Jump to content
Twins Daily
  • Create Account
  • Moving Dozier Needs to Include Creativity


    Jeremy Nygaard

    Happy New Years!

    It may be the first you've heard of it, but it sounds like the Twins and Dodgers have been having trade discussions that revolve around All-Star 2B Brian Dozier.

    Oh, you have heard it?

    Of course you have. It's been an ongoing national talker and there's been no shortage of articles to read on the topic right here on this site.

    Image courtesy of Bruce Kluckhohn-USA TODAY Sports

    Twins Video

    While no one knows how close we are to getting (or not getting) to a resolution in these trade talks, you can put me squarely in the camp that believes the Twins shouldn't move Dozier unless they're blown away.

    Sorry guys, trading Dozier for Jose De Leon in a 1-for-1 swap isn't blowing the Twins away. And trading Dozier for De Leon and Brock Stewart also isn't enough, in my opinion, to pull the trigger.

    So what's going to give?

    Did you hear? The 9th edition of the Twins Prospect Handbook is coming out on Wednesday. If you plug the code FWD15 in at checkout, you'll get 15% off. Want to buy a few? Get 20% off five or more books with the code SPACE20.

    Get Another Prospect or Two

    The Dodgers reportedly are holding steadfast in that they won't budge from not including other highly-regarded prospects like Yadier Alvarez or Cody Bellinger. But they've shown a "willingness" to include De Leon. A package that includes De Leon and Stewart is a good start. So who else could they look to include?

    Willie Calhoun - Calhoun is fashioned as a power-hitting left-handed-hitting second baseman. That might cause you to raise a red flag because that's ultimately Jorge Polanco's home. No problem, though, because Calhoun isn't going to stick at second base. His future is likely in left field, where he'd be limited by his lack of speed and arm, only because a 5' 6" first baseman isn't realistic. I wouldn't love Calhoun to be included, but his bat is an asset and assets are what the Twins need to close the deal.

    Jordan Sheffield - Getting another arm would be wise and Sheffield has a pretty powerful one (which includes a remade UCL). The Twins liked Sheffield - but didn't love him - coming out of Vanderbilt and there are questions about whether he profiles as a starter or not. But guys that can hit 98 don't just fall off trees and getting him as a third piece wouldn't be a terrible thing.

    Trevor Oaks - Oaks profiles as a groundball pitcher who could be a back end starter/middle relief option. There's nothing sexy about him but adding a (good) Nick Blackburn-type would be an acceptable third piece.

    Lottery Tickets - The Dodgers have been very active in international free agency the past few years and maybe the Twins could pry away either Ronny Brito, SS or Starling Heredia, OF. Just 17 and neither having made their US debut yet, both prospects have high ceilings but a long way to go. Brito is a defensive wizard who has questions about his bat. Heredia is a big-bodied power hitter who will end up in a corner.

    It might go without saying, though, that if the Dodgers were willing to include any of these guys and the Twins were willing to seal the deal with the inclusion of any of these guy that the deal would already be done.

    So now let's get more creative.

    International Spending Money - The new CBA revamps how and what teams can spend. Hard caps. Pools are much more even.

    For example, the Twins, despite having the #1 overall pick in the draft, get no advantage in the international free agent (IFA) market for being the worst team. Because they receive revenue sharing, they will receive a competitive balance pick and extra IFA money. Every team will have a pool of at least a minimum of $4.75 million. The Twins, who get an extra pick after the first round, will have a pool of $5.25 million. There are eight teams who have pools of $5.75 million. The Dodgers fit in the group that has $4.75 million to spend.

    So where am I going with this?

    The Dodgers are still stuck with the penalties of going over their spending limit in 2015. They can't sign any player for more than $300,000. Maybe they could send some money to the Twins? The Twins could add up to $3,937,500 to their pool. The Dodgers love to spend money, so maybe they'll just spend it all on $300,000 guys... or maybe they could cough up $1.75 million to the Twins, who would then have $7 million and the ability to throw their weight around in that market as the team with the most money. Rules prohibit pool money from being traded until the market opens on July 2, so it would have to called "future considerations."

    Take On Bad Money - The Dodgers will always flirt with the luxury tax threshold. With only 13 players under contract for 2017, they are already at $200 million in commitments. They have eight arbitration-eligible players who are projected to get around $16 million. If the four players who fill out the roster all make the minimum, they're looking at a payroll that is nearly $220 million.

