Article: Falvey's First Stand

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

Yeah, there really isn't any reason to doubt Steve Adams characterization of the Dodgers offer to the Twins as De Leon "and junk."

Well, it wasn't a report that the offer was in fact "junk".  It was speculation based on some incomplete reports.  If Adams knew anything about pieces offered beyond De Leon, he never published them.

 

Also, this "junk" comment by Adams was in a chat or comments section, was it not?  I just tried searching MLBTR proper for it with no results.  That would push it further into the speculative category, IMO, and not something that should be suggested as a report.

[Mike Sixel]

 

I especially liked Nick's last point. I do a lot of negotiating in my job. I want the other side to believe me when I say something. I want my credibility to be established. Those folks whom I don't know are difficult to negotiate with successfully. However if I know my opponent's credibility to be true and honest, based on past experiences, then I respect that and I know he means what he says. It seems to me that Falvey and Levine did not blink and the Dodgers and the GM's of the other teams have taken notice with regard to future dealings with F & L. That is what I am going to take from LA dodging Dozier.

 

Well, they have nothing else to trade, does this matter? 

 

Is there any evidence, anywhere, that anyone can find, anywhere, that making one "bad" trade leads to bad offers in the future, or is this "the earth is flat, everyone knows that"? Seriously, just give me some actual data about this. One piece.

[Mike Sixel]

Nick's article left off the most likely outcome....Dozier is good to very good, the Twins can't pitch, lose 85-90 games, and then do it again next year, and then Dozier leaves as a FA. 

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

Looking at the stats it looks like maybe Forsythe is Polanco lite.

Not sure why you'd say that, unless you are primarily looking at Forsythe's stats from 3+ years ago.  He's got 7.6 bWAR and 6.8 fWAR over the last 2 seasons, I think we would be thrilled with that production from Polanco.  If anything, Polanco is probably Forsythe-lite until he adds a little power to his game (which could certainly happen over the next few years), or shows a greater defensive aptitude like handling SS.

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

So you think Dozier would not have gotten significantly more than Forsythe AND the Dodgers were offering three players, not two? How insignificant would two additional pieces be then? And why would we care to have them?

I think he means that the Dodgers offer of 2-3 players did not satisfy the Twins quality demands in their request for De Leon plus 2 prospects (per Passan).

[ewen21]

 

'And the Dodgers, at the end of the day, were willing to deal him straight-up for a player in Forsythe who is a major downgrade from Dozier.'

 

-http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/dodgers-trade-for-brian-dozier-basically/]

 

Major downgrade if Dozier has another year like he did in 2016 or improves.  I would bet zero dollars and zero cents either of those things happen.

Pretty much this. We as Twins are grossly overrating Dozier and have not accepted that the market for second baseman is not wide open. The Dodgers weren't sweating us at all. They found a solution in Forsythe and will probably make more moves to improve their club.

 

Our guys? They seemed stuck on this one to the point where they couldn't do anything else. They could not come up with a single trade this winter? Hard to explain that one away.

[Squirrel]

Moderator note: If you want to discuss your opinions of the FO failing in this, do so. But name-calling ... no matter how 'clever' ... is a no go, especially if it's a one-off post.

[Nick Nelson]

 

You said, 'Without knowing the specifics of the best offer Minnesota turned down, it is difficult to cast any immediate judgments.'

 

Based on what you wrote after saying that, it didn't seem you found it very difficult to cast an immediate judgment at all  Your judgment was clearly that the Twins made the right decision to keep Dozier.  Maybe you meant, 'Without knowing the specifics of the best offer Minnesota turned down, it is difficult to say the FO did the wrong thing'?

The conclusion of the piece is that, knowing what we know, Falvey made the right choice in sticking to his guns. 

 

If I find out at some point that the Twins turned down an offer of, say, De Leon + Buehler, it would change my view. But there is no indication that anyone from the group of Buehler/Urias/Alvarez/Bellinger was on the table, and I'm not sure there's a two-player package that does the trick without any of them involved.

 

You complain about the "benefit of the doubt almost always given to the FO" but this is not the same front office, and if you're going to give anyone the benefit of the doubt ever, how would it not be this leadership? You could not possibly ask for a more impartial and unattached group to be making this decision. Falvey and Levine have zero history in this organization or with Dozier. Both have been at the negotiating table many times in the past with their other orgs, they understand the dynamics of dealing well. What reason is there to think they had some unreasonably high valuation of Dozier? 

