Jump to content
Twins Daily
  • Create Account
  • Impasse


    Nick Nelson

    Are the Twins and Dodgers moving on from Brian Dozier trade talks? It's beginning to look that way. Let's break down the latest developments and potential ramifications.

    Image courtesy of Brad Rempel, USA Today

    Twins Video

    Earlier this week, Ken Rosenthal of FOX Sports reported that the two sides had reached an impasse in their negotiations with "no momentum toward deal." That's an ominous sign at this late stage of the offseason and Rosenthal later wrote that the Dodgers were "back to square one in their search for a second baseman."

    Derek Falvey and Thad Levine took over the Twins front office with a tremendous opportunity to leverage a high-quality player at peak value in order to bolster the organization's lackluster pitching corps. But it appears that timing may have been against them.

    For one thing, they've been unable to develop much of a market for Dozier. The list of contenders with high-caliber young arms and a need for an impact hitter at second base was short to begin with, and shrunk when the Mets decided to bring back Neil Walker.

    Los Angeles was a very obvious fit from the start but unfortunately, no others really emerged. While a few clubs were loosely connected with Minnesota, it was evident all along that no one was going to press hard enough to create a bidding war. This placed the Twins at a rather disadvantageous negotiating position.

    Beyond these isolated circumstances, there is a larger trend at play. Baseball teams, in general, seem to be losing their thirst for power. It's the name of Dozier's game, but the home run doesn't carry the same appeal it once did.

    Consider this: Most expected Edwin Encarnacion, who ranks second in baseball since 2012 in both homers and RBI, to land a deal in excess of $100 million as a free agent this offseason. Instead, he settled for $60 million from Cleveland. His former Toronto teammate Jose Bautista, another of the game's premier power bats, has yet to find a job. Same for Mark Trumbo, whose 47 bombs led the majors in 2016.

    In other years, it would feel crazy that a second baseman coming off a 42-homer campaign wouldn't generate an aggressive market. In this current environment, though, it's kinda par for the course.

    Every report on the matter has made sure to emphasize that trade discussions are not considered dead. Levine said this week that a point might come where the Twins would stop initiating calls, but they would never stop listening.

    However, Rosenthal's note about how the Minnesota front office "wanted to give Dozier a heightened peace of mind about his status with the club" matches a similar relay from Mike Berardino of the Pioneer Press a week earlier.

    Reading between the lines, one can infer that Falvey and Levine have informed Dozier he'll be back in 2017 barring an unforeseen development. They're wise to keep their antennas up but at this point, it's tough to see what would change to precipitate a deal. More than a month after discussions began, there has been little in the way of evident progress.

    The Dodgers might feel they've done their part by offering up Jose De Leon, who is viewed by some as a top five prospect in the entire game. The Twins, meanwhile, are understandably opposed to giving up their best and most popular player for a single lottery ticket whose future could be thrown into question with a reoccurrence of his shoulder soreness, or an extension of his initial big-league struggles.

    It looks like the trenches that have been dug here. And while it's odd to see no accord despite such a natural match, it's not like either team is in a corner.

    Dodgers president Andrew Friedman, who gained notoriety while running operations for the Tampa Bay Rays, understands as well as anyone the value (and fickleness) of cheap young pitching talent. He'll be content keeping his full arsenal of young hurlers and looking elsewhere for an offensive boost. Maybe someone like Bautista could be an option.

    Meanwhile, the Twins can hang on to Dozier, who still doesn't turn 30 until May. He's in his prime and the possibility exists that we still haven't seen his best campaign. With two years left on his contract, he figures to retain strong value going forward, and if Minnesota surprisingly jumps out to a competitive start this season, he'll almost certainly be a big reason for it.

    That's a precarious gamble, though. Outside of adding Jason Castro, the Twins haven't done much to meaningfully upgrade a 100-loss team. It's reasonable to expect significant improvements from a contingent of returning players, but gaining 20-plus wins on that basis is a tough sell. If the shiny new front office brings back a largely untouched roster in 2017, the luster is going to quickly wear off in the eyes of fans and season ticket holders.

    So if Dozier stays, what's the plan? Spend some money to supplement the team around him and hope to catch lightning in a bottle? That definitely would not jibe with Falvey's initial talk of building for the future and looking at the big picture.

    But then again, you've got to work with what you've got. All that the Chief Baseball Officer and his GM can do is play the hand they're dealt. Now, we'll see if they push in their chips or continue to slow-play and straddle the line between trying to rebuild or retool.

