Article: The Brian Dozier Trade That Almost Was

[Major League Ready]

 

If that comp pick could make an immediate impact I might be able to get on board with that, but it's highly unlikely that pick contributes before Buxton and co. reach arbitration. 

 

There is some merit to your point.  However, this kind of philosophy also tends to create cycles where mid market teams are awful for extended periods.  KC is a good example.  That kind of all-in management is very likely to produce longer down cycles and shorter windows of contention. 

 

This is actually probably a market inefficiency.  Fans and organizations want results now.  That often does not maximize asset value in a variety of situations.  If that pick turns out to be another Berrios 5 years from now, good low cost SP could make it feasible to extend one of our core instead of letting them go which is the assumption being made managing to this specific window.  Why not pursue strategies with the potential of extending our window of contention?

[USAFChief]

 

There is some merit to your point.  However, this kind of philosophy also tends to create cycles where mid market teams are awful for extended periods.  KC is a good example.  That kind of all-in management is very likely to produce longer down cycles and shorter windows of contention. 

 

This is actually probably a market inefficiency.  Fans and organizations want results now.  That often does not maximize asset value in a variety of situations.  If that pick turns out to be another Berrios 5 years from now, good low cost SP could make it feasible to extend one of our core instead of letting them go which is the assumption being made managing to this specific window.  Why not pursue strategies with the potential of extending our window of contention?

It's interesting you bring up KC.

 

They had a two decade period of irrelevance precisely because they always followed your advice...they spent current assets on long term hopes. They traded away every good player they had for years, always had "great" minor league systems, and watched the postseason year after year.

 

Only when they traded some of the future for some of today did they make a run.  A run we, as Twins fans, should be quite envious of...they got to two WS and brought home one trophy.  

 

 

[Squirrel]

I agree, teams were lukewarm on Dozier for those and other reasons, but isn't that an indicator that the Twins were asking possibly asking too much?

Yes and no. LA was the ONLY team interested, not because Dozier wasn’t good, but because they were the only team with a need at second, who would be in contention, and had pieces to offer. If you are the only team bidding, why would you offer anything close to equal? That’s what the situation was and why some of us weren’t in favor of the one to one offer, even though it was likely the best we were going to get ... we didn’t feel it was enough to basically give away Dozier and if we had, that would have been a trade of desperation, one proven wise not to make. It didn’t and doesn’t mean we aren’t willing to part with good players for much needed SP help, but as proven this year, DeLeon wouldn’t have helped and would’ve been worse than everyone we trotted out there this year. It doesn’t mean that DeLeon won’t turn into something, and it doesn’t mean we won’t regret it next year, although that is getting less likely as time goes on. And it doesn’t mean we can’t still try to trade for DeLeon, but if Dozier is the trade chip, we are now in a position to command more than just DeLeon. It means it was an extremely risky trade to pull the trigger on and was good we didn’t do that at that time. Doesn’t mean we can’t and shouldn’t continue to find offers by trading good pieces for a good return. Yes, we need to build SP depth to be able to compete this year and into the future, but we can’t trade away too many good position players, either, for the same reason. We need to find the right balance of trades, and Dozier for DeLeon was not the right balance in many’s opinions.

[laloesch]

 

It's interesting you bring up KC.

 

They had a two decade period of irrelevance precisely because they always followed your advice...they spent current assets on long term hopes. They traded away every good player they had for years, always had "great" minor league systems, and watched the postseason year after year.

 

Only when they traded some of the future for some of today did they make a run.  A run we, as Twins fans, should be quite envious of...they got to two WS and brought home one trophy.  

 

Most of their starting pitching that year was signed via free agency with the exception of Cueto who they gave up Finnegan, Lamb and Reed for.  The rest (Young, Volquez, Guthrie) all signed 2 or 3 year deals which worked out quite well for the Royals.  Duffey and Ventura were home grown.

Edited October 31, 2017 by laloesch

[Major League Ready]

 

It's interesting you bring up KC.

