Article: Eddie Rosario as a Trade Chip

[Thrylos]

Fact: Dozier is an MLB average bat. By definition. OPS+ = 100 (OPS .735)

 

Yes I do like his defense and he has improved. But his bat is no better than average. Because the Twins have had the likes of Nishioka at second, this does not make Dozier better than average.

 

The way some people are talking about him, is like he has been putting Alomar numbers out there...

Rosario's ceiling is higher than Dozier. I am really happy that Dozier is having a good season but:

a. I'd like to see if he repeats b. I'd like to see how Rosario does, and c. if Rosario does well and Dozier continues (given that the Twins will have 3 more years of control for Rosario and Rozario is 5 years younger than Dozier) the non-brainer will be to trade Dozier high...

[kab21]

Uggla was 30ish, couldn't field his position and had something like 50M remaining on his contract. It shouldn't be surprising that he was traded for relatively little.

 

The no-brainer is to worry about this when both of them force the Twins into that position. The other no-brainer is to at least try Dozier at SS since he does have the tools to play the position. Florimon is a fairly terrible hitter and Santana doesn't look much better.

 

Fact: Dozier is an MLB average bat. By definition. OPS+ = 100 (OPS .735)

 

Yes I do like his defense and he has improved. But his bat is no better than average. Because the Twins have had the likes of Nishioka at second, this does not make Dozier better than average.

 

This is kind of painful to read. You do realize that the average 2Bman is not even close the MLB average hitter? If Dozier is for real he's an above average hitter at 2B and a good glove that is making peanuts. This is extremely valuable if he is for real and even if he isn't the second coming of Alomar (a HOF caliber player).

[Shane Wahl]

Fact: Dozier is an MLB average bat. By definition. OPS+ = 100 (OPS .735)

 

Yes I do like his defense and he has improved. But his bat is no better than average. Because the Twins have had the likes of Nishioka at second, this does not make Dozier better than average.

 

The way some people are talking about him, is like he has been putting Alomar numbers out there...

Rosario's ceiling is higher than Dozier. I am really happy that Dozier is having a good season but:

a. I'd like to see if he repeats b. I'd like to see how Rosario does, and c. if Rosario does well and Dozier continues (given that the Twins will have 3 more years of control for Rosario and Rozario is 5 years younger than Dozier) the non-brainer will be to trade Dozier high...

 

He's a second baseman, though! I don't understand how "league average" applies here. "League average" should never apply unless by position.

[Shane Wahl]

The clamor about chilling on wild dreams about prospects is fairly warranted. That is, not all of them are going to turn out good or great. So . . . we are talking about potentially trading one of them? Say what?

 

Keep in mind that Danny Santana and Travis Harrison, while 10-15 for the Twins, might be more like 7-12 for most other teams. If you add in Willingham with those two, I see no reason to think that getting a top pitching prospect in AA or AAA is out of the question. Look what Butera brought back . . . a good pitching prospect, though at a lower level.

 

Other than that, the Twins should be focused on signing two FA starting pitchers who are actually good. And, you know, even if it doesn't work out and they underperform, they still might be worth something to trade for better, younger pitching . . .

[CGNikolic]

Dozier at his best is a slightly above average second baseman. His OPS (.729) qualifies for (tied for) 11th among 25 qualified individuals, but not much above the average (.705). Is he a good player? Of course. Should we give him another year to see if he's closer to 2012 or 2013 Dozier? Absolutely. But if Rosario shows he's ready next year by playing very well in AAA, it's Dozier who needs to step aside, not Rosario. As pointed out earlier, it is likely too early to have this debate, but it would seem that trading Dozier would be the best bet. I would prefer moving him over to shortstop (if possible Nick Nelson) provide veteran leadership along with Mauer in the infield, but if that is not possible, trade him and a decent prospect for some solid pitching.

[kab21]

The clamor about chilling on wild dreams about prospects is fairly warranted. That is, not all of them are going to turn out good or great. So . . . we are talking about potentially trading one of them? Say what?

 

Keep in mind that Danny Santana and Travis Harrison, while 10-15 for the Twins, might be more like 7-12 for most other teams. If you add in Willingham with those two, I see no reason to think that getting a top pitching prospect in AA or AAA is out of the question. Look what Butera brought back . . . a good pitching prospect, though at a lower level.

 

Other than that, the Twins should be focused on signing two FA starting pitchers who are actually good. And, you know, even if it doesn't work out and they underperform, they still might be worth something to trade for better, younger pitching . . .

 

You can't just mix and match average prospects and old vets to get the prospect that you want. Quality> quantity. This is called the Duensing rule dating back to BYTO days. If you want a potential stud then you have to give up a solid return.

