Jump to content
Twins Daily
  • Create Account
  • How Does Keeping Dozier Fit With Long-Term View?


    Nick Nelson

    Ever since first stepping into their roles leading the Minnesota Twins baseball operations department, both Derek Falvey and Thad Levine have been talking about the big picture.

    So how would keeping Brian Dozier, whose value is at a high point, align with the future-focused approach that this regime has espoused?

    Image courtesy of Mark J. Rebilas, USA Today

    Twins Video

    In their early days on the job, the new CBO and GM were clear about their intentions to build a foundation for sustainable success, acknowledging that it might be a gradual process. Falvey laid out his vision for a "data-driven" collaboration. Levine spoke of making "thoughtful decisions that are designed for the future of this organization."

    On the surface, trading Dozier – a veteran star in his prime, who is highly unlikely to play on a championship-caliber team here during the two remaining years on his contract – would seem to be the very definition of such a move.

    But as we discussed late last week, Minnesota's front office has been stonewalled in its efforts to extract ample value for Dozier. Clearly, the newly installed executive duo entered this offseason with a specific valuation of Dozier, unshaded by familiarity with him as a person or his intangible value to the franchise. Clearly, suitors have been unwilling to meet it, for reasons outlined in last week's post.

    In the comments section for that article, some readers opined that the Twins should simply lower their sights and take what they can get for Dozier, which at this point appears to be Jose De Leon and not much else. It's a reasoned take because, in the big-picture view, De Leon has a much better chance of contributing to a contender in two years and beyond.

    But there's another big picture to look at, framed within Target Field and its many offices and operations. Beneath the new leadership structure, there are many returning employees, including the players on the roster. They are forming their own opinions of Falvey and Levine, who are both assuming top decision-making roles for the first time. Respect is earned, not given, and in the eyes of longtime Twins people who were loyal to Terry Ryan, these relatively inexperienced successors have big shoes to fill.

    How is it going to look if their first major trade involves shipping out the team's best player for a return that blatantly falls well short of expectations? How does it look to the guys in the clubhouse if their exemplary leader, viewed as a linchpin in efforts to rebound and return to contention, is removed and replaced by a rookie with no record of big-league success? How will the "Screw 2017, we'll do whatever it takes to get better in three years" approach be received by Paul Molitor as a lame duck manager who desperately needs to improve, in short order, to keep his job?

    And how much are these perceptions worsened if De Leon's shoulder flares up in the spring, or his initial struggles carry over to his first full season, or he ends up in the bullpen? If the Twins aren't getting back any additional pieces, there's no alternative opportunity to recoup value.

    Falvey knows about the importance of bolstering your odds. He comes from an organization that benefitted greatly from receiving quantity in these blockbusters.

    When the Indians traded CC Sabathia to the Brewers back in 2008, it wasn't headliner Matt LaPorta who ended up achieving star status but rather the "player to be named later" rounding out the package, who turned out to be Michael Brantley. When Cleveland traded Cliff Lee to Philadelphia a year later, four prospects of similar standing came back but only one truly panned out: Carlos Carrasco, who was a staple in their division-winning 2016 rotation.

    Of course, playing the odds works both ways. Any realist needs to acknowledge that the odds are very much against Minnesota making a dramatic jump and actually competing for a postseason spot in 2017. In the scope of long-term rebuilding, keeping Dozier is counterproductive in two important ways: it deprives the system of a top-tier talent in De Leon, with a lesser return likely if they make a deal down the line, and it forces Jorge Polanco to keep playing out of position at shortstop.

    Falvey is a calculating and analytical guy who earned a degree in economics. With the Indians, he learned under some of the game's most revered negotiators and evaluators. Same goes for Levine, who served as Jon Daniels' right-hand man in Texas.

    If Ryan were still in charge, I could see a stronger case for the Twins irrationally overvaluing their own asset. Such instances were not uncommon during his tenure. But the individuals charged with this Dozier decision are coming into the situation with clear eyes, and no inherent illusions about the current state of the organization.

    Tying this scenario to Falvey's area of speciality, there is an oft-cited concept in economics called opportunity cost. It is defined as "the loss of potential gain from other alternatives when one alternative is chosen," or more simply, the benefits that you give up by choosing one option over the other.

    In our present situation, the Twins are evidently prepared to leave a major prize on the table, as they've judged the positives of holding their ground and hanging onto Dozier to outweigh the value of acquiring De Leon.

    You can argue with the merits of their conclusion, but I don't think you can deny it's a thoughtful decision that meshes with a data-driven mindset.

