Jump to content
Twins Daily
  • Create Account

  • Cardinals "Very Much In" on Brian Dozier

    Seth Stohs

    By Seth Stohs

    This afternoon, KSTP and 1500 ESPN's Darren Wolfson provided a very interesting update on the Brian Dozier trade discussions. The Dodgers are still in, but now we hear that the St. Louis Cardinals are 'very much in' on Dozier too. What could it mean?

    Image courtesy of Jeff Curry, USA Today

    Twins Video

    While it's no surprise that the Dodgers are still in it heavily, the Cardinals being 'very in it" is new information.

    So immediately the thoughts jump to... Who do the Cardinals have that might entice the Twins?

    A quick look at the Baseball America Top 100 Midseason Prospects list provides some insight.

    For a little background information, in that midseason ranking, Jose Berrios ranked #20 and Jose De Leon ranked #25. Here are the Cardinals prospects who are among the Top 100:

    #2 - RHP Anthony Reyes

    #75 - RHP Luke Weaver

    #88 - RHP Jack Flaherty

    #89 - OF Harrison Bader

    Alex Reyes and Luke Weaver were called up to the Cardinals on the same day. Reyes went 4-1 with a 1.57 ERA and a 1.22 WHIP in 12 games (including five starts). In 46 innings, he walked 23 and struck out 52. In 14 starts at AAA Memphis, he went 2-3 with a 4.96 ERA (ah the joys of the International League). In 65.1 innings, he walked 32, but he struck out a remarkable 93! (Note - my assumption is that Reyes is in about the same category as Julio Urias, likely unavailable.)

    Luke Weaver came up and made nine appearances (8 starts). He went 1-4 with a 5.70 ERA and a 1.60 WHIP. In 36 innings, he walked 12 and struck out 45. He went 6-3 with a 1.70 ERA in 12 starts in AA before making just one start at AAA before his big league promotion.

    Reyes is 22-years-old and signed with St. Louis in 2012 as an 17-year-old. Reyes throws really, really hard (upper-90s) and has a sharp slider.

    The 23-year-old Weaver was the Cardinals' first-round pick in 2014 (27th overall) out of Florida State. Weaver is the more polished pitcher, which means he has more control. His upside obviously isn't quite as high but he will almost certainly be a mid-rotation starter with a chance to be something more.

    Jack Flaherty was the Cardinals' supplemental first-round pick in 2014 (34th overall) out of high school in California. He went 5-9 for Palm Beach as a 20-year-old this past year. Obviously he's a little further out, but the upside is there.

    Harrison Bader is a right-handed hitting outfielder who was the Cardinals' third-round pick in 2015 out of Florida. He split the 2016 season between AA and AAA. In 82 AA games, he hit .283/.354/.497 (.851) with 12 doubles, four triples and 16 home runs. He moved up to AAA and played in 49 games. He hit .231/.298/.354 (.652) with seven doubles, a triple and three home runs. He's likely a year away, but there is some power potential there.

    There would certainly be more to any such deal that just one (or maybe two?) of the above, but these would be the headliners.

    The Cardinals have second baseman Kolton Wong - who the Twins drafted in the 16th round in 2008 out of high school - signed for four years and $24.25 million with an option for 2021). Maybe he is part of the return as well.

    The Cardinals acquired Jedd Gyorko from the Padres a year ago. He had been pretty much awful for a couple of years. He went to St. Louis and hit 30 home runs. He's signed for the next three years at $29 million. He played in 128 games, but no more than 46 games at any one of the four infield positions. So, they could still have both on a roster.

    The Giants have Joe Panik (a 2015 All-Star) as their second baseman, so either Panik or Dozier would likely move to third base. Eduardo Nunez is probably the incumbent at third base.

    The Nationals have Daniel Murphy at second base. Now, he could move to first base, but Ryan Zimmerman still has a lot of money owed and that's about the only position he can play.