[SarasotaBill]

Dodgers needed a big RH bat vs. LHP.

Dozier .965 OPS

Forsythe .775 OPS

 

If Dogers were trying to steal Dozier with Forsythe as the back-up plan then I say sometimes the best deals are the deals that you don't make.

[Squirrel]

 

 

I believe Forsythe is a downgrade from Dozier but not a huge one. Dozier should have gotten more in return but not significantly more. I believe we were offered more than De Leon and that the hold up was the third piece, whether that means having a third piece at all or who the third piece was.

What kind of a prospect is 'not significantly' more, though? I've stated all along I'd have taken DeLeon and Alvarez. I'd have tried to negotiate for more, but I would have taken that. I would have taken DeLeon and Stewart, too. But I consider both those 2nds as significantly more. Maybe we are confused over semantics, but if what else was offered, and I do believe there was more offered, wasn't anything that would benefit us, it's a no go for me. It basically means that it was DeLeon (useful) and two not significantly more pieces (not useful). That's my reasoning. I think you think that it didn't matter much to you what else came with DeLeon that DeLeon is really all that mattered to you. Again, I may be misconstruing what you are trying to say, but I believe that what you would have accepted was too weak an offer and I'm okay with a pass on it. Not completely happy, not not disappointed, but okay. I'm part of the 'side' that thinks an asset needs to bring back more. We couldn't get it done for whatever reason. I think that the Dodgers thought that Forsythe was an okay-enough upgrade and was satisfactory to them, that that kind of a piece was the goal ... and if they could get more than that without giving up much more than what they did, they were going to try. But they were going to hold firm to nothing more significant than DeLeon because they had Forsythe in the wings. Given that, I'm okay they passed ... but disappointed a deal couldn't be struck.

[Nick Nelson]

 

Is there any evidence, anywhere, that anyone can find, anywhere, that making one "bad" trade leads to bad offers in the future, or is this "the earth is flat, everyone knows that"? Seriously, just give me some actual data about this. One piece.

If Falvey's first trade at the helm involves him very publicly relenting and giving in to the other side's demands, it sets a precedent. There is little doubt others will try to similarly take advantage in the future. This is not a "world is flat" type of proclamation, it's common sense. 

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

How come no one ever mentions Polanco as a trade bit. He's being blocked by Dozier now and he's proven himself to be MLB ready with his bat. That's gotta have some value. Trade him now before he stagnates at ss.

There aren't many teams who would give up much for Polanco.

 

Contending teams want someone with less risk, a proven commodity.

 

Rebuilding teams, more willing to take risk on unproven players, are loathe to trade prospects.

[Mike Sixel]

 

If Falvey's first trade at the helm involves him very publicly relenting and giving in to the other side's demands, it sets a precedent. There is little doubt others will try to similarly take advantage in the future. This is not a "world is flat" type of proclamation, it's common sense. 

 

common sense=world is flat argument, Nick. Is there any evidence that making one bad deal, or one great deal, changes how other deals happen? I'm not arguing you or others are wrong, I am asking if anyone has any data on this at all, or we just "know it is true".

[gunnarthor]

From a baseball fan, not necessarily a Twins fan, it would be really interesting if the Giants were to now get involved and acquire Dozier.  Dozier would be the most hated (position) player in a pretty good rivalry.  (And the Giants top of the batting order would be Span, Nunez, Dozier).  

 

Not sure how much interest SF would actually have since they have Panik but from a narrative perspective, it's great.

[jimmer]

So you think Dozier would not have gotten significantly more than Forsythe AND the Dodgers were offering three players, not two? How insignificant would two additional pieces be then? And why would we care to have them?

I never said I thought the Dodgers were offering three players. I said I thought two players were being offered and the hold up was the third player (meaning either the Dodgers were not offering a 3rd piece at all and the Twins wanted one, or the Dodgers were offering a 3rd player and the Twins didnt like the player). In either of those scenarios, the 2nd piece isnt insignificant and it makes the offer more than De Leon straight up. It doesnt mean the 2nd and 3rd pieces are both insignificant. Edited January 24, 2017 by jimmer

[d-mac]

 

The only way this was absolutely the right decision is if Dozier repeats (or improves upon) the second half he had last year and the market for 2B suddenly booms. I'm not holding my breath waiting for either to happen....

 

It would be one thing if they were in talks with other teams at the moment, but if all they can do now is bank on the above criteria and sell us optimism about Dozier leading the Twins to a strong start, I can't see this as anything but disappointing. 