 

And even if the Twins could they need more than just one more pitching prospect.

[Thegrin]

Quality hitters give you more good years than quality pitchers. Trading hitters for arms rarely proves to be a good deal.

Meyer and May have proved they are AA pitchers. They are no more likely to be quality starters in the majors than the day we got them.

Trading a quality hitter like Rosario for an arm is a bad risk.

[kab21]

Quality hitters give you more good years than quality pitchers. Trading hitters for arms rarely proves to be a good deal.

Meyer and May have proved they are AA pitchers. They are no more likely to be quality starters in the majors than the day we got them.

Trading a quality hitter like Rosario for an arm is a bad risk.

 

It's clearly a better idea to not improve the rotation according to you. I would actually be more interested in trading Rosario (if we really think a grand total of 2 young players at a position is depth) for a solid MLB arm with 3+ yrs of control. Hellickson had a down year but he's the kind of arm I would like to add.

[Shane Wahl]

You can't just mix and match average prospects and old vets to get the prospect that you want. Quality> quantity. This is called the Duensing rule dating back to BYTO days. If you want a potential stud then you have to give up a solid return.

 

And even if the Twins could they need more than just one more pitching prospect.

 

Well the Twins used the mix-n-match . . . of Drew Butera for a good pitching prospect.

[cmathewson]

I echo the thoughts of many: We would need to be blown away at this point with a starter better than Kyle Gibson. I doubt that would happen. But next year, if both Dozier and Rosario continue to progress as they did this year, I could see trading one of them for a stud starter. Of the two, I would prefer to trade Dozier. He'll have more value and is less consistent than Rosario.

[kab21]

Well the Twins used the mix-n-match . . . of Drew Butera for a good pitching prospect.

 

That's not mix and match. that's a one for one deal. I don't even understand why the Dodgers did it.

 

You are proposing an aging frequently injured slugger and two marginal prospects for a decent arm. Teams just aren't interested when you start adding in a bunch of players that don't really fit into your plans. The running joke 3-4 years ago was that basically any trade deal would look better and teams would be more likely to accept if they included Duensing, Casilla and/or Perkins (when he sucked). That's not how trades work.

 

And right now Willingham has basically zero trade value this offseason. If you want to acquire a good starting pitching prospect (and the Twins need several more) then you are going to have to put players with real value on the table. Putting players like santana, Harrison and Willingham on the table will get you back similar prospects. the pitchers the Twins need will cost a Rosario, Arcia or Perkins. Tough choices for sure.

[howieramone1406390264]

That's not mix and match. that's a one for one deal. I don't even understand why the Dodgers did it.

 

You are proposing an aging frequently injured slugger and two marginal prospects for a decent arm. Teams just aren't interested when you start adding in a bunch of players that don't really fit into your plans. The running joke 3-4 years ago was that basically any trade deal would look better and teams would be more likely to accept if they included Duensing, Casilla and/or Perkins (when he sucked). That's not how trades work.

 

And right now Willingham has basically zero trade value this offseason. If you want to acquire a good starting pitching prospect (and the Twins need several more) then you are going to have to put players with real value on the table. Putting players like santana, Harrison and Willingham on the table will get you back similar prospects. the pitchers the Twins need will cost a Rosario, Arcia or Perkins. Tough choices for sure.

 

I believe you and Shane both outline sound strategies the Twins will use. To help fix the black hole in the near future we would need to spend our top prospects. I think the board is correct that we should wait a year to consider dealing Rosario or Dozier, yet acknowledge neither is untouchable. The mix-n-match approach will build organizational depth in starting pitching so we don't have to relive the nightmare. Both are very good ways to use the new found strength of our top rated farm system.

[diehardtwinsfan]

Quality hitters give you more good years than quality pitchers. Trading hitters for arms rarely proves to be a good deal.

Meyer and May have proved they are AA pitchers. They are no more likely to be quality starters in the majors than the day we got them.

Trading a quality hitter like Rosario for an arm is a bad risk.

 

I get that hitters last longer, and I get that they play every day, but looking at it in terms of plate appearances, starting pitching plays just as much, and good ones play more.. That and pitchers have far more control over the game than anyone else on the field. The guy on the mound is the most important guy on the team at any given time, and in the Twins' case, they have far too little of it. Trading Span and Revere was the right thing to do, especially given the seasons that they had this year. People complain about TR not selling high, but it's looking like that is exactly what he did.

 

Oh, and Meyer looked pretty darn good in AA this year. May, while not as good, certainly made some improvements... Both could flame out, but on a team with little high ceiling pitchers, these two are a sight for sore eyes.