    It is certainly good to hear some more specifics on teams that might have interest in Dozier. Hearing that the Cardinals might be one of those teams is very intriguing because they have Reyes and Weaver, two very good pitching prospects, which would push the Dodgers - possibly - to offer more.

    What are your thoughts on the rumors?

    Seth Stohs has been blogging about the Minnesota Twins since May 2003. A founder and owner of Twins Daily, Seth has been a Twins fan for 40 years and has a passion for covering the minor leagues and prospects.
    Follow Seth Stohs on Twitter: sethtweets

    MORE FROM TWINS DAILY
    — Latest Twins coverage from our writers
    — Recent Twins discussion in our forums
    — Follow Twins Daily via Twitter, Facebook or email
    — Become a Twins Daily Caretaker

     Share
     Share
    Go to articles

    Community Blogs

    • How many games will the Minnesota Twins win in 2023?
    • Gopher Preview (Week 3)

    Forum Topics

    • PVTEST
    • Hey, look here
    • This is an exceptionally long title to test how various points look on a phone and smaller devices
    The Ultimate Fan Guide to Target Field

    User Feedback

    Recommended Comments



    Featured Comments

    Brock Beauchamp

    Brock Beauchamp 39,328

  • Administrator

    • Posted

     

    That team was very lucky in 2015, can luck happen again? Sure. Can every player get better and healthy? Sure. 

     

    But, imo, a huge corporation shouldn't bet its future on luck. 

    No, definitely not... But I'm not sure 20% is that far off the mark.

     

    Think about it this way: is it unreasonable that if you ran five simulations with this team, one of out five times they end up over 80 wins?

     

    Given the explosive talent of Berrios, Buxton, and Sano with the interesting talent of Polanco, Rosario, Kepler, etc., a one in five chance of hanging in the WC picture isn't absurd.

     

    But you don't plan on the one out of five chance. You plan on the four out of five chance.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    Otto von Ballpark

    Otto von Ballpark 20,320

  • Community Leader

    • Posted

     

    No, definitely not... But I'm not sure 20% is that far off the mark.

     

    Think about it this way: is it unreasonable that if you ran five simulations with this team, one of out five times they end up over 80 wins?

     

    Given the explosive talent of Berrios, Buxton, and Sano with the interesting talent of Polanco, Rosario, Kepler, etc., a one in five chance of hanging in the WC picture isn't absurd.

     

    But you don't plan on the one out of five chance. You plan on the four out of five chance.

    Yeah, by that criteria, I'd bet virtually every team, every season has at least a similar chance to hang in the WC picture.  It can't be enough to move the needle on planning.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    Mike Sixel

    Mike Sixel 41,021

  • Old-Timey Member

    • Posted

     

    No, definitely not... But I'm not sure 20% is that far off the mark.

     

    Think about it this way: is it unreasonable that if you ran five simulations with this team, one of out five times they end up over 80 wins?

     

    Given the explosive talent of Berrios, Buxton, and Sano with the interesting talent of Polanco, Rosario, Kepler, etc., a one in five chance of hanging in the WC picture isn't absurd.

     

    But you don't plan on the one out of five chance. You plan on the four out of five chance.

     

    If anyone thinks they have a 25% or 20% or 10% chance of making the playoffs, you should be in Vegas. Because they have much larger odds than that.

     

    Yes, I think if you ran 1000 simulations, they'd make the playoffs around 2-3% of the time. Maybe 5, but that seems high to me.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    drjim

    drjim 7,100

  • Provisional Member

    • Posted

     

    If anyone thinks they have a 25% or 20% or 10% chance of making the playoffs, you should be in Vegas. Because they have much larger odds than that.

     

    Yes, I think if you ran 1000 simulations, they'd make the playoffs around 2-3% of the time. Maybe 5, but that seems high to me.

     

    I don't think Vegas runs straight playoff odds. They run over/under and league champions and world series.