    The way the CBA reads, the Dodgers would face a 50% penalty on the overage (the limit is $195 million for the upcoming season) which would cost them $12.5 million. In addition to that, they'd be forced to pay an additional 12% on any dollar over $215 million, which is another $600,000. And that's assuming the Dodgers payroll is only $220 million. It will likely be greater. At $240 million? More penalties. It could almost get to the point where the Dodgers are forced to pay $2 for every $1 they spend over $195 million.

    So a team, like the Twins, could take on $10 million dollars and save the Dodgers $20 million. You know what could encourage a team to take on money? More prospects.

    How could the Twins take on money, you ask?

    Brandon McCarthy - McCarthy has two years at $10 million each left on his contract plus a team option. McCarthy has only made 13 starts in the last two seasons due to having Tommy John surgery. He's only 33 and not too far removed from being a pretty good pitcher.

    Erisbel Arruebarrena - The Cuban shortstop is a defensive wizard but has been suspended for much of the last two seasons. He's owed $9 million over the next two years. I'm not interested in adding the player - mostly cause I don't know what his issues are - but I'd take on his money to add another prospect (like Sheffield). The Dodgers, in turn, would save up to nearly $18 million of dead-weight.

    Yaisel Sierra - Another Cuban, the right-handed pitcher has been a huge disappointment after signing a six-year, $30 million contract in February. He only lasted on the 40-man until the beginning of July and struggled at both high-A and AA. He's still on the hook for five years and $23 million. But he could still prove to be a serviceable arm. While that money is an albatross for the Dodgers - and costing them nearly $50 million - it could be worth taking on for the Twins... if the Dodgers are willing to throw more in.

    Of course, this is all based on the assumption that the Dodgers care about wasting money (and they might not).

    Brian Dozier (who's owed $6 million and $9 million for the next two years) for Jose De Leon, Brock Stewart, the contracts of McCarthy or Sierra and Arruebarrena (who are owed $6.5 million and $8.5 million the next two years), Calhoun and/or Sheffield and some IFA money in July would be a creative way to get a deal done.

    Is it enough? Is it fair?

    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

    Regarding Gibson, pitchf/x is showing almost no change between last year and his prior years.  He was hitting the same locations as always and with the same velocity.  

     

    I think we can safely chalk up Gibson's 2016 as being a dud year due to injuries, a bit of bad luck, and a terrible defense being behind him.  

     

    Having said all that, Gibson is still just a #4 or #5 guy.  I think he will be better in 2017 (if healthy and with better defensive play) but he's not likely to become the next Cy Young award winner regardless.  He is probably the best #4/#5 option the team has, but that's not saying much.  

     

    How much of Gibson's ERA is due to a reliever letting the inherited baserunners score?

    Edited by Doomtints
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Another factor in the Dozier / De Leon potential swap the Dodgers could be overlooking is that

     

    Dozier plays every day.  De Leon pitches every 5th day, gives you what maybe 150 -160 innings next year?

     

    Brian Dozier had 640 AB's last year on a terrible ball club.

     

    The Dodgers are getting potentially 1,200 innings from Brian next year, where the Twins are getting at best 1/6th of that from De Leon.    I know pitching trumps that in many ways but De Leon is far from sure thing

     

    a minimum of De Leon and Calhoun and De Jong or B. Stewart

     

    an ideal of De Leon and Buehler

     

    and a similar maximum of what the White Sox got for 5 yrs of Adam Eaton.  B/C...  Dozier > Eaton.

    Edited by shs_59
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

     

    Personally, I think Gibson gets a bad rap because of his down...and injury plagued...2016. For the two seasons before he was solid and showed improvement from '14 to '15. I would fully expect, at this time, to see a different and healthy Gibson in 2017 that looks like the '15 version, perhaps even better. But I sometimes feel like he doesn't trust himself or his stuff. If you remember many years ago, Viola had a problem of nibbling too much. Despite not having tremendous heat or big time SO potential, Viola was suddenly convinced that he was indeed a power pitcher, and not a "crafty" LH and needed to trust his stuff.
     

     

    I'm not sure what caused his down year and I agree that he still has potential, but I'm of the mind that most of his problems are self-inflicted. Perhaps he doubts his secondary pitches but he shouldn't and I'm not sure that's the case.