    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


    User Feedback

    Recommended Comments



    Featured Comments

    In addition to setting the tone of the relationship with Twins' employees, players and fans, not trading Dozier for undervalue also sets a precedent with other teams about Falvey/Levine's unwillingness to give up gratuitous value, and gives their future aggressive positions during trade negotiations more credibility. There is significant longer term value in that as well. As much as we as Twins fans want to win in 2017, 2018 and 2019 because we are rightly tired of this rebuild taking so long, it isn't Falvey/Levine's job to satisfy that want.  Their job is, as they correctly see it, to generate "sustainable success." They won't be fired in 2017, 2018 or 2019 for not making the playoffs, as long as there is forward momentum. So all their incentives are targeted towards the next 6-10+ years, not the next 2 or 3. That is as it should be, even though it is extremely frustrating for us.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Don't buy argument that Falvey/Levine should be concerned about what the existing Twins staff feels or about trying to save Molly's job.  Pohlad mentioned a total systems failure of the Twins organization and while he did not give carte blanche to clean house, as evidenced by his stated desire to keep the manager, it is obvious they have a free hand to make changes.  A new scouting director is a sure sign, as is a new hitting instructor.  F&L were brought in to turn this organization upside down and if some of the old-time employees don't like it, well, the exit signs are well lit.

     

    But F&L do owe it to long suffering Twin fans, if not to ownership, to right this ship. To go into the new season with a roster no better than last year's, which is the current situation 30 days from spring training, should be worrisome to loyal fans who have withstood 5 out of 6 years of ineptness.  Failure to trade Dozier does not indict the new managment team yet, but failure to make any improvements to a 103 loss team leaves a great deal of uncertainty to what they are capable of.  Patience is a virtue at times, but after sitting thru the many years of Ryan's inaction, I doubt many of us will sit still for continued ineptitude much longer.  Hopefully, this roster will see some significant changes by midseason at the latest. 

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

     

    If the Twins keep Dozier and then add one of the remaining big bats on the free agent market then with a few breaks they could potentially hang around the wild card race into September. 

    How do you figure that?

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Idk if I'm buying that they're reluctant to trade Dozier because they fear backlash from TR loyalists and some potential negative PR but if that truly is a factor in the decision making process then maybe I need to lower my expectations for this new regime....

     

    Realistic trade expectations and opportunity cost have to merge at some point. Holding onto BD does nothing to help this team when they should actually be a contender. If the Twins are watching Dozier walk in 2 years then they've failed.   

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    I thought part of the value in hiring outside leadership in the FO was to help change the way we do things?

     

    If so, I hope they are making their decisions with absolutely no calculation of what the underlings of the past regime want them to do.  Otherwise we undermine the value in hiring from the outside.

     

    I have no reason to doubt our new FO is being thoughtful and making well informed decisions.  They deserve the benefit of the doubt.  I also appreciate that they seem to recognize trading Dozier is the right thing to do.  I'm willing to continue to be patient as they try to squeeze value out, but at the same time this trade does need to happen somehow some way.  So hopefully they have the salemanship, read of the situation, and creativity to pull it off.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Respect of the players should not be a decision point for the new front office. I don't think players play harder or Lolly gag because they do or don't respect the front office.

     

    I still think that Dozier gets traded to the Dodgers. We are going to play every card we can. We already tried the all these other teams are in on this. We are simply now playing the last one we have, which is this is not good enough and we are keeping him.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Throughout the Dozier trade discussions, it seems like most have given up on 2018 as well as this year. The Twins could be the most improved team in baseball this year and still struggle to reach .500, but is 2018 already impossible with Dozier the first half or more of the season? I would rather have two very good prospects now (if that was/is possible), but there is a small but real benefit to having Dozier available for the start of 2018 instead. The Twins did rank 29 out of 30 on the BPRo luck index for 2016. 

     

    Can Polanco play the outfield? Probably better than Sano or Grossman, but is this a possibility down the line? I have heard the comment that "everyone has a Polanco" and it may be also literally true, but perhaps 2018 could be the year he becomes a Zobrist.

     

    Anyhow, there are a lot more things to be unhappy about than Dozier still being a Twin.

     

     

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    You roll forward with Dozier being a benefit to the team. You sell high on Dozier or you close your business. DeLeon is not enough. It is insulting, screw that. Maybe Dozier hits 27 HR's next year with a .245 BA and 68BB.

     

    That is worth a lot more to me than an unproven commodity like DeLeon. The Twins tried to sell high, but there was not much demand. If you sell low, I cannot see how you improve this club.Maybe there will be an opportunity next summer, maybe not.

     

    Dozier is a fine baseball player, but he is undefined in his ceiling and every other org knows that. Keep him and maybe he becomes a Twins legend and is part of a WS victory! or maybe he tanks. Who knows. Never sell low.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

     

    Throughout the Dozier trade discussions, it seems like most have given up on 2018 as well as this year. The Twins could be the most improved team in baseball this year and still struggle to reach .500, but is 2018 already impossible with Dozier the first half or more of the season? I would rather have two very good prospects now (if that was/is possible), but there is a small but real benefit to having Dozier available for the start of 2018 instead. The Twins did rank 29 out of 30 on the BPRo luck index for 2016. 

