drivlikejehu

Keep it simple. Friedman texts you and says, 'De Leon straight up or I get Forsythe.' That's a pretty straightforward yes/no question. I think if you're going to question the front office on this you have to say it's 'yes' - take what you can get, or 'no' - the offer still needs to be reasonable. We don't know the exact details but the real issue here is whether you take what you can get or require something close to fair value.

But if no one makes a serious offer, what can the Twins do?

The whole "fear" meme is silly but you are really trying to have it both ways - continually implying the Twins made a bad decision while also saying that we can't know for sure without knowing what was on the table. Following your line of reasoning, why won't you state that you'd have taken De Leon for Dozier, straight up? If not, why not? Because all of the arguments you make seem to support taking the best available deal. Well, maybe that was the best offer the Twins ever got or ever will get for Dozier. What then?

If the new front office should, in your opinion, be moving "better" and "faster," that sure seems like you're already drawing some conclusions. I just don't see how you can do that based on the information that is publicly available.

That's a distinction without a difference . . . I was strongly in favor of new leadership for years, even when people got their hopes up falsely in 2015. Now that Falvey and Levine are in place, saying that it's business as usual is basically an indictment of those two before they have had an opportunity to really change things.

The criticism of Falvey and Levine is 100% predicated on the idea that there are unknown 'things' they could have done to improve the state of the organization. However, none of these criticisms is supported by any facts or concrete analysis. Sure, I'd have dumped Danny Santana by now, but what is the impact of them not dumping him yet? Realistically, there is zero impact. Now, if May stays in the bullpen, I'll be very displeased. There's a meaningful and concrete issue. Non-existent trade opportunities and the like? Not so much.

I'm not sure what your point is here - I hope you're not suggesting baseball fans need to rigorously apply the Rules of Evidence to discuss rumors? There were reports that the Twins were offered more than De Leon, and it logically makes sense. There's no "proof" that the Dodgers ever made the Twins any formal offer at all, if you want to be really technical about it. If something has been reported by decent journalists and is supported by multiple other factors, it's reasonable for the purposes of discussion to assume it's true. Otherwise all trade discussions would be precluded as overly reliant on hearsay, etc. So your viewpoint was really out of place in this context.

That's not right. My point is this - based off what we know, De Leon + junk was the minimum offer on the table. Maybe it was a bit more. But we know it was at least De Leon + junk because the Dodgers gave up De Leon for Forsythe, and would at least have given up a bit more for Dozier. In other words, we know basically what the low end of possibilities was. We do not know what is realistic on the high end - I think it's safe to say nothing too amazing. So, to sum it up, there is zero evidence the Twins turned down a good offer or otherwise blew the trade. None. That's why criticizing the front office for it is logically untenable. It's possible that with more information, that would change, but as of now that's not the situation.

That theory makes no sense. First of all, the email leak a little while back showed that MLB front offices make high initial trade demands without batting an eye. Second, there's no evidence that the Twins are even the ones that wanted to build the deal around De Leon - they may well have preferred Alvarez at the center. We do know that the Dodgers wanted to cash in De Leon, for whatever reason. We have close to zero facts about what the Twins asked for, except they weren't happy with De Leon plus junk. That's all we know. Yet there are posters saying or implying that the Twins somehow blew a deal, I guess because by asking for a B- prospect like Stewart they offended Friedman, who now will never speak to Falvey again? I don't know why people are writing fiction to criticize the Twins front office. They will make plenty of decisions as time goes on that will be ripe for discussion.

Well, the Twins kept talking to the Dodgers even though we know that 2 top prospects was never a possibility. How long would they bother discussing something if the two sides were off by that magnitude? Plus, common sense doesn't support a crazy demand from the Twins. Falvey and Levine openly stated their willingness to trade away players and for sure would love to trade Dozier. Those are straightforward realities. They have enough experience to know a rough idea of what Dozier could return. I can't see any reason to think they have a sentimental attachment to Dozier, whom neither of them had anything to do with until they inherited him in the form of a trade chip. Nor can I see any reason to think they were motivated to somehow fleece Friedman, who they already would know is stingy with prospects. None of the pieces add up to justify your concerns/theories about the viability of the trade. Every bit of reporter information and logic goes the exact opposite way, that the Dodgers knew there was a weak market for Dozier and bid low because they had Forsythe as Plan B. It makes complete sense for all involved. It's the obvious explanation and, most likely, there's not much, if anything, more to it than that.

No, we don't know. That's why you can't say that "I'd have found a way to make that deal happen with DeLeon." There is zero evidence to support the idea that anything meaningful beyond De Leon was available. You have zero legitimate basis to say that Falvey asked for too much, could have gotten a fair return, etc. There's no limit to the things you can make up out of thin air to support a point, but it's not really productive.