 

They had a two decade period of irrelevance precisely because they always followed your advice...they spent current assets on long term hopes. They traded away every good player they had for years, always had "great" minor league systems, and watched the postseason year after year.

 

Only when they traded some of the future for some of today did they make a run.  A run we, as Twins fans, should be quite envious of...they got to two WS and brought home one trophy.  

 

Your response is confusing because the basis of the original post was holding onto established assets (Dozier) when the return was not adequate.  The reference to KC is not specific to any move but their overall approach.  We are not speculating.  The trade for Shields did not win them any division titles and we know they were at their best after he was gone.  We also know they are now in a terrible position that will likely result in a long period of mediocrity or worse.

 

To get Shields they traded away an all-star (Myers) and a mid-rotation guy that could have helped them throughout this entire window (Odorizzi) They did not even make the playoffs the first season and were the wild card the next year.  I seriously doubt anyone would trade away Buxton and Gonsalves for a one game play-off (wildcard) in a single year.  They could have kept Odorizzi and traded Myers for assets that would have contributed to extending their window instead of shortening it.  They would have been in far better shape had they traded Myers for SP that would have been ready a couple years after the trade.  Trading Myers could have easily netted a very good SP and another contributing asset or two.  

 

A big part of their core (SS & CF) came from trading Grienke.  The rest of their core were drafted or International signings and they had a couple FA starting pitchers that were a tier below Santana that happened to perform well.   We could use Houston if you prefer.  They traded away every veteran of value.  One year their entire payroll was under $40M.  Want to think longer term.  Oakland has had the best winning percentage of any mid-market team and better than many large market teams.  Beane built those teams trading established players before they got too expensive.  The winning Tampa Bay teams were also constructed the same way.  Johan and Nathan were products of such trades.  Harvey and Kluber and we could go on and on.

Edited October 31, 2017 by Major Leauge Ready

[diehardtwinsfan]

 

I would say they are truly desperate, especially given the money it's going to take to keep the core together. That dollar is relative. The Twins can assign any price  they please to Dozier, but if others teams don't meet that price it doesn't mean they're offering $.80 on the dollar. 

 

I agree, teams were lukewarm on Dozier for those and other reasons, but isn't that an indicator that the Twins were asking possibly asking too much? 

 

You can take a look at trades of established vets for minor league players... it's rarely 1 for 1, and for good reason. That said, all the experts seemed to agree on that point too. I don't think they Twins were being unreasonable asking for more than JDL when it came to Dozier... and I think at this point, we can safely look at it in hindsight to see why it was that this was a good decision on the part of the new front office.

[Vanimal46]

I would say they are truly desperate, especially given the money it's going to take to keep the core together. That dollar is relative. The Twins can assign any price they please to Dozier, but if others teams don't meet that price it doesn't mean they're offering $.80 on the dollar.

 

I agree, teams were lukewarm on Dozier for those and other reasons, but isn't that an indicator that the Twins were asking possibly asking too much?

I don't think they were asking too much. The market last year was saturated with good enough 2B that there wasn't enough of a demand for Dozier.

 

As Chi said upthread, LA was the only contending team looking for a 2B at the time. The other teams had comparable fWAR production from their guys, or just extended their guy in the case of the Rangers.

 

I was just like you last year. Wanting to trade Dozier and fit a square peg in a round hole somehow. I didn't think the Twins were that close to contention. I'm glad to be wrong and they kept him to prove 2016 wasn't a complete fluke.

 

Nothing's stopping them from exploring the trade market with Dozier again this off-season. Hopefully there's more of a demand for his services. If not, they could always extend him for a few more years and use the farm system to acquire MLB pitchers.

[KirbyDome89]

 

There is some merit to your point.  However, this kind of philosophy also tends to create cycles where mid market teams are awful for extended periods.  KC is a good example.  That kind of all-in management is very likely to produce longer down cycles and shorter windows of contention. 