     

    I had never heard of the BPro Luck Index. Fun stuff.

    If anyone else is new to it (only me?) here is Part 1 and Part 2.

     

    One thing this does NOT take into account is the manager having one of your best hitters bunt a runner to second base when you are down by one run in the FOURTH INNING!

     

    How much luck would you need to overcome managerial decision like that?

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    The Twins are holding an asset that is valuable to them more so in a marketing, emotional and leadership role, than an on the field role. I say that why? Because he is not going to make this team a winner in the remainder of his likely tenure. This is not a comment on his talent, it's a comment on his timing. That said, he has been put out on the front lawn with a for sale sign all winter, and 29 teams have kicked the tires, and checked the oil and decided that whatever they had at second base was either better than he, or if it wasn't, the asking price was too high. No matter the product, if it doesn't sell at your asking price, it's priced too high. Baring a totally unforeseen stroke of luck, I think the Twins will end up finding this out in June. As to the point that the new FO needs to build trust with the support staff, and help Molitor keep his job, I would not agree. When you start making decisions to curry favor, and worry about what others perception is, you won't succeed , or be around very long. They need the long view. We done the short view thing for years!

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    It's clear that, besides the Dodgers, there is no interest in Dozier. And LA is only lukewarm to him - apparently they're just fine looking elsewhere.

     

    I'd like to see more than De Leon, but if the Twins want to maximize Dozier's value, I say make the deal. He's not going to have more value at the deadline, and my intuition tells me that 2016 will be his best year as a pro.

     

    If the Twins aren't going to sign him to a long-term contract, this is the best that they can do.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

     

    Is there any evidence making one bad trade leads to more bad trades. Does anyone have data on that, or do we just magically know it is true? And Dozier is a leader and will help with contention? Really? How did that leadership work out last year?

    This would be nearly impossible to measure. Even if you could show that one bad trade was followed by additional bad trades, it would likely be impossible to separate out the effects of (1) a Front Office that is just bad at trades as a general, repeated matter, and (2) an initial or early bad trade leading to additional bad trades through other teams bargaining/negotiating more aggressively because they believe the FO is willing to accept a bad deal. 

     

    However, this is one of those situations where the absence of evidence should not be taken to imply evidence of absence. There are very good common sense and theoretical reasons to believe that if a team makes clearly bad trades, it will make additional bad trades more likely by undermining the negotiation reputation of the front office. Is this for sure? No, but in the absence of evidence (which I think for the reason above would be almost impossible to come by), it is by far the more reasonable assumption.

    Edited by nytwinsfan
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    My thoughts on Dozier are if you can't maximize is value or at least get back what you think he is worth do not make the trade right now.  There is no rule anywhere that says he needs to be traded before the season starts.  It would be nice and would put a stamp on regimes list of accomplishments.  If there is more value at the deadline you can trade him then, or next offseason his value might diminish some but then the return will be more on par if it is similar to what they are being offered now.

     

     

     

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

     

    It's clear that, besides the Dodgers, there is no interest in Dozier. And LA is only lukewarm to him - apparently they're just fine looking elsewhere.

    I'd like to see more than De Leon, but if the Twins want to maximize Dozier's value, I say make the deal. He's not going to have more value at the deadline, and my intuition tells me that 2016 will be his best year as a pro.

    If the Twins aren't going to sign him to a long-term contract, this is the best that they can do.

     

    That was my belief heading into this offseason and I said as much multiple times. However I don't think that's anywhere close to a stone cold certainty anymore, not because Dozier is going to improve his stature, but because there is no demand now. His value is going to increase or decrease mostly due to demand, not performance. 

     

    Also, we have so many people saying we have to jump on this offer of De Leon plus nothing/minimal pieces. Why don't we just slow down and wait until March? If Dozier is the Dodgers preferred target, they'll come calling back to the Twins before they do anything else at 2B.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

     

    Is there any evidence making one bad trade leads to more bad trades. Does anyone have data on that, or do we just magically know it is true? And Dozier is a leader and will help with contention? Really? How did that leadership work out last year?

     

    Have we forgotten the Bill Smith era already?  He did some great things with international signings, but part of the reason this org is where it is right now is due to the talent that got given away for nothing... and he did far more than once.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    We are also in this situation because of Ryan

     

    Hunter wasn't traded. Santana wasn't traded soon enough, Span was traded for the wrong player, Cuddyer was never traded, Willingham was never traded and so on. And Ryan handpicked Smith (who got a lot of the quality talent we are counting on now in the international marker, BTW)

     

    Holding onto quality players too long and getting no value in return is a good way for a mid-small market team to stay down.