 

Bingo. Even if we assume that De Leon was the only thing offered to the Twins (I doubt it) and we peg him as only having #3 starter upside (I view him as a future #2) trading Dozier may have been the best move. Yes, you don't want to sell low on your prized asset, but at the same time you can only take what the market will give you. Price or value is determined by what the purchaser willing to pay (sorry Karl Marx, but I'm dropping economic truth bombs up in here). 

 

Dozier will not help solve our run prevention problem. He alone cannot return us to contention. But we have a ready replacement for him and getting back a young, cost controlled, #3 starter will go along way to getting us there.

 

It's hard to imagine that anything better will be offered at the deadline or next offseason. The next course of action in this case should be to extend Dozier and trade Polanco. But that proposition is risky for a rebuilding club based on Dozier's age and inconsistency. So I expect the Twins to take the "do nothing and pray for season ending injuries of other team's secondbasemen."

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

Dodgers needed a big RH bat vs. LHP.

Dozier .965 OPS

Forsythe .775 OPS

 

If Dogers were trying to steal Dozier with Forsythe as the back-up plan then I say sometimes the best deals are the deals that you don't make.

That's just their 2016 numbers.

 

Career vs LHP

Dozier: 131 wRC+

Forsythe: 127 wRC+

 

Either way, it's a big improvement over Utley's 2016 mark of 27 wRC+ vs LHP. 

 

And the Dodgers don't need all of their improvement vs LHP to come from Forsythe.  They will almost certainly be playing RHB Puig more (or acquiring another RHB outfielder), and I imagine they expect RHB Turner to return to his career norms vs LHP after an uncharacteristically poor split in 2016.

[gunnarthor]

 

Bingo. Even if we assume that De Leon was the only thing offered to the Twins (I doubt it) and we peg him as only having #3 starter upside (I view him as a future #2) trading Dozier may have been the best move. Yes, you don't want to sell low on your prized asset, but at the same time you can only take what the market will give you. Price or value is determined by what the purchaser willing to pay (sorry Karl Marx, but I'm dropping economic truth bombs up in here). 

 

Dozier will not help solve our run prevention problem. He alone cannot return us to contention. But we have a ready replacement for him and getting back a young, cost controlled, #3 starter will go along way to getting us there.

 

I don't think trading away Dozier for less than how you value him is a good idea.  The Twins offense is going to take a big hit if they trade him.  If you think De Leon is a #3/4 type, maybe it's better to roll the dice on a ****ty FA pitcher and keep Dozier.  I suspect the Twins can trade Dozier later and get something akin to the #70 baseball prospect.

[Mike Sixel]

 

I don't think trading away Dozier for less than how you value him is a good idea.  The Twins offense is going to take a big hit if they trade him.  If you think De Leon is a #3/4 type, maybe it's better to roll the dice on a ****ty FA pitcher and keep Dozier.  I suspect the Twins can trade Dozier later and get something akin to the #70 baseball prospect.

 

You wouldn't trade 2 years of Dozier, when they aren't in the playoffs, for 6 years of a number three, when hopefully they are? I would. 

 

as for your second point, why would you trade Dozier for the same offer later, if not now?

[gunnarthor]

 

You wouldn't trade 2 years of Dozier, when they aren't in the playoffs, for 6 years of a number three, when hopefully they are? I would. 

 

as for your second point, why would you trade Dozier for the same offer later, if not now?

Well, if I can trade Dozier next year and get the same deal, why give up the extra year of value?  And the issue isn't that I can get 6 years of a #3.  If I knew that De Leon would give me 6 years, roughly 1000ip and 11 WAR or so, I'd take that.  The problem is that we aren't trading for 6 years of #3 pitching.  We're trading for a pitcher whose ceiling is a #3 pitcher but still has very significant risk of missing that ceiling either due to lower performance, injuries or general lack of durability that makes him a bullpen piece instead.  So that's why I was opposed to a 1:1 swap.  

 

And if Nunez can get me a BA backend 100 type, so can Dozier.  

[d-mac]

 

You wouldn't trade 2 years of Dozier, when they aren't in the playoffs, for 6 years of a number three, when hopefully they are? I would. 

 

as for your second point, why would you trade Dozier for the same offer later, if not now?

 

Mike dropping logic bombs. 