 

This is actually probably a market inefficiency.  Fans and organizations want results now.  That often does not maximize asset value in a variety of situations.  If that pick turns out to be another Berrios 5 years from now, good low cost SP could make it feasible to extend one of our core instead of letting them go which is the assumption being made managing to this specific window.  Why not pursue strategies with the potential of extending our window of contention?

Personally I think KC, given their financial constraints, executed their window perfectly. Idk if it's so much a market inefficiency as it is inept management and cheap owners but I feel like that's another conversation.

 

The trade would've made made in order to do just that though. It isn't just an extension beyond FA in 2022 or 23' that the Twins have to worry about; those guys are all hitting arbitration in a couple years. A comp pick would be fine if Dozier leaves, but that player isn't likely to provide any short term value either. 

 

 

[KirbyDome89]

 

Yes and no. LA was the ONLY team interested, not because Dozier wasn’t good, but because they were the only team with a need at second, who would be in contention, and had pieces to offer. If you are the only team bidding, why would you offer anything close to equal? That’s what the situation was and why some of us weren’t in favor of the one to one offer, even though it was likely the best we were going to get ... we didn’t feel it was enough to basically give away Dozier and if we had, that would have been a trade of desperation, one proven wise not to make. It didn’t and doesn’t mean we aren’t willing to part with good players for much needed SP help, but as proven this year, DeLeon wouldn’t have helped and would’ve been worse than everyone we trotted out there this year. It doesn’t mean that DeLeon won’t turn into something, and it doesn’t mean we won’t regret it next year, although that is getting less likely as time goes on. And it doesn’t mean we can’t still try to trade for DeLeon, but if Dozier is the trade chip, we are now in a position to command more than just DeLeon. It means it was an extremely risky trade to pull the trigger on and was good we didn’t do that at that time. Doesn’t mean we can’t and shouldn’t continue to find offers by trading good pieces for a good return. Yes, we need to build SP depth to be able to compete this year and into the future, but we can’t trade away too many good position players, either, for the same reason. We need to find the right balance of trades, and Dozier for DeLeon was not the right balance in many’s opinions.

I honestly don't know how anybody can think he's going to fetch more of a return with only one year left and a lesser season (16' > 17') in the books.  

 

I agree, I don't want them trading away core position players either. Dozier happened to play a position of depth and had actual trade value. If they won't move him they're looking at either trading prospects or sinking money into mediocre FA pitching rather than extensions for all their young players. Both hurt the longterm outlook for the team. I'm not beating the drum because I'm a huge JDL fan. I see the non trade as a missed opportunity to pick up cheap, upside pitching which would give the Twins a better shot at keeping the core together and having enough money to sign a pitcher that will actually be a difference maker in the rotation. 

[KirbyDome89]

 

I don't think they were asking too much. The market last year was saturated with good enough 2B that there wasn't enough of a demand for Dozier.

As Chi said upthread, LA was the only contending team looking for a 2B at the time. The other teams had comparable fWAR production from their guys, or just extended their guy in the case of the Rangers.

I was just like you last year. Wanting to trade Dozier and fit a square peg in a round hole somehow. I didn't think the Twins were that close to contention. I'm glad to be wrong and they kept him to prove 2016 wasn't a complete fluke.

Nothing's stopping them from exploring the trade market with Dozier again this off-season. Hopefully there's more of a demand for his services. If not, they could always extend him for a few more years and use the farm system to acquire MLB pitchers.

Sure they can explore it again, but I don't see them getting the massive return they desired last season. 

 

I would much rather keep the prospects, especially since this franchise refuses to spend. 

[KirbyDome89]

 

You can take a look at trades of established vets for minor league players... it's rarely 1 for 1, and for good reason. That said, all the experts seemed to agree on that point too. I don't think they Twins were being unreasonable asking for more than JDL when it came to Dozier... and I think at this point, we can safely look at it in hindsight to see why it was that this was a good decision on the part of the new front office.