     

    Best I could find is 65/1 to win the pennant, so 1.5%. That strikes me as about a 10% chance to make the playoffs. Which I would say is about 20% to be in contention.

     

    http://www.vegasinsider.com/mlb/odds/futures/

     

    But in reality it's pretty academic. Plan on the 4 out of 5, but also don't make a bad trade.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    Mike Sixel

    Mike Sixel 41,021

  • Old-Timey Member

    • Posted

     

    I don't think Vegas runs straight playoff odds. They run over/under and league champions and world series.

     

    Best I could find is 65/1 to win the pennant, so 1.5%. That strikes me as about a 10% chance to make the playoffs. Which I would say is about 20% to be in contention.

     

    http://www.vegasinsider.com/mlb/odds/futures/

     

    But in reality it's pretty academic. Plan on the 4 out of 5, but also don't make a bad trade.

     

    we certainly agree on that last point.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    Brock Beauchamp

    Brock Beauchamp 39,328

  • Administrator

    • Posted

     

    If anyone thinks they have a 25% or 20% or 10% chance of making the playoffs, you should be in Vegas. Because they have much larger odds than that.

    But that's not what was said. There's a significant gap between "in the playoffs" and "in the playoff hunt".

     

    It's the difference between as many as 5-7 wins on the season. An 83 win team is often "in the hunt" until early to mid September.

     

    The 2015 Twins were in the hunt until the last series of the season and ended up with 83 wins.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    Mike Sixel

    Mike Sixel 41,021

  • Old-Timey Member

    • Posted

     

    But that's not what was said. There's a significant gap between "in the playoffs" and "in the playoff hunt".

     

    It's the difference between as many as 5-7 wins on the season. An 83 win team is often "in the hunt" until early to mid September.

     

    The 2015 Twins were in the hunt until the last series of the season and ended up with 83 wins.

     

    I'll give you 4:1 odds right now, Brock, they aren't an 83 win team. PM me if interested.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    gocgo

    gocgo 1,979

  • Provisional Member

    • Posted

     

    But that's not what was said. There's a significant gap between "in the playoffs" and "in the playoff hunt".

     

    It's the difference between as many as 5-7 wins on the season. An 83 win team is often "in the hunt" until early to mid September.

     

    The 2015 Twins were in the hunt until the last series of the season and ended up with 83 wins.

    Predicting baseball is pretty tough to do.  That's why hope springs eternal in March.  Sometimes, a dribbler, a dink, and a dying quail are the difference between a loss and a win while a rocket up the middle turns into a double play and a loss.  Sure, the laws of averages should catch up with a team, but they don't always.  The reality is that the Twins will need some breaks, some luck, some guys to over perform just to play meaningful games in September.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    Mike Sixel

    Mike Sixel 41,021

  • Old-Timey Member

    • Posted

     

    Many people would argue that is exactly what trading Dozier for prospects is.....

     

    No, prospects are potential future MLB starters, not hope. An organization pays scouts, lots of scouts, to analyze and asses ball players. 

     

    Prospects aren't hope, they are assets, that can gain or lose value, just like Dozier. 

     

    So, no, that's just not true at all. Prospects aren't about hope, they are about managing assets. 

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    Doomtints

    Doomtints 2,816

  • Verified Member

    • Posted (edited)

    Bill James wrote that if someone is an elite talent in the minors, he almost always works out in the MLB.  The Kevin Sloweys who dominate the minors but have short MLB careers are rare.  And even Slowey put together 3 good years before the Twins tried to change him, all in spite of him having a fastball that your grandma could hit.

     

    De Leon is dominating the minors.  I'm wondering if some of you arguing against him being enough have actually looked at his stats.  

     

    Anyway, the point is, prospects are not gambles.  Analytics has proven that top talent in the minors reliably becomes top talent in the majors.  The problem is that we often think of "top talent" based on scouting articles, not metrics, so we argue needlessly about what "top talent" actually is.  