[Mike Sixel]

 

Well, if I can trade Dozier next year and get the same deal, why give up the extra year of value?  And the issue isn't that I can get 6 years of a #3.  If I knew that De Leon would give me 6 years, roughly 1000ip and 11 WAR or so, I'd take that.  The problem is that we aren't trading for 6 years of #3 pitching.  We're trading for a pitcher whose ceiling is a #3 pitcher but still has very significant risk of missing that ceiling either due to lower performance, injuries or general lack of durability that makes him a bullpen piece instead.  So that's why I was opposed to a 1:1 swap.  

 

And if Nunez can get me a BA backend 100 type, so can Dozier.  

 

I guess I misunderstood this part:

 

"If you think De Leon is a #3/4 type, maybe it's better to roll the dice on a ****ty FA pitcher and keep Dozier"

 

because that part seems to say that you wouldn't trade Dozier for a number 3 pitcher. Maybe the 4 is bigger.....

[chpettit19]

 

You wouldn't trade 2 years of Dozier, when they aren't in the playoffs, for 6 years of a number three, when hopefully they are? I would. 

 

as for your second point, why would you trade Dozier for the same offer later, if not now?

 

Trading Dozier for De Leon isn't the same as trading him for 6 years of a number 3. It's trading him for the possibility of a number 3. There's a huge difference there. De Leon may never be a number 4 or 5 big league pitcher let alone a number 3.

[Mike Sixel]

 

Trading Dozier for De Leon isn't the same as trading him for 6 years of a number 3. It's trading him for the possibility of a number 3. There's a huge difference there. De Leon may never be a number 4 or 5 big league pitcher let alone a number 3.

 

see above.... "if you think he's a number 3/4"...you have to trust your scouts. Now, if that meant "if there is a 50% chance he's a 3", that's a different statement.

[nicksaviking]

 

common sense=world is flat argument, Nick. Is there any evidence that making one bad deal, or one great deal, changes how other deals happen? I'm not arguing you or others are wrong, I am asking if anyone has any data on this at all, or we just "know it is true".

 

Well even if one deal doesn't DIRECTLY lead to another bad deal, I'm happy Falvey didn't make one with his first move and force us to talk about if this is going to be a pattern and/or if other wiser and better GM's are going to smell blood in the water manipulate him going forward.

 

In other words, I'd hate to be next Arizona Diamondbacks.

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

And the issue isn't that I can get 6 years of a #3.  If I knew that De Leon would give me 6 years, roughly 1000ip and 11 WAR or so, I'd take that.  The problem is that we aren't trading for 6 years of #3 pitching.  We're trading for a pitcher whose ceiling is a #3 pitcher but still has very significant risk of missing that ceiling either due to lower performance, injuries or general lack of durability that makes him a bullpen piece instead.  So that's why I was opposed to a 1:1 swap.

While some have that pessimistic take on him, it seems most observers give De Leon a little more credit for ceiling than that.

[Mike Sixel]

 

Well even if one deal doesn't DIRECTLY lead to another bad deal, I'm happy Falvey didn't make one with his first move and force us to talk about if this is going to be a pattern and/or if other wiser and better GM's are going to smell blood in the water manipulate him going forward.

 

In other words, I'd hate to be next Arizona Diamondbacks.

 

We can all agree that we don't want them to be the AZ traders, that's true. 

[d-mac]

 

Trading Dozier for De Leon isn't the same as trading him for 6 years of a number 3. It's trading him for the possibility of a number 3. There's a huge difference there. De Leon may never be a number 4 or 5 big league pitcher let alone a number 3.

 

There's also a chance De Leon stays healthy and develops a quality breaking pitch. Adding that third pitch basically means that becomes a top of the rotation guy. Basically, the only risk to De Leon is his shoulder. If he stays healthy he's got a really high floor even without that third pitch. 

 

There's also zero chance of Dozier helping us solve our pitching problem if we don't trade him. 

[Boom Boom]

No, Dozier for De Leon doesn't sound like a fair trade to me.

 

However, the general lack of interest around the league plus the Dodgers' allegedly "meh" offer for him tells me that Dozier is not as highly regarded around the league as he is by the Twins faithful.

 

I mean, if you really think the Dodge was trying to put one over on us, how come some other teams didn't try that?

Edited January 24, 2017 by Boom Boom

[d-mac]

 

We can all agree that we don't want them to be the AZ traders, that's true. 

 

I don't know if AZ's problem was being taken advantage of. They just weren't making intelligent decisions.