De Leon plus junk may as well be 1:1. That's the strongest offer that's been reported by any journalist, several of whom have reported that even B- prospects like Stewart were off-limits. The Twins apparently talked to the Dodgers on and off over a fairly long period of time, which seems to directly contradict your speculation that they could have tried harder. There is no rational basis to say the Twins turned down something more or could have somehow gotten the Dodgers to offer more. None, zero, zilch. You want it to be true, but there's no evidence to support it, and the limited evidence available goes the other way.

This is easy to say, but not a legitimate statement. You just don't have enough information to say that unless you were willing to take De Leon plus junk, which is what we can say for sure was on the table. Why do you think you would be better at upping the Dodgers offer than Falvey and Levine? The only legitimate criticism on the non-trade is to say they should have pulled the trigger on the deal we know was there. That's totally fair, and we will see how it plays out for De Leon. But any speculation beyond that is bogus - we know the Twins want to deal Dozier. If your view is correct, the Dozier non-trade is irrelevant anyway, because it would mean that Twins' front office is equally or even more incompetent than before, and therefore doomed to failure regardless of any one transaction.

This is not correct - there is a very high chance that De Leon just isn't very good. That's basically true for almost any pitching prospect. Many posters do not realize how high the failure rates are for performance reasons, not just injury.

Since Forsythe is 30 and has one good, full season in the Majors, I'm not sure how much sense it makes to hold 2016 against Dozier. Forsythe has about half of Dozier's career WAR.

I could see Hughes as being an upper-half-of-6th inning-reliever guy as early as sometime in 2017.

I'd platoon him with Park.

Well even so that's pretty limited praise, 'good job not getting taken to the cleaners.' And TR had established a clear pattern of failing to make trades when he should have.

This is a distortion - Johnson was clearly "promoted" only in a face-saving sense. In reality he was removed as scouting director.

There's a difference between praising and withholding judgment. I don't see a lot of 'praise' for the new regime, just recognition of the fact that there's only so much they can do with respect to various issues. Pohlad forced them to keep Molitor for 2017, the trade market for 2nd basemen is tragic, the crop of free agents is atrocious, etc. Dozier-related criticism is largely premised on the idea that surely there is some way to get a fair return . . . yet no one on here has any evidence to support that view, and the available reports contradict it.

There are always a lot of unknowns in baseball. I think it may be hard for Falvey & Levine to basically give away Dozier and his 2018 season without seeing if they can make progress on run prevention in 2017 and set the Twins up to be respectable in 2018. Now, they haven't actually done anything, but at least part of the problem has been management of existing talent (e.g., moving May to the bullpen). They also may be willing to move more aggressively with prospects, when appropriate. We know that Falvey & Levine are both from orgs that made plenty of deals, and that they are willing to trade Dozier. They undoubtedly understand the ramifications of not trading him.

There is no objective analysis where in De Leon straight up for Dozier is even close to a fair return. Maybe 60% if you're being generous. It's so bad that the Twins really can't accept it even if they desperately want to deal Dozier.

That's a stretch. The original claim was a done deal within 24 hours. Now a trade may not happen at all. Completely different situation than what was claimed. All we have is rumors, from various sources. Potential transactions often see the same pattern of conflicting reports and the like . . . sometimes the actual result wasn't predicted by any of them. We can only go off things that actually happen.

There is no reason to block Polanco with Wong. Zero upside for the Twins there. The bigger question is whether the Cardinals can move him if they acquire Dozier - Wong's contract doesn't look real rosy these days. They could use Wong as a utility player, and did start him in the outfield 11 times last year (and he played outfield in 8 other games), but they've never used him at an infield position other than 2B. The thing is, at a high level, Dozier makes a lot more sense for the Cardinals than he does the Dodgers. For one thing, St. Louis doesn't have an unlimited payroll and really broke the bank last year, only to miss the playoffs. Dozier's affordability is a bigger deal to them than the LAD, even if the Dodgers notionally would like to cut their luxury tax bill. The Cardinals also occupy a much more precarious place than the Dodgers in terms of competitiveness. The Dodgers are already one of the two best teams in baseball, and their farm system will allow them to upgrade at the deadline as needed. The Cardinals are huge underdogs in their division, which is bad enough given the revised Wild Card, and still have to worry about the Pirates, plus the strong possibility of solid 2nd place finishers in the East and West. The team that could really use Dozier is the Royals, not that it would happen.

Yeah that would probably be my over/under, not factoring in differences in future position.