[jorgenswest]

The demand and value of starting pitching was made clear at the trade deadline. Starting pitching is the best currency in baseball.

[Shane Wahl]

That's not mix and match. that's a one for one deal. I don't even understand why the Dodgers did it.

 

You are proposing an aging frequently injured slugger and two marginal prospects for a decent arm. Teams just aren't interested when you start adding in a bunch of players that don't really fit into your plans. The running joke 3-4 years ago was that basically any trade deal would look better and teams would be more likely to accept if they included Duensing, Casilla and/or Perkins (when he sucked). That's not how trades work.

 

And right now Willingham has basically zero trade value this offseason. If you want to acquire a good starting pitching prospect (and the Twins need several more) then you are going to have to put players with real value on the table. Putting players like santana, Harrison and Willingham on the table will get you back similar prospects. the pitchers the Twins need will cost a Rosario, Arcia or Perkins. Tough choices for sure.

 

A: I would take similar pitching prospects in return for Harrison and Santana. I also wouldn't call them "marginal" in that those two would probably be 8-13 on half or more team lists. Basically the Willingham add-in was to basically go higher . . . like for a Rosario-level prospect (but a pitcher).

 

I get the Duensing joke, but casting of actual major leaguers who had been around and--at that time (or any time in Casilla's case)--done little isn't the same as two prospects might make some people's top 12 or so for the Twins. As far as Willingham is concerned . . . if the Twins were legitimate WS contenders next year, I would probably want to keep Willingham and if I didn't have him, I would at least listen to a trade. That is, if I were a GM for a 2014 WS contender (let's say 10 teams) I would listen to trading for Willingham and two top 20 prospects (in the org.) for my third best pitching prospect (Rosario is third best hitting prospect . . . . ).

[TL]

I think in June/July next year is when they'll know enough to make a decision for the future. A lot will depend on who they draft too. If they take one of the top college pitchers and Meyer and Gibson perform well then rotation for 2015 starts to shape up. On the other hand SS seems to be a strength in the draft and they could go that way, making it more necessary to trade for a front line starter. It's also interesting that Polanco has come on strong at 2B in 2013 and another good year could see us with three good options there, making at least one of them expendable (shades of the CF surplus from last offseason).

 

Next year will be fun to see the prospects start really pushing for call ups and the Twins hopefully making moves to set up the team for postseason runs starting in 2015.

[kab21]

A: I would take similar pitching prospects in return for Harrison and Santana. I also wouldn't call them "marginal" in that those two would probably be 8-13 on half or more team lists. Basically the Willingham add-in was to basically go higher . . . like for a Rosario-level prospect (but a pitcher).

 

I get the Duensing joke, but casting of actual major leaguers who had been around and--at that time (or any time in Casilla's case)--done little isn't the same as two prospects might make some people's top 12 or so for the Twins. As far as Willingham is concerned . . . if the Twins were legitimate WS contenders next year, I would probably want to keep Willingham and if I didn't have him, I would at least listen to a trade. That is, if I were a GM for a 2014 WS contender (let's say 10 teams) I would listen to trading for Willingham and two top 20 prospects (in the org.) for my third best pitching prospect (Rosario is third best hitting prospect . . . . ).

 

This would be a terrible strategy for an opposing GM. If he has a WS contender then he would be far better off going after a better, younger MLB player than Willingham with a really good prospect like Rosario. If he wanted a willingham type then he can easily get him for a Harrison type prospect (or less) and keep his top prospect.

 

The reality is that there are very, very few trades that happen like you are proposing. And there are very few prospect for prospect trades.

[TheLeviathan]

I've thought that parts of the last draft and next years were going to be the ideal trade candidates - not the guys currently slotted to arrive at the same time. Just to throw in one more reason Rosario shouldn't be among the group considered for trade.

 

Oh, and for Dozier - I'm guessing the Twins just let him ride out a successful season at 2B and worry about SS next spring. I hope they give him a shot at it there again, it would be a huge boon for the team if he could hold it down and Rosario is legit.

[RodneyKline]

In the land of blind men, the one eyed man is King. Dozier is not a good hitter. He is a .240 hitter with a little power. He is OK if we don't have another replacement but Rosario could be a great hitter that can play second just as well. The Twins have the least errors in baseball and one of the best defensive teams in MLB this year. They are also a last place team. Defense is a nice thing to have but if the players can't hit, the defense will not win.