I would ask for more too, but it doesn't mean the Dodgers were ever going to give up JDL + Stewart + Buehler + more like you suggested. 

[Vanimal46]

Sure they can explore it again, but I don't see them getting the massive return they desired last season.

 

I would much rather keep the prospects, especially since this franchise refuses to spend.

I don't see why not... Dozier proved 2016 wasn't a fluke. If any contender trades for him, odds are they have an extension in mind for him. The existing contract wouldn't make a difference.

 

If you want to keep the prospects, how do you go about fixing the pitching situation?

[Mr. Brooks]

I don't see why not... Dozier proved 2016 wasn't a fluke. If any contender trades for him, odds are they have an extension in mind for him. The existing contract wouldn't make a difference.

 

If you want to keep the prospects, how do you go about fixing the pitching situation?

Years of control now, during his prime, are much more valuable than years of control via an extension - which requires paying for his decline years. In fact, having to pay for his decline years via an extension actually subtracts from his trade value.

[Han Joelo]

Hypothetical: This WS is closely matched.  Forsythe isn't bad, but what if Dozier was in there instead and was the difference for LA?  Would it have been worth it to meet the Twins' trade demands?  Do the Cubs regret giving up Torres for Chapman and a title?

 

On the other hand, what if they lost anyway...

[Vanimal46]

Years of control now, during his prime, are much more valuable than years of control via an extension - which requires paying for his decline years. In fact, having to pay for his decline years via an extension actually subtracts from his trade value.

Not really. It gives a contending team the first shot at offering Dozier an extension prior to him hitting the open market.

[Major League Ready]

 

Personally I think KC, given their financial constraints, executed their window perfectly. Idk if it's so much a market inefficiency as it is inept management and cheap owners but I feel like that's another conversation.

 

The trade would've made made in order to do just that though. It isn't just an extension beyond FA in 2022 or 23' that the Twins have to worry about; those guys are all hitting arbitration in a couple years. A comp pick would be fine if Dozier leaves, but that player isn't likely to provide any short term value either. 

 

How can one division title during a window be perfect execution?.  Detroit won the division four years in a row prior to the one KC won..  The Twins won it 6 of 9 years prior to Detroit and Cleveland won it 6 of 7 years prior to Detroit..  One division championship is not perfect utilization and I sure hope the Twins can extend their window beyond the point when the current core become free agents.

 

Edited November 1, 2017 by Major Leauge Ready

[Mr. Brooks]

Not really. It gives a contending team the first shot at offering Dozier an extension prior to him hitting the open market.

Yes, an extension that requires them to pay big money during decline years in order to have him his next 2 or 3.

 

You think its just a coincidence that guys with cheap team controlled years always bring back more return than rentals?

 

I didn't think it was even in question that surplus value is a thing.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

How can one division title during a window be perfect execution?.  Detroit won the division four years in a row prior to the one KC won..  The Twins won it 6 of 9 years prior to Detroit and Cleveland won it 6 of 7 years prior to Detroit..  One division championship is not perfect utilization and I sure hope the Twins can extend their window beyond the point when the current core become free agents.

One thing Ryan doesn't get enough credit for pulling off is drafting/signing two waves of talent. It's incredibly hard to do and that's why the Twins were so good for so long. The first wave hit its stride in 2001 and as many of them were leaving in 2005, the second wave hit and kept the team in contention until 2010. On top of that, the run should have lasted until 2011-12 but the team ran into an amazing stretch of absolutely **** injury luck.

 

That's a hell of a run. It didn't end up with a trophy but it's a hell of an accomplishment for a small market team (which the Twins were at the time, playing in the dome).

[ashbury]

One thing Ryan doesn't get enough credit for pulling off is drafting/signing two waves of talent.

You don't need an Econ degree or MBA to do that. In fact a degree is of no help at all in doing that (unless you find a very specialized program! ). It's why he was able to survive as long as he did, swimming in very deep waters with very big fish.