    Edited by Doomtints
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    Jacksson

    Jacksson 221

  • Verified Member

    • Posted

    Can we evaluate the success of the following trades for pitching talent:?

    Wilson Ramos for Matt Capps.

    Denard Span for Alex Meyer

    Ben Revere for Trevor May & Vance Worley

     

    Wasn't it the case that Meyer and May would be hard throwing "studs" for us?  Where are we now?

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    gunnarthor

    gunnarthor 11,234

  • Old-Timey Member

    • Posted

     

    Can we evaluate the success of the following trades for pitching talent:?

    Wilson Ramos for Matt Capps.

    Denard Span for Alex Meyer

    Ben Revere for Trevor May & Vance Worley

     

    Wasn't it the case that Meyer and May would be hard throwing "studs" for us?  Where are we now?

    Capps performed as expected.  Worley was much worse than I thought he'd be.  I liked May, others thought he'd be a bullpen arm.  I think he should be a starter. As a prospect, I think he was fine.  Meyer didn't work out for whatever reason you want to make - injury, misuse by staff, demeanor etc.  

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    nicksaviking

    nicksaviking 26,755

  • Community Moderator

    • Posted

     

    Can we evaluate the success of the following trades for pitching talent:?

    Wilson Ramos for Matt Capps.

    Denard Span for Alex Meyer

    Ben Revere for Trevor May & Vance Worley

     

    Wasn't it the case that Meyer and May would be hard throwing "studs" for us?  Where are we now?

     

    The team has different talent evaluators now. And for the record, I think a lot of May still.

     

    Either way, just because you struck out last at bat it doesn't mean you should keep it on your shoulder the rest of your career. You got to keep taking hacks, it'll payoff eventually.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    Twins33

    Twins33 711

  • Verified Member

    • Posted

     

    The team has different talent evaluators now. And for the record, I think a lot of May still.

     

    Either way, just because you struck out last at bat it doesn't mean you should keep it on your shoulder the rest of your career. You got to keep taking hacks, it'll payoff eventually.

    Right. Falvey and Levine shouldn't be judge for things that Ryan or Smith did. They should be judge for what they do. We have no idea how good or bad they are at trading. They haven't made one yet.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    Otto von Ballpark

    Otto von Ballpark 20,320

  • Community Leader

    • Posted

     

    Can we evaluate the success of the following trades for pitching talent:?

    Wilson Ramos for Matt Capps.

    Denard Span for Alex Meyer

    Ben Revere for Trevor May & Vance Worley

     

    Wasn't it the case that Meyer and May would be hard throwing "studs" for us?  Where are we now?

    Capps was a bad deal, but irrelevant to the current conversation.

     

    May was a buy-low candidate, his modest prospect stock was weak at the time.  Worley was kind of a buy low in the same package, he had already started to fade and had an injury.

     

    Meyer was on the rise, and a good argument why it's best not to trade a controllable asset 1-for-1 for a single prospect.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    Mike Sixel

    Mike Sixel 41,021

  • Old-Timey Member

    • Posted

     

    Capps was a bad deal, but irrelevant to the current conversation.

     

    May was a buy-low candidate, his modest prospect stock was weak at the time.  Worley was kind of a buy low in the same package, he had already started to fade and had an injury.

     

    Meyer was on the rise, and a good argument why it's best not to trade a controllable asset 1-for-1 for a single prospect.

     

    That, and as Bonnes pointed out, there has been exactly one SP as tall as Meyer that has ever been any good.....

     

    Oh, and Meyer is still a prospect, let's see what he does for the next few years before saying he's never going to be good. I still think they messed with his head pretty good the last few years....but as Bonnes points out....

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    Brock Beauchamp

    Brock Beauchamp 39,328

  • Administrator

    • Posted

     

    That, and as Bonnes pointed out, there has been exactly one SP as tall as Meyer that has ever been any good.....

     

    Oh, and Meyer is still a prospect, let's see what he does for the next few years before saying he's never going to be good. I still think they messed with his head pretty good the last few years....but as Bonnes points out....