    Edited by jimmer
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

     

    I thought part of the value in hiring outside leadership in the FO was to help change the way we do things?

     

    If so, I hope they are making their decisions with absolutely no calculation of what the underlings of the past regime want them to do.  Otherwise we undermine the value in hiring from the outside.

     

    I have no reason to doubt our new FO is being thoughtful and making well informed decisions.  They deserve the benefit of the doubt.  I also appreciate that they seem to recognize trading Dozier is the right thing to do.  I'm willing to continue to be patient as they try to squeeze value out, but at the same time this trade does need to happen somehow some way.  So hopefully they have the salemanship, read of the situation, and creativity to pull it off.

     

    Yeah, I don't think the hesitancy is to appease TR loyalists or anything of the sort. I think it has to do with the fact that TR wasn't the only conservative player out there when it came to dealing talent, and that there was good reason for it.  TR made his fair share of mistakes, don't get me wrong, but he had a reputation of wanting value when he made trades, and it's a large part of why this team was competitive during the 2000s. 

     

    You're right though that the trade needs to happen. The real problem though is if no one gives any real value for BD. If LA is the only bidder and won't offer more than JDL + junk, I'm likely to side with F&L and say keep him.  That sets a bad precedent and leaves an enormous amount of risk here, the largest of which is that JDL fails and that valuable asset got us nothing but wasted time.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

     

    You're right though that the trade needs to happen. The real problem though is if no one gives any real value for BD. If LA is the only bidder and won't offer more than JDL + junk, I'm likely to side with F&L and say keep him.  That sets a bad precedent and leaves an enormous amount of risk here, the largest of which is that JDL fails and that valuable asset got us nothing but wasted time.

     

    I tend to think what is truly on the table hasn't been outwardly discussed.  I don't think it's JDL and Alvarez and I also don't think it's just JDL.  I think it's something else.

     

    But we need to find a way to make what accompanies JDL worth our time, somehow, someway.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

     

    We are also in this situation because of Ryan

     

    Hunter wasn't traded. Santana wasn't traded soon enough, Span was traded for the wrong player, Cuddyer was never traded, Willingham was never traded and so on. And Ryan handpicked Smith (who got a lot of the quality talent we are counting on now in the international marker, BTW)

     

    Holding onto quality players too long and getting no value in return is a good way for a mid-small market team to stay down.

     

    Oh I agree.  Ryan was the example of a guy who wasn't got to make a move unless he got good value. Probably too much so in some cases.  The flip side though is just as bad, if not worse.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

     

    Have we forgotten the Bill Smith era already?  He did some great things with international signings, but part of the reason this org is where it is right now is due to the talent that got given away for nothing... and he did far more than once.

    I agree with what you're saying, but I think there's a difference between a guy making multiple unrelated poor decisions/trades and a guy that makes poor decisions because he made a poor decision before.  I would put Bill Smith in the former category.  Even the best GM's/Managers/etc have things go astray now and then.  I've said multiple times that the hallmark of a good manager is how they deal with errors.  Do they compound them by continuing to double down on it or do they admit to their mistakes and take corrective measures to correct the error and learn from it.

    Edited by wsnydes
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    I said after the season there wasn't a real good match for Dozier, either the teams that needed a 2B didn't have the pitching or the teams with pitching prospects didn't need a 2B. With that said I don't believe you make a trade just to make a trade. It seems as most here have given up 2017 which I don't completely understand. You have a young core that should be ready this year or we are in trouble. Buxton, Rosario, Kepler, Sano, and Polanco. We need to complement them not force them to give up hope for two more years. If our pitching prospects are two years out (which it seems) and it takes two years (which most do), we will have missed our mark on the hitters and we will be starting another rebuild. With two wild cards I think it is tough to give up completely prior to a season.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    How do you figure that?

    Optimism and being a bit of a homer since spring training hasn't started yet and hope springs eternal. Mix that with a dose of we gotta get some lucky breaks after 2016, the young bats progress, Phil Hughes and Berrios have good seasons, and the power bat hoped for still to come arrives and performs.
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    He is my fear, 2019, Mauer gone, no replacement, 2B Dozier gone, polanco isn't what we hope he was. SS - Gordon (Buxton of 2016), 3B - ?  OF, Rosario doesn't improve plate discipline, Buxton 20/20 guy, Kepler can't hit lefties, Sano solid DH, and a bat hole at C. And we have our current pitching prospects still trying to find their way.

    EDIT - I should have said and that is why I don't trade Dozier for less than they think he is worth, or why I give up any year too soon to stock pile prospects.

    Edited by Tomj14
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    IMO, This statement from Nick is the most important of all: "... the individuals charged with this Dozier decision are coming into the situation with clear eyes, and no inherent illusions about the current state of the organization."

     

    Those are views of two outsiders on Dozier's value. I'll defer to them,

     

    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...