markos

Two thoughts. First, I would argue that Urias is better than any of those four. Second, Moncada, Robles, Lopez and Giolito are all non-essential pieces for their respective teams' 2017 25-man rosters. Baring injury, none of them are being counted on to be a full-time player, and there is a decent chance that all 4 will start 2017 in the minors. Urias, on the other hand, is the Dodgers #3 (arguably #2) starter. Trading him for Dozier is kind of treading water. Yes, the Dodgers improve at 2B, but they now need to find another above-average starter to fill in their rotation. It is the same reason that every report has indicated that Trea Turner, Alex Bregman, Dansby Swanson, etc have been off-limits in trade discussions. Trading an above-average, long-term asset for a slightly better but short-term asset doesn't move the needle very much even in the short term. This reasoning is why I've thought that it will be very hard to pry away a young, controllable starter that is already established in the big leagues, and that it makes some sense to try to package Dozier and Santana together.

Maybe in December 2013. A similar Twins package would have been: Moncada -> Buxton Kopech -> Berrios Basabe -> Polanco Diaz -> <shrug> Interesting that the White Sox chose this deal over the reported Robles/Giolito package from the Nationals.

I believe Cashman when he said he never checked in on the situation - I'm sure he had one of his assistant GMs make the phone call.

Would extra guaranteed years move the needle very much? Say he got something along the lines of Jason Kipnis or Matt Carpenter, so ~$14M for his FA years. I'm not sure their is a ton of surplus value for a 32-33yo Dozier at that cost. There is probably some, as he would be slightly underpaid if he didn't deteriorate too severely into his mid-thirties. But that extra value, two seasons away, is dwarfed by the near-term value as a significantly underpaid elite player. Now, there is some value there - I'm not trying to deny that - I just don't think it is a huge amount. For example, I don't think adding two more years to his contract at $14M per - even as team options - would be enough to put Urias in play. Maybe the secondary pieces would be better, but I don't think it changes the basic framework very much.

Most definitely. They structured both Scherzer's and Strasburg's contracts with massive outlays in 2019 - ~$80M between the two of them. Adding Ryan Zimmerman's $18M and they will have almost $100M tied up in 3 players. Much of the rest of the roster will be gone (Murphy, Gonzales, Werth, Espinoza, Norris) or on the cusp of leaving (Rendon and Roark). I don't think there is any way to fit a Harper deal (assuming he gets the $40M+ he is looking for) and still be able to fill out a competitive roster, especially on the position player side. They have one blue-chip position prospect (Robles), but basically every other interesting prospect is a pitcher. My guess is that they go for broke for the next two years and then pick up the pieces after 2018.

Okay. I think we are on the same page here.

Is it really the conventional wisdom that Puig is a negative asset at this point? If he was a free agent this winter, I think he would get way more than a 2yr-$17M contract with a team option, which is essentially what his current contract is. Did he pass through waivers unclaimed last summer or something? Despite everything that has gone wrong for him the past two seasons, he has still been basically a league-average player when on the field. He's only 26 and clearly has a very high ceiling. Fangraphs is currently projecting him to be solidly above-average (3 WAR). I think teams would line up for him if he was freely available. Just so there is no confusion, I don't want Puig as part of any package for Dozier, particularly as the headliner. But that is because of roster fit and how he would fit in the Twins contention window, not because I think he doesn't have any value.

The more advanced models (like the one used by BP) do try to control for the ability of the pitcher. And, for the most part, framing ability (as they calculate it) remains fairly stable when catchers have switched teams. Rene Rivera, Russell Martin, Yasmani Grandal, Miguel Montero all remained very good with their new teams. And as I mentioned in a different thread, I don't think Cameron's indictment holds much water considering the Astros replaced Castro with McCann, who is arguably just as good of a framer and unarguably a much better hitter.

I thought the same thing when I saw that Espinosa may be non-tendered. His bat leaves a lot to be desired, but he has been legitimately above-average defensively at shortstop. Plus, on a one year deal he would be pretty easy to move at the trade deadline, especially if he has another decent season.

My answer is that the team's top priority should be improving run prevention, not just acquiring better pitching, and from that perspective the signing of Castro is a move in the right direction. As other people have pointed out, almost every team is trying to acquire good pitching right now. By every defensive metric, last year they were one of the worst defensive teams. Taking a holistic approach to run prevention opens the door for several smaller, non-pitching moves that could have, cumulatively, as big an impact as any trade for pitching. Some rough back-of-the-envelope calculations: If you buy into the various pitch-framing metrics, moving from Suzuki to Castro could subtract 25 runs. Adding a defensive 4th OF and ensuring that Grossman/Santana/Sano don't play another inning in the outfield could subtract 30 runs. Adding a defensively above-average SS could subtract 15 runs. Now, obviously the Twins still need to acquire/develop better pitchers, and any plan to get them to a 90+ win team will require a both-and approach to pitching and defense. But making a commitment to putting an above-average defense on the field everyday will go a long way toward improving run prevention, even with this current pitching staff. Getting to 90+ wins is a long haul right now - probably a multi-year project - and the Castro signing is a first step in that direction.

Definitely a concern, though they replaced Castro with Brian McCann, who has almost as good framing numbers and a much better bat. Hard not to see the swap as a net positive for the Astros, regardless of how much one values