[TheLeviathan]

In the land of blind men, the one eyed man is King. Dozier is not a good hitter. He is a .240 hitter with a little power. He is OK if we don't have another replacement but Rosario could be a great hitter that can play second just as well. The Twins have the least errors in baseball and one of the best defensive teams in MLB this year. They are also a last place team. Defense is a nice thing to have but if the players can't hit, the defense will not win.

 

The Twins have the 6th least errors. Still pretty good, and driven largely by a very good middle infield, but probably not a good measure of the team's overall defense.

[diehardtwinsfan]

In the land of blind men, the one eyed man is King. Dozier is not a good hitter. He is a .240 hitter with a little power. He is OK if we don't have another replacement but Rosario could be a great hitter that can play second just as well. The Twins have the least errors in baseball and one of the best defensive teams in MLB this year. They are also a last place team. Defense is a nice thing to have but if the players can't hit, the defense will not win.

 

It's all context. Post all star game (and that discounts the month of June where he had a .902 OPS) Dozier has been a .257/.315/.480 hitter.

 

These certainly aren't stellar stats, but for a 2B, that puts him solidly above his 2B peers and in a category that only a handful of 2B exist. The question at hand is whether the improvement legit. I don't know if it is or is not, so he needs another year IMO to prove it, but the fact that he's sustained this now for 3 months says that there's something there.

 

The key to fielding a winning team is having guys who are better than average while playing average or better defense. Dozier has been better than average as a 2B on both sides of the game since June 1. That's a good thing. Rosario looks like he can be the same only with a better bat, which if true would be a great thing.

[TL]

Agreed. And if Dozier could be above average at SS then middle infield is solved. I am sure they don't want to mess with Dozier's success this year but feels like they should give that a try next summer.

[kab21]

I really don't see how this is an issue until next offseason. I see Rosario going back to AA for a half season and spending some time at AAA unless the Twins desperately need a 2Bman next year. He's much more likely to be a September callup than to be a May/June callup.

[Oldgoat_MN]

I really don't see how this is an issue until next offseason. I see Rosario going back to AA for a half season and spending some time at AAA unless the Twins desperately need a 2Bman next year. He's much more likely to be a September callup than to be a May/June callup.

 

Well, the thread is about whether or not to use Rosario as a trade chip.

[Thegrin]

Baseball has a "Sophomore jinx" for a reason. I'd rather make a trade using Dozier or Rosario sometime after the All-Star break.

[MichiganTwins]

Baseball has a "Sophomore jinx" for a reason. I'd rather make a trade using Dozier or Rosario sometime after the All-Star break.

 

Yes but this was Doziers second season.

[Steve Johnson]

All these "wait another year" responses seem to overlook a (not unlikely) possible scenario: What if Rosario struggles in Triple-A next year and Dozier regresses big-time in the majors? Then we're all looking back at how the Twins failed once again to strike when the iron was hot.

 

But the "iron isn't hot" with Dosier, it's marginally above room temperature. Like you say later, he's been a decent hitter for about four months and prior to that, he was an aging, marginal prospect. The possibility for regression would be just as obvious to every other team.

 

I understand that it's not ideal to move Rosario, knowing that he may turn out to be a great player and Dozier may turn back into a pumpkin, but when you're desperate to add pitching risks need to be taken. The Twins can live with substandard production at second base; they can't continue to live with a completely hopeless starting rotation.

 

I'm not sure what sort of player you think we could get in exchange for either player, but it certainly wouldn't the salvation of our rotation. I mean Dosier would likely get us someone more like a Liam Hendricks than a Jose Barrios in any exchange, and we just don't need any more #4 starter candidates. And Rosario? A borderline top 100 prospect who's position is still not completely settled isn't going to get you a mlb ready starter who's at least a good #3 either.

 

In either case, you will not be selling high on either player. Doser could regress, but he could also put up another season with a .720 OPS and plus-defense. If he does, he's a lot more valueable in trade than he is now. Same thing for Rosario if he hit sucessfully at AAA and shows he can do so at the ML level.

 

Keep both.

[PseudoSABR]

But the "iron isn't hot"

Great post, but please take the time to spell players' names correctly, my friend! I'd hate to see such solid points ignored because of inattention to detail.

[kab21]

Well, the thread is about whether or not to use Rosario as a trade chip.

 

And I have already said that you use him as a trade chip if there is a deal you are working and he is essential to landing the starting pitcher that you want. But there isn't any reason to trade Rosario for the best starting pitcher (prospect or big leaguer) that you can get. There's no pressure to make the move now.

[Steve Johnson]

Great post, but please take the time to spell players' names correctly, my friend! I'd hate to see such solid points ignored because of inattention to detail.

\

Thanks