[diehardtwinsfan]

 

I would ask for more too, but it doesn't mean the Dodgers were ever going to give up JDL + Stewart + Buehler + more like you suggested. 

 

That's great. We all wanted more. They wouldn't give it. That is, and remains the point here. We weren't asking too much by asking for more than JDL. JDL was all they wanted to offer. The Twins were right in saying no.

[KirbyDome89]

 

I don't see why not... Dozier proved 2016 wasn't a fluke. If any contender trades for him, odds are they have an extension in mind for him. The existing contract wouldn't make a difference.

If you want to keep the prospects, how do you go about fixing the pitching situation?

The existing contract is part of his value. He's cheap now, he won't be after this season. 

 

You move vets who have actual trade value, can leave soon via FA, and play a position that the organization can fill from within. Hello Brian Dozier. 

[KirbyDome89]

 

That's great. We all wanted more. They wouldn't give it. That is, and remains the point here. We weren't asking too much by asking for more than JDL. JDL was all they wanted to offer. The Twins were right in saying no.

Everybody wants to "win," every move and always wants more. As fans of course we always want a better deal, but our feelings towards that are irrelevant. Sometimes you pay or take market value, and in this case it was JDL.

[KirbyDome89]

 

How can one division title during a window be perfect execution?.  Detroit won the division four years in a row prior to the one KC won..  The Twins won it 6 of 9 years prior to Detroit and Cleveland won it 6 of 7 years prior to Detroit..  One division championship is not perfect utilization and I sure hope the Twins can extend their window beyond the point when the current core become free agents.

They made 2 consecutive WS appearances....

 

I'll take that over division titles any day. 

 

Given the constraints Moore had to work within Idk how you can call that run with their young players anything other than great execution. If ownership actually decided to spend they could've been a regular contender. 

[drjim]

One thing Ryan doesn't get enough credit for pulling off is drafting/signing two waves of talent. It's incredibly hard to do and that's why the Twins were so good for so long. The first wave hit its stride in 2001 and as many of them were leaving in 2005, the second wave hit and kept the team in contention until 2010. On top of that, the run should have lasted until 2011-12 but the team ran into an amazing stretch of absolutely **** injury luck.

 

That's a hell of a run. It didn't end up with a trophy but it's a hell of an accomplishment for a small market team (which the Twins were at the time, playing in the dome).

What is impressive is the diverse ways he acquired talent - #1 pick, rule 5, 3rd rounder turned mvp, 3rd piece of a trade.

 

Does show that on a basic level - draft well, a few good trades, and a little luck with other acquisition methods, will play no matter who is in charge.

 

On the flip side, a couple of terrible trades, some mediocre drafts, and some bad injury luck, and you have half a decade in the wilderness like that.

[Major League Ready]

 

They made 2 consecutive WS appearances....

 

I'll take that over division titles any day. 

 

Given the constraints Moore had to work within Idk how you can call that run with their young players anything other than great execution. If ownership actually decided to spend they could've been a regular contender. 

 

Perhaps we just have different desires for our team.  20 years of futility for a couple of good years and I would bet they are nor back in contention for another decade.  That's not what I want for our team.  The playoffs are very unpredictable.  I want to watch a good team as many years as possible for 162 games.  Playoff runs are a likely outcome of a perennial playoff team.

 

You need to explain your position on payroll.  KC's opening day payroll was $20M more than Cleveland this year and $30M more in 2016.  http://www.spotrac.com/mlb/payroll/  According to Forbes, their profits were lower than most other teams during this window and they had a small loss last year.

https://www.forbes.com/mlb-valuations/list/#tab:overall

Please explain how they were cheap when they were aggressive enough with payroll to have a net loss.

[Mr. Brooks]

Perhaps we just have different desires for our team. 20 years of futility for a couple of good years and I would bet they are nor back in contention for another decade. That's not what I want for our team. The playoffs are very unpredictable. I want to watch a good team as many years as possible for 162 games. Playoff runs are a likely outcome of a perennial playoff team.

