Article: Falvey's First Stand

[Linus]

Denied? No, I don't think so. Dramatically underappreciated the need? God yes.

 

And I would argue we could retain Dozier and still end up "wasting" him. In fact, I'd argue retaining him is most likely to end in us wasting that asset.

 

(And we've been over the fact that I wouldn't just give him away, but I'd have found a way to make that deal happen with DeLeon)

This. There isn't much risk in trading Dozier because without pitching we won't win anyway. Dozier is being way overrated on these boards imo.

[nicksaviking]

This team needs a #2 starter more than it needs two Brian Doziers.

 

Has the off-season caused us to forget that you also have to stop the other team from scoring too?

How are those things related? Nobody was offering a #2 starter for Dozier who is their best trade chip and there wasn't one available in free agency. Short of armed kidnapping what were they supposed to do?

[DaveW]

Who would win a fight, 50 Brian Doziers or 5 velociraptors?

[gunnarthor]

 

Denied?  No, I don't think so.  Dramatically underappreciated the need?  God yes.

 

And I would argue we could retain Dozier and still end up "wasting" him.  In fact, I'd argue retaining him is most likely to end in us wasting that asset. 

 

(And we've been over the fact that I wouldn't just give him away, but I'd have found a way to make that deal happen with DeLeon)

Well, considering they had a 1:1 swap available I think it's very unlikely you could have found a way to make it happen. And if you think, as others, that Forsythe isn't that much less valuable than Dozier, then thee Dodgers sure weren't going to offer more either.

[TheLeviathan]

 

Well, considering they had a 1:1 swap available I think it's very unlikely you could have found a way to make it happen. And if you think, as others, that Forsythe isn't that much less valuable than Dozier, then thee Dodgers sure weren't going to offer more either.

 

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.

[TheLeviathan]

 

How are those things related? Nobody was offering a #2 starter for Dozier who is their best trade chip and there wasn't one available in free agency. Short of armed kidnapping what were they supposed to do?

 

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.

[KirbyDome89]

 

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.  

Are you saying you're fine with moving him in the last year of his deal for a Mejia type pticher? 

[drivlikejehu]

 

(And we've been over the fact that I wouldn't just give him away, but I'd have found a way to make that deal happen with DeLeon)

 

This is easy to say, but not a legitimate statement. You just don't have enough information to say that unless you were willing to take De Leon plus junk, which is what we can say for sure was on the table. Why do you think you would be better at upping the Dodgers offer than Falvey and Levine? 

 

The only legitimate criticism on the non-trade is to say they should have pulled the trigger on the deal we know was there. That's totally fair, and we will see how it plays out for De Leon. But any speculation beyond that is bogus - we know the Twins want to deal Dozier.

 

If your view is correct, the Dozier non-trade is irrelevant anyway, because it would mean that Twins' front office is equally or even more incompetent than before, and therefore doomed to failure regardless of any one transaction.

Edited January 25, 2017 by drivlikejehu

[TheLeviathan]

 

But any speculation beyond that is bogus - we know the Twins want to deal Dozier.n.

 

I never said I would've been better, it was a hypothetical man.  C'mon.  I was simply remarking that in their shoes I don't take 1:1, but I work like crazy to figure out the rest.  Everyone is speculating because none of us know what the deal was.  It was a package of multiple players, we only know one of them.  Who the rest are depends on how literally or loosely you choose to interpret the word "junk" IF that's even true.

 

Part of being a GM and making trades is gamesmanship and negotiation.  I hope we were doing a good job with this, but I suspect their was too much stubbornness on both sides.

Edited January 25, 2017 by TheLeviathan

[specialiststeve]

A lot of different views on this but I do believe that the new FO what they felt was the right thing. As I have stated before if it was a 1 for 1 we had  to pass unless it was Urias and they weren't going to do that.

 

We needed to have at minimum 3 Very good pieces in hopes that 1 figures it out and is good..... otherwise it is a lose. Putting all your eggs in a questionable basket would have been a bad policy and not doing it if that was the offer was the only responsible thing to do. Given they are supposed to be known for their pitching insight I will trust them at this point.