    Yeah, the only outright bust from that group was Worley but May came along in the deal so it was still pretty reasonable.

     

    Capps was a dumb trade but Matt Capps was exactly who we expected him to be in 2010.

     

    Worley was a bust.

     

    May for Revere straight-up may end up being a fair swap.

     

    Meyer was buggered by the front office. He was a risk and maybe not a smart risk but the front office and coaching staff did that guy absolutely zero favors in the way they managed him.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    Oxtung

    Oxtung 516

  • Verified Member

    • Posted

    Hope for luck is better than near certain doom.....so, sure, if that's how you want to put it.

    So if we hope that Dozier goes on a hot streak and maintains value then it is "certain doom". However, if we hope that a prospect haul to pan out that's ok.

     

    Seems like a double standard to me...

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    Oxtung

    Oxtung 516

  • Verified Member

    • Posted

    No, prospects are potential future MLB starters, not hope. An organization pays scouts, lots of scouts, to analyze and asses ball players. 

     

    Prospects aren't hope, they are assets, that can gain or lose value, just like Dozier. 

     

    So, no, that's just not true at all. Prospects aren't about hope, they are about managing assets.

     

    Mike I'm not sure what you are arguing here. My IRA is an asset too, I sure as hell hope it continues to grow though.
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    TheLeviathan

    TheLeviathan 17,473

  • Old-Timey Member

    • Posted

     

    So if we hope that Dozier goes on a hot streak and maintains value then it is "certain doom". However, if we hope that a prospect haul to pan out that's ok.

    Seems like a double standard to me...

     

    I'm telling you hoping for a hot streak AND a totally out of character mid-season haul is probably just being silly.  Again, there is over a decade of evidence that hoping for a big haul from a hitter is folly.  Not to mention the gamble that Dozier will choose to not suck to start the year.

     

    Hoping for highly rated prospects to pan out is not in the same league.  That's not a double standard, that's just recognizing probabilities. 

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    USAFChief

    USAFChief 58,010

  • Community Moderator

    • Posted

    Anyway, the point is, prospects are not gambles.  Analytics has proven that top talent in the minors reliably becomes top talent in the majors.  The problem is that we often think of "top talent" based on scouting articles, not metrics, so we argue needlessly about what "top talent" actually is.

     

    I disagree strongly with sentences 1 and 2. Very strongly.

     

    I'm not sure what you mean by sentence 3.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    Doomtints

    Doomtints 2,816

  • Verified Member

    • Posted

     

    I disagree strongly with sentences 1 and 2. Very strongly.

    I'm not sure what you mean by sentence 3.

     

    Read up.  Bill James proved it with numbers.

     

    Like I said, the perception is different because people judge minors talent on what pundits state rather than their actual metrics.  Bill James can't measure the rubbish from the mouths of pundits.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    diehardtwinsfan

    diehardtwinsfan 14,830

  • Community Moderator

    • Posted

     

    Bill James wrote that if someone is an elite talent in the minors, he almost always works out in the MLB.  The Kevin Sloweys who dominate the minors but have short MLB careers are rare.  And even Slowey put together 3 good years before the Twins tried to change him, all in spite of him having a fastball that your grandma could hit.

     

    De Leon is dominating the minors.  I'm wondering if some of you arguing against him being enough have actually looked at his stats.  

     

    Anyway, the point is, prospects are not gambles.  Analytics has proven that top talent in the minors reliably becomes top talent in the majors.  The problem is that we often think of "top talent" based on scouting articles, not metrics, so we argue needlessly about what "top talent" actually is.  

     

    Slowey's problem wasn't the Twins changing him, it was a line drive to his wrist.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites


    Join the conversation

    You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
    Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

    Guest
    Add a comment...

    ×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

      Only 75 emoji are allowed.

    ×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

    ×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

    ×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

    Loading...
    ×

×
×
  • Create New...