 

You need to explain your position on payroll. KC's opening day payroll was $20M more than Cleveland this year and $30M more in 2016. http://www.spotrac.com/mlb/payroll/ According to Forbes, their profits were lower than most other teams during this window and they had a small loss last year.

https://www.forbes.com/mlb-valuations/list/#tab:overall

Please explain how they were cheap when they were aggressive enough with payroll to have a net loss.

If playoff runs are a likely outcome of perennial playoff teams, then the 00's Twins should have had a few.

It takes a different kind of team to win in the postseason.

[Major League Ready]

 

If playoff runs are a likely outcome of perennial playoff teams, then the 00's Twins should have had a few.
It takes a different kind of team to win in the postseason.

 

One team does not define likely outcomes and nowhere did I suggest we should construct a team the way those twins teams were built.  Did Cleveland and Detroit have multiple playoff runs during the periods mentioned.  How about St Louis who by the way have been one of the most profitable franchises over the last 20 years so they obviously had additional spending capacity?

 

Let's not get away from the real point which is building a team that is a perennial playoff team vs pushing all your chips in to maximize your odds during a very short window.  Are you OK with 20 years of futility like the Royals and Pirates had before having a brief window of contention?  The just go for it approach is fine for fans but the people that get paid to lead organizations don't get to such a position by ignoring the long-term impact of their decisions.

Edited November 1, 2017 by Major Leauge Ready

[prouster]

Everybody wants to "win," every move and always wants more. As fans of course we always want a better deal, but our feelings towards that are irrelevant. Sometimes you pay or take market value, and in this case it was JDL.

I just think this is a myopic view. Teams don't get better by making bad trades. They just don't. Yes, it made sense in theory to trade Dozier. However, from all available accounts, the actual return would not have justified the move. I'm not saying this with the benefit of hindisght (which is a benefit re JDL), because it's what I thought last winter when they decided to keep him. Personally, I don't think trading players is the same as selling an old van--you don't set a price expecting to settle for the best offer that comes your way. Indeed, we can actually say the Twins were the ones who set the market price, but the Dodgers weren't willing to pay it.

[KirbyDome89]

 

Perhaps we just have different desires for our team.  20 years of futility for a couple of good years and I would bet they are nor back in contention for another decade.  That's not what I want for our team.  The playoffs are very unpredictable.  I want to watch a good team as many years as possible for 162 games.  Playoff runs are a likely outcome of a perennial playoff team.

 

You need to explain your position on payroll.  KC's opening day payroll was $20M more than Cleveland this year and $30M more in 2016.  http://www.spotrac.com/mlb/payroll/  According to Forbes, their profits were lower than most other teams during this window and they had a small loss last year.

https://www.forbes.com/mlb-valuations/list/#tab:overall

Please explain how they were cheap when they were aggressive enough with payroll to have a net loss.

Moore showed up in 06'...

 

Which is why they won't hold onto Cain, Hosmer, ect...We've already watched key pieces of that bullpen walk. Watch them start slashing position players from that roster. That payroll arrow is pointing down, not up.  

 

They built a core, bulked up where they needed to and made a run to two WS and won one. That is the definition of maximizing for a team like KC. I never said I want the Twins to copy that blueprint but if I'm a Royals fan I can't be mad about "one division title," over that span. 

 

 

[KirbyDome89]

 

I just think this is a myopic view. Teams don't get better by making bad trades. They just don't. Yes, it made sense in theory to trade Dozier. However, from all available accounts, the actual return would not have justified the move. I'm not saying this with the benefit of hindisght (which is a benefit re JDL), because it's what I thought last winter when they decided to keep him. Personally, I don't think trading players is the same as selling an old van--you don't set a price expecting to settle for the best offer that comes your way. Indeed, we can actually say the Twins were the ones who set the market price, but the Dodgers weren't willing to pay it.

How is attempting to build a staff beyond 2017 a myopic view?