[Otto von Ballpark]

Who would win a fight, 50 Brian Doziers or 5 velociraptors?

Ditka.

[darin617]

 

I predict that Dozier is going to slump now and his value will only plummet. That's just the way it works in #Minnesotasports... *sigh*

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

[nicksaviking]

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.

Then you need to stop saying it was a 100% certainty that it wasn't a 1:1 swap because we don't know that either.

 

In fact we don't even know if the Twins were asking for De Leon.

[TheLeviathan]

 

Then you need to stop saying it was a 100% certainty that it wasn't a 1:1 swap because we don't know that either.

In fact we don't even know if the Twins were asking for De Leon.

 

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.

[drivlikejehu]

 

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.

 

De Leon plus junk may as well be 1:1. That's the strongest offer that's been reported by any journalist, several of whom have reported that even B- prospects like Stewart were off-limits. The Twins apparently talked to the Dodgers on and off over a fairly long period of time, which seems to directly contradict your speculation that they could have tried harder.

 

There is no rational basis to say the Twins turned down something more or could have somehow gotten the Dodgers to offer more. None, zero, zilch. You want it to be true, but there's no evidence to support it, and the limited evidence available goes the other way.

[jimmer]

 

You realize that the man who presided over that track record is the one who dealt JDL, right? So I'm not sure why we should grant any more credence to what the TB GM thinks of the trade he just made. 

yeah, I do.  I also know that it has continued and the people running the Rays probably didn't just forgeet it all.  Could be wrong though.

[TheLeviathan]

 

De Leon plus junk 

 

I don't consider "junk" very clear.  The only thing it makes clear is that secondary pieces were discussed.  We don't know what they were.

 

I may not be so willing to concede that they are in fact "junk" depending upon who it was.  You seem to have taken that second-hand speculation as fact, I take only the fact that there were discussions of secondary pieces away.  Without knowing who they are, I won't just conclude that they are junk.  It could be the expectations were unrealistic.  (Which, again, we know was also true at the outset)

[Brock Beauchamp]

Who would win a fight, 50 Brian Doziers or 5 velociraptors?

Make it a fair fight and flip those numbers.

[D.C Twins]

It would (will) be very interesting to see Dozier play a full season in a more fitting line up position with consistent protection behind him (and not pressing to do it all himself)...it could make a significant difference...

[DocBauer]

Who would win a fight, 50 Brian Doziers or 5 velociraptors?

 

50 Brian Dozier's, of course. The velociraptors would eventually choke on hairballs.

[DaveW]

50 nick Punto's or 1 Torii Hunter?

[drivlikejehu]

 

I don't consider "junk" very clear.  The only thing it makes clear is that secondary pieces were discussed.  We don't know what they were.

 

No, we don't know. That's why you can't say that "I'd have found a way to make that deal happen with DeLeon."

 

There is zero evidence to support the idea that anything meaningful beyond De Leon was available. You have zero legitimate basis to say that Falvey asked for too much, could have gotten a fair return, etc. 

 

There's no limit to the things you can make up out of thin air to support a point, but it's not really productive.

[TheLeviathan]

 

No, we don't know. That's why you can't say that "I'd have found a way to make that deal happen with DeLeon."

 

There is zero evidence to support the idea that anything meaningful beyond De Leon was available. You have zero legitimate basis to say that Falvey asked for too much, could have gotten a fair return, etc. 

 

There's no limit to the things you can make up out of thin air to support a point, but it's not really productive.

 

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.

[drivlikejehu]

 

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.

 

Well, the Twins kept talking to the Dodgers even though we know that 2 top prospects was never a possibility. How long would they bother discussing something if the two sides were off by that magnitude?

 

Plus, common sense doesn't support a crazy demand from the Twins. Falvey and Levine openly stated their willingness to trade away players and for sure would love to trade Dozier. Those are straightforward realities. They have enough experience to know a rough idea of what Dozier could return.