     

    I have a hard time thinking of Gibson without getting frustrated with this direct quote he gave to Fangraphs:

     

    “I have this debate with Glen quite a bit: How effective an out on two or three pitches is as opposed to a strikeout. For me, a soft ground ball is just as effective if it’s within the first two or three pitches. If I’m able to keep my hard contact rate low, ground balls are almost automatic outs for me.

     

    “When hitters puts balls in play, they’re going to get a hit sooner or later. But if I get five ground balls in a row, I’m more than likely going to get out of the inning. Offensive numbers will tell you that. If they only get a hit three out of every ten times they put the ball in play, that’s less than two out of five, so I like my chances.”

     

    http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/kyle-gibson-on-pitching-to-contact/

     

    1) He isn't getting outs on two or three pitches.

    2) He's not getting soft contact on his sinker or four-seamer.

    3) He isn't likely to get five groundballs in a row as evidenced by the fact that he only had a 54% GB rate on his sinker (!) last year. Meanwhile if softly hit groundballs are so important, his Changeup and Slider both had a nearly 48% GB rate, with his change actually getting more GB than his sinker in 2014 AND 2015. The offspeed pitches also had wiff rates of 32% and 43% while the sinker only got wiffs 7% of the time.

     

    http://www.brooksbaseball.net/outcome.php?player=502043&b_hand=-1&gFilt=&pFilt=FA|SI|FC|CU|SL|CS|KN|CH|FS|SB&time=year&minmax=ci&var=gb&s_type=2&startDate=03/30/2007&endDate=01/03/2017

     

    4) Listen to Glen, he's been around longer and probably has some good insight into the value of the strikeout.

     

    Gibson is stubborn and/or is listening to the wrong people about how to use his pitches. If that's truly the problem that should be fixable with the right superior telling him he's got to change his approach. Gibson's best pitch is his changeup, I'm hopeful Falvey/Lavine/Allen tell him he's not a sinkerball pitcher, he's just a pitcher who has a sinker he can use from time to time.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

     

    It's a stupid rule, if you want teams to be able to plan....

    Well, they still have 6 months to plan.

     

    MLB doesn't allow much draft pick trading either, so I think they try to discourage teams from dealing these resources.  I also think MLB prevents bonus pool trading until July 2nd to somewhat discourage pre-July 2nd deals with prospects.

     

    Also, I wonder if it helps them keep bonus pool adjustments as a punishment option -- say, if team A traded away from its future bonus pool, and then is revealed to have broken some international signing rules like the Red Sox did.  Hard to take away from the future bonus pool after it has already been traded!

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

     

    Much of your reply misses my point completely.  40 HR guys are extremely rare. Unlike Killer, Doze can play defense and run. He is a 5 tool infielder. 

     

    Prospects mean the same as potential. "You ain't done anything yet"

     

    And it doesn't matter what Brew's era in baseball was like. My point is you don't trade a top player in all of baseball for a bag of magic beans.

    40 home run hitters aren't worth what they once were, look at all the RH free agent power hitters still on the market.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

     

    40 home run hitters aren't worth what they once were, look at all the RH free agent power hitters still on the market.

    that and assuming he will continue to be a 40 home run guy seems wishful thinking at best.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

     

    Well, they still have 6 months to plan.

     

    MLB doesn't allow much draft pick trading either, so I think they try to discourage teams from dealing these resources.  I also think MLB prevents bonus pool trading until July 2nd to somewhat discourage pre-July 2nd deals with prospects.

     

    Also, I wonder if it helps them keep bonus pool adjustments as a punishment option -- say, if team A traded away from its future bonus pool, and then is revealed to have broken some international signing rules like the Red Sox did.  Hard to take away from the future bonus pool after it has already been traded!

     

    Oh, I am sure they think this will keep bonus numbers down, it's still a stupid rule, unless your only goal is to keep bonuses down....

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

     

    40 home run hitters aren't worth what they once were, look at all the RH free agent power hitters still on the market.

    Two players had more homers than Doze last year....two. in all of baseball. 

    Guys "still on the market" so what? They will all find a home. 

    Trading a standout like Doze you don't do unless the haul is massive

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

     

    Oh, I am sure they think this will keep bonus numbers down, it's still a stupid rule, unless your only goal is to keep bonuses down....

    That's probably the most important goal, yes. :)

     

    But in the new CBA, MLB has taken a more aggressive position about withholding bonus pool money as punishment too.

