by himself.