    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

     

    You think that but that doesn't mean you're right.  Making a bad trade now - and we all agree it's a bad trade - isn't ok just because you don't think you'll get a better trade later.  If you don't get your value, you hold him.

     

    And that's better how? How does that help 2018 or beyond? 

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    I think that at this point it's pretty obvious how badly the Twins have screwed up the last 6 years in terms of missing the chance to fully rebuild. No better example exists than not moving Perkins. But I don't think the Dozier situation is the same.

     

    The old regime kept Perkins because they liked him, he's a Minnesota guy, and that he promised to sign a friendly deal if they didn't trade him. Three horrible reasons that show just how backward, inept, and foolish Ryan & Co. were.

     

    I also don't think the Plouffe situation from last offseason is applicable either. Ryan & Co. seemed to make the decision quickly that Plouffe would stay, as we heard Sano was taking OF reps over the winter. The team chose to screw with a potential franchise player rather than move a league-average 3B. Being league average, the return for Plouffe, if he actually would have been shopped, wouldn't have mattered as much in the long-run. Moving him to make room for Sano at his position of comfort was the value.

     

    But Dozier is not league average. So the return is more important in his situation. 

    And the fact is this FO actively marketed Dozier. They got screwed by a "down market" for 2B. But they didn't compound the situation by settling on a deal they didn't like.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

     

    To me he is both, which is ideal.

    But if it's high ceiling vs high floor, I pick ceiling everytime.

     

    He throws in the low 90's without a strong breaking pitch and he's a flyball pitcher. That doesn't look like a high ceiling guy to me. He looks like he's a high floor guy due to his control.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    You think that but that doesn't mean you're right.  Making a bad trade now - and we all agree it's a bad trade - isn't ok just because you don't think you'll get a better trade later.  If you don't get your value, you hold him.

    For one, I don't buy the 1:1 deal. That isn't the offer on the table.

     

    Your sense of value seems to ignore the enormous risks in holding on to Dozier. I understand the risks with DeLeon, I accept them because we need upside. He flops and we suck. We keep Dozier and we suck.

     

    But if we deal Dozier we might net a stud. There is a solid chance of that. Far more solid than some mythical better deal we can't even imagine coherently much less actually attain.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

     

    They kept trading, and didn't quit because they made bad ones. Bad ones happen. We get it, you don't think the trades mattered, and you don't think they should get credit for making good ones, because they have money to use. We don't agree. How about the White Sox, or Braves? Do they get no points for their trades if they later sign free agents? .

    Who hasn't given them credit for trades?  My god, man.  Of course the trades mattered but comparing the Twins to a 200m payroll team is stupid.  They have resources that the Twins don't that let's them do things the Twins can't.  It's nice that the White Sox traded Sale.  Bully for them. That doesn't mean the Twins should take a bad deal for Dozier.  

     

    Since 2012 the Twins have traded pretty much everyone not nailed down.  Only Span, Perkins and Dozier were players of a level to bring back huge returns.  They kept Perkins.  The Span 1:1 didn't work.  They now have two years to deal with Dozier.  

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    He throws in the low 90's without a strong breaking pitch and he's a flyball pitcher. That doesn't look like a high ceiling guy to me. He looks like he's a high floor guy due to his control.

    And yet many experts disagree with you.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

     

    Who hasn't given them credit for trades?  My god, man.  Of course the trades mattered but comparing the Twins to a 200m payroll team is stupid.  They have resources that the Twins don't that let's them do things the Twins can't.  It's nice that the White Sox traded Sale.  Bully for them. That doesn't mean the Twins should take a bad deal for Dozier.  

     

    Since 2012 the Twins have traded pretty much everyone not nailed down.  Only Span, Perkins and Dozier were players of a level to bring back huge returns.  They kept Perkins.  The Span 1:1 didn't work.  They now have two years to deal with Dozier.  

    You're approximately $90+ million off in your payroll estimation. That's like saying the Twins have a $175 million payroll. 

    http://www.stevetheump.com/Payrolls.htm

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

     

    For one, I don't buy the 1:1 deal. That isn't the offer on the table.

    Your sense of value seems to ignore the enormous risks in holding on to Dozier. I understand the risks with DeLeon, I accept them because we need upside. He flops and we suck. We keep Dozier and we suck.

    But if we deal Dozier we might net a stud. There is a solid chance of that. Far more solid than some mythical better deal we can't even imagine coherently much less actually attain.