 

I can't see any reason to think they have a sentimental attachment to Dozier, whom neither of them had anything to do with until they inherited him in the form of a trade chip. Nor can I see any reason to think they were motivated to somehow fleece Friedman, who they already would know is stingy with prospects.

 

None of the pieces add up to justify your concerns/theories about the viability of the trade. Every bit of reporter information and logic goes the exact opposite way, that the Dodgers knew there was a weak market for Dozier and bid low because they had Forsythe as Plan B. It makes complete sense for all involved. It's the obvious explanation and, most likely, there's not much, if anything, more to it than that.

[DocBauer]

I think it's a pretty safe assumption that there is nobody in the Twins organization, or fan base, including us here at TD that WANTED to trade Dozier. It was simply the prudent thing to do...if possible...for the good of rebuilding the team. We may never know what was truly offered. And only time will show how good JDL turns out to be...or not.

 

Did I think any kind of turnaround was going to take place in one year or one potentially big trade. No. Was I still hoping the trade would happen to create an even greater talent pool along with some excitement? Yes.

 

But I am looking at the first couple of months on the job for the new FO, and the lack of this trade actually working out, as rather predictable. And right now, I'm OK with that. We're I in their shoes, taking over the running and retooling of an entire organization, MY initial idea would be to establish an organization-wide footprint that would include everything from scouting and evaluation of talent from the ML roster on down to the DL, the coaching staffs, the scouting department, all the way down to how the teams stretch before game time. And it stinks for us fans who want to see ACTION taking place. We don't get to see the blueprint/outline they have in mind or hear what is discussed in meetings.

 

But laying this groundwork will, unfortunately, take time and not be very entertaining. But it's where this new leadership needs to start. And it could easily take the entire 2017 season to review, reflect and implement changes across the board, and behind the scenes, all the while evaluating Molitor, his coaches, the players on the field, and the hundreds of milb players trying to work their way up.

 

So am I disappointed as a fan that something as exciting and interesting as the Dozier trade didn't happen? Yes. But I am also not surprised or disappointed...with what little information we truly have...that this big move didn't happen at this time as we all hoped it might. Not making a move because the move simply wasn't smart or fair IS making a move, as well as a statement. Patience may stink...but there is a new sheriff in town with his new deputy. And it will, unfortunately, take time to see how they run things.

 

Just my 2 cents.

[TheLeviathan]

 

Well, the Twins kept talking to the Dodgers even though we know that 2 top prospects was never a possibility. How long would they bother discussing something if the two sides were off by that magnitude?

 

And the Dodgers might have kept talking to the Twins because people they were offering may have been close to bridging the gap.  They may have been holding on to the Forsythe deal in their back pocket until they felt like they had bridged as far as possible and gave up.  And the Twins might well have helped them bridge that but in the end both sides wouldn't budge.

 

None of us know.  The only things we know are that Dozier and DeLeon were the principle pieces and they couldn't agree on the rest of the trade.  Anything further is speculation.  There is a wide range of possibilities that may have been on the table.  As I said at the outset.

Edited January 25, 2017 by TheLeviathan

[Otto von Ballpark]

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.

[drivlikejehu]

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. 

[jimmer]

 

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. 

Except we don't know that it was De Leon and junk. We don't know what the offer was so how do we know it was junk?  Also, there is no consensus on what constitutes junk in regards to the prospects.

 

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.

 

We know that the offer was built around De Leon.  Probably the only true fact we know. Passan's tweet seems to suggest that the 3rd prospect was the issue. Whether that means the 3rd prospect wasn't good enough for the Twins or a 3rd prospect wasn't being offered, we don't know.  Either way, I'm comfortable saying that there was more than one player offered, though AGAIN, not sure.

Edited January 25, 2017 by jimmer

[drivlikejehu]

 

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.

 

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. 

 

In other words, we know basically what the low end of possibilities was. We do not know what is realistic on the high end - I think it's safe to say nothing too amazing.

 

So, to sum it up, there is zero evidence the Twins turned down a good offer or otherwise blew the trade. None. That's why criticizing the front office for it is logically untenable. It's possible that with more information, that would change, but as of now that's not the situation.