     

    http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2016/12/mlb-mlbpa-agree-to-new-collective-bargaining-agreement.html

     

     

    Passan also reports that the new CBA allows the league to issue extreme levels of punishment to teams that try to circumvent the international spending guidelines that are in place. Per Passan, MLB can penalize up to 50 percent of a team’s international bonus money through the 2021 season if it is found to be in violation of the new international signing rules.

     

    In that light, that July 2nd thing and 6 month rule make sense.  You can't trade future bonus pool money that's further than 6 months away (not unreasonable), and by forcing future bonus pool money to be traded as "future considerations", you essentially require the teams to have a contingency plan in place in case MLB withholds future bonus pool money as a punishment.  (Like how "PTBNL or cash" trades generally have a contingency of another player or cash in case a player is injured.)  Make the teams plan for it, so the league doesn't have to unravel an already completed transaction later.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

     

    Two players had more homers than Doze last year....two. in all of baseball. 

    Guys "still on the market" so what? They will all find a home. 

    Trading a standout like Doze you don't do unless the haul is massive

    Yeah, except those two have shown in the past to be more consistent power hitters than Dozier. Though dozier is the best all around player. That being said, when the two players that hit more home runs are still on the market, it says something about the value of the long ball in our game right now.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Yeah, except those two have shown in the past to be more consistent power hitters than Dozier. Though dozier is the best all around player. That being said, when the two players that hit more home runs are still on the market, it says something about the value of the long ball in our game right now.

    And with the prospects changing hands over the winter, just shows the market is recognizing how much risks prospects hold and are valuing proven talent (such as dozier) very highly

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

     

    And with the prospects changing hands over the winter, just shows the market is recognizing how much risks prospects hold and are valuing proven talent (such as dozier) very highly

    I think it says more about the value of years of control, that a player such as Dozier and Todd Frazier aren't fielding the same interest as a player like Sale or Quintana, or Eaton.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Would you have traded Harmon Killebrew for a possible back end starter that has never won in the Bigs in 1965?

     

    Didn't think so.

     

    Dozier has OF/1B/3B power as a decent middle infielder. He gets two possible "soon to right now" starters or we bat him 3rd all next year.

    Will try to use language that the mods won't delete ....but to compare Brian Dozier to Harmon Killebrew might be the most....inaccurate.... things I've read on this site.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

     

    Yeah, except those two have shown in the past to be more consistent power hitters than Dozier. Though dozier is the best all around player. That being said, when the two players that hit more home runs are still on the market, it says something about the value of the long ball in our game right now.

    Home runs are still valued more than anything... a home run hitter can make a huge difference. And last time I looked, you still won by scoring more runs than the other team.I am wondering if we aren't seeing owners clamping down, sort of like in the collusion era. But there is no way that you value pitching prospects over a proven run producer....who fields well, steals bases and is a team leader. 

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

     

    Will try to use language that the mods won't delete ....but to compare Brian Dozier to Harmon Killebrew might be the most....inaccurate.... things I've read on this site.

    Oh bull.  Who was the last Twin to hit 40 homers before Dozier?   Yeah....not Hrbek, Kirby or anyone else. .. and Dozier can run, steal bases and field.   Killebrew was a slugger. A very prolific slugger, but he was not an all around player like Dozier. I made this point to show how out of whack some folks thinking is to think of dealing Dozier for a couple kids with potential. The Twins brass know they need to get a ton in return for Dozier. They are right to hold out. 

    Edited by kellyvance
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Oh bull. Who was the last Twin to hit 40 homers before Dozier? Yeah....not Hrbek, Kirby or anyone else. .. and Dozier can run, steal bases and field. Killebrew was a slugger. A very prolific slugger, but he was not an all around player like Dozier. I made this point to show how out of whack some folks thinking is to think of dealing Dozier for a couple kids with potential. The Twins brass know they need to get a ton in return for Dozier. They are right to hold out.

    Dude reality check. When Harmon retired he was 5th all time on the homer list. I think you need to check the entirety of their careers.
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

     

    Oh bull.  Who was the last Twin to hit 40 homers before Dozier?   Yeah....not Hrbek, Kirby or anyone else. .. and Dozier can run, steal bases and field.   Killebrew was a slugger. A very prolific slugger, but he was not an all around player like Dozier. I made this point to show how out of whack some folks thinking is to think of dealing Dozier for a couple kids with potential. The Twins brass know they need to get a ton in return for Dozier. They are right to hold out. 

    As soon as Dozier goes back in time and has even better seasons than he had last year starting from age 23 all the way to age 36 he can be in the same conversation as Killebrew.

     

    Dozier is an all around player because of one year. Interesting.  At age 29, He has a career slash of.246 BA, .320 OBP, .442 slg% (107 wRC+ ) and is an average fielder.

     

    Interesting.ONE year of hitting 40 HR at age 29 for Dozier and all of a sudden we read things like he's a better all around player than HOFer Killebrew.  ONE year.

     

    You're right, if they don't get a ton for him, they should keep him while he falls back to his normal self (still good, but a drop off in value) and then leaves as a FA.  Cause, of course, he'll be a key component to losing 90+ the next couple years while our not so great farm system struggles to provide pitching we could have gotten in a trade for him.

    Edited by jimmer
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

     

    Dude reality check. When Harmon retired he was 5th all time on the homer list. I think you need to check the entirety of their careers.

     

    He also retired something like 6th on the all-time walk list, posting fantastic OBP's throughout his career despite his batting average.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    My biggest pet peeve are people who cannot form their own comment and have to use someones quote to say something.

    I hope the Twins don't have to take Calhoun in the deal. Get JDL, Alvarez, and Stewart and be happy.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

     

    Dude reality check. When Harmon retired he was 5th all time on the homer list. I think you need to check the entirety of their careers.

    I wasn't comparing lifetime stats and I don't see how anyone can read my post as saying that. My point was that, in 1964, you don't trade the Killer for a bag full of magic beans and the same goes for Dozier. You seem to deliberately take it out of context. 

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Those who denigrate Dozier's contributions ignore that he has been improving every year. Will he "revert to form" it is hard to say. But he has been on an upward trajectory for several years and deserves respect for that. Indications are that he is getting better, not worse.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Those who denigrate Dozier's contributions ignore that he has been improving every year. Will he "revert to form" it is hard to say. But he has been on an upward trajectory for several years and deserves respect for that. Indications are that he is getting better, not worse.

    How did he improve in 2015? Mind you, I am not denigrating Dozier, but you're resorting to some suspect arguments here.

     

    To the extent that folks seem to be denigrating him, remember no one here is endorsing giving him away for De Leon alone. We just don't have anything else to talk about. :)

    Edited by spycake
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    I wasn't comparing lifetime stats and I don't see how anyone who is intellectually honest can read my post as saying that. My point was that, in 1964, you don't trade the Killer for a bag full of magic beans and the same goes for Dozier. You seem to deliberately take it out of context.

     

    You never base a "to trade or not to trade" on one great season. Even only comparing one season of Killer vs one season of Dozier....it's completely unfair to Dozier.

     

    Dozier was awesome for a good chunk of 2016, but he's only done that for one season. No one can expect him to do it again like it's a guarantee. It's not impossible, but shouldn't be expected. I expect 2013-2015 level Dozier for the next two years, which is an all star level player, but not as good as he was in 2016.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

     

    You never base a "to trade or not to trade" on one great season. Even only comparing one season of Killer vs one season of Dozier....it's completely unfair to Dozier.

    Dozier was awesome for a good chunk of 2016, but he's only done that for one season. No one can expect him to do it again like it's a guarantee. It's not impossible, but shouldn't be expected. I expect 2013-2015 level Dozier for the next two years, which is an all star level player, but not as good as he was in 2016.

    Dozier has gotten better the last 4 years. His HR totals are 18, 23, 28 and 42.  Like I said, steadily getting better. It isn't a one year thing, it is an upward trend.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    I wasn't comparing lifetime stats and I don't see how anyone who is intellectually honest can read my post as saying that. My point was that, in 1964, you don't trade the Killer for a bag full of magic beans and the same goes for Dozier. You seem to deliberately take it out of context.

    So they are very different players, with very different contract situations -- but somehow they are analogous?

     

    There are plenty of valid arguments that Dozier is a fine player worthy of strong valuation in trade -- but Harmon Killebrew and 1964 don't figure into any of them.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Dozier has gotten better the last 4 years. His HR totals are 18, 23, 28 and 42. Like I said, steadily getting better. It isn't a one year thing, it is an upward trend.

    There are other stats besides HR, you know. Dozier was worse in 2015 than 2014 in most categories, including critical K and BB rates.

    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...