    Well, the 1:1 is what's been reported.  Steve Adams at mlbtraderumors said, in his chat, "The Twins aren't trading Dozier for De Leon and junk or just for De Leon straight up. Dodgers will either up their offer or the Twins will hold onto him. Right now, the latter looks considerably more likely."  That pretty clearly indicates that the Dodgers deal is low.  

     

    What is the risk of keeping Dozier?  He has a four year track record of being a pretty good player.  He's not turning into a pumpkin.  He'll likely be an all-star this year.  You think his value will plummet?  Considering they aren't getting offers for his value now, it doesn't really matter.  

     

    And you really seem to be overrating De Leon's chances, which is why teams don't trade guys like Dozier for just De Leon.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

     

    For one, I don't buy the 1:1 deal. That isn't the offer on the table.

     

     

    Then look at who may have been included by checking out their prospect lists:

     

    http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/top-21-prospects-los-angeles-dodgers/

     

    Aside from De Leon the Dodgers had three other starting pitchers in their top ten, Alvarez, Buehler and Stewart, all of whom are not currently being offered. One other guy, who is ranked 10th by Fangraphs, is going to be a relief pitcher. The Dodgers have four other arms in the 15-21 range but only one of them is above A ball.

     

    It doesn't matter if the offer was 1:1 or if the offer is De Leon and various other players, the other players either aren't starting pitchers, or are much, much lower quality starting pitchers. Which means the Twins aren't upgrading their rotation now or in the future by any more than De Leon. If that's fine by you, great, but please stop insisting that there's a big difference between a 1:1 deal or De Leon plus parts. 

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

     

    Touche. I don't know why there's that big of a delta between the 2 sites. 

    They have the payrolls labeled 2016 but your site is almost certainly using 2015 payrolls.  I just randomly compared the two sites on the Twins, Angels and Cardinals.  They're using 2015 for 2016.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    All the reporters are recycling the same mush mouthed report by LEN. I don't buy it, it doesn't pass the smell test.

     

    Dozier will age right?

     

    His contract will reduce in team control right?

     

    It's not speculation his value will decrease, it's near certain fact. Unless you think he's going to hit 50 home runs or agree to an extension at the same price or some other ridiculous notion he will lose value.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

     

    They have the payrolls labeled 2016 but your site is almost certainly using 2015 payrolls.  I just randomly compared the two sites on the Twins, Angels and Cardinals.  They're using 2015 for 2016.

    Then that makes sense. Just googled Cubs payroll by season and that was one of the first results on the page. 

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Then look at who may have been included by checking out their prospect lists:

     

    http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/top-21-prospects-los-angeles-dodgers/

     

    Aside from De Leon the Dodgers had three other starting pitchers in their top ten, Alvarez, Buehler and Stewart, all of whom are notcurrently being offered. One other guy, who is ranked 10th by Fangraphs, is going to be a relief pitcher. The Dodgers have four other arms in the 15-21 range but only one of them is above A ball.

     

    It doesn't matter if the offer was 1:1 or if the offer is De Leon and various other players, the other players either aren't starting pitchers, or are much, much lower quality starting pitchers. Which means the Twins aren't upgrading their rotation now or in the future by any more than De Leon. If that's fine by you, great, but please stop insisting that there's a big difference between a 1:1 deal or De Leon plus parts.

     

    So now a top 25 prospect isn't enough we need, what? Multiple top 50 specs? What's enough?

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

     

    How does keeping him move the needle? 

    It doesn't.  But I don't think getting bent over by the Dodgers is good for future dealings.  I think if this was not the first major deal the new regime was in it would have a different outcome.  It seems like the Dodgers are posturing as not to lose to some "Kid GM's" working on their first deal, and Twins are trying to show they won't be pushed around now or in the future.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

     

     It seems like the Dodgers are posturing as not to lose to some "Kid GM's" working on their first deal, and Twins are trying to show they won't be pushed around now or in the future.

    If these discussions have in fact been that vain and petty (and I'm not saying you're wrong), that would really be a shame. Both teams might have really gotten something good out of a deal. 

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

     

    who ripped them in this thread? Not me, I'm asking people questions about:

     

    1. not trading for prospects at all (wow)

    2. not trading for pitching, because 1 player can't fix every problem

    3. How keeping Dozier moves the needle for the future.

     

    None of those actually rip anyone, I'm trying to understand people's arguments....nothing more or less.

    I think the problem is the Twins have no one other teams are willing to give up prospects for, especially pitching prospects.  

     

    Dozier should have been but as we have seen the interest isn't exactly there as most thought it would. Ervin Santana is another guy who could fetch prospects but, again, isn't exactly the guy who will move a playoff contender to WS contender.  So what do they use to get future parts? 

     

    The only other tradeable assets are the Twins prospects like Buxton, Sano, Berrios, Kepler, etc.  I don't want to trade those for more prospects since those guys are still unknowns.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

     

    The Cubs spent their way out of the cellar.  The Astros had 6 losing seasons in a row - three worse than our worse year - and have topped out at 86 wins two years ago.  The White Sox are the very definition of a team constantly winning 71-79 games, having done so in 6 of the last 9 years with two winning seasons (2010 and 2012) and a disaster year mixed in.  The Phillies have had four straight losing seasons.  They don't seem out of the rebuild yet.  

     

    The Twins have a very strong offensive nucleus in place that just needs experience.  There's no reason to think the Twins can't be like the 2001 Twins or the 2014 Astros.  They have a lot of good pieces that should come together.

    You might want to check the ages and salaries of that Cubs core.

     

    I don't think anybody is thrilled with JDL + small pieces for Dozier but I also don't think its unfair to ask if this might be their best offer. If the list of teams in the market for a 2B is short and this was the best offer the Twins could get for Dozier at his peak value then I agree with the previous sentiment that we need to be realistic about what kind of package he'll bring back. 

     

    By holding onto Dozier you're banking on him repeating his career year through the first half, the market for a 2B expanding, and a contending team deciding they're willing to pay more for 1.3 years of Dozier than they were for 2 this offseason. That seems like a lot to ask for.  

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

     

    If these discussions have in fact been that vain and petty (and I'm not saying you're wrong), that would really be a shame. Both teams might have really gotten something good out of a deal. 

    I'm not saying they went into it with those thoughts, but it could be a subconsious thing.  I know when I get a new job I want to really do well at least early on to make an impact and set a precedent.  A year later I gradually start to not care as much about my impact in each thing I do since I already have built up credibility.  (I still care about my work, but the impact thing diminishes).

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

     

    So now a top 25 prospect isn't enough we need, what? Multiple top 50 specs? What's enough?

     

    One prospect has NEVER been enough for Dozier.

     

    A month ago nobody here would have thought so. Now it seems a lot of people have resigned themselves to accepting whatever the Dodgers deign to bestow upon the Twins. It's January 13th, if the Twins had taken this offer, we would have spent the next three months complaining about how little the team got.

     

    Also, if the Dodger fans that come to this site aren't upset about this proposed deal, that's a pretty big heads up that it's a bad deal.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

     

    One prospect has NEVER been enough for Dozier.

     

    A month ago nobody here would have thought so. Now it seems a lot of people have resigned themselves to accepting whatever the Dodgers deign to bestow upon the Twins. It's January 13th, if the Twins had taken this offer, we would have spent the next three months complaining about how little the team got.

     

    Also, if the Dodger fans that come to this site aren't upset about this proposed deal, that's a pretty big heads up that it's a bad deal.

     

    We have more information now than we did 3 months ago....no one is offering "enough" or "fair" value.....so, do we take less value, or take our ball and go home?

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

     

     

    By holding onto Dozier you're banking on him repeating his career year through the first half, the market for a 2B expanding, and a contending team deciding they're willing to pay more for 1.3 years of Dozier than they were for 2 this offseason. That seems like a lot to ask for.  

    By holding onto Dozier, you don't make a bad deal.  And, aside from one poster, no one here seems to think the Twins should have taken the Dodgers deal for De Leon, although some are suggesting that the Dodgers offer may have been more than, as Steve Adams described "and junk" but without any specifics.  

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

     

    By holding onto Dozier you're banking on him repeating his career year through the first half,

     

    No, you're not. You're banking that the market changes for Dozier. We've long ago established that Dozier's value is not derived from his stats but instead demand.

     

    Demand is low, which means so is his value. Everyone always complained that Ryan sold off the players at their low point. Well through no fault of his own or the Twins, Dozier is at a low value point.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

     

    We have more information now than we did 3 months ago....no one is offering "enough" or "fair" value.....so, do we take less value, or take our ball and go home?

     

    Sure, we have a phone at home. We can still go out to play later, it's only January 13th.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

     

    Sure, we have a phone at home. We can still go out to play later, it's only January 13th.

     

    And if they don't trade him, because they never get a "fair" deal, and pass on JDL, that's cool with you I assume?

     

    Still not sure if I'd take JDL and "junk" or not, I am no scout and don't have access to dozens of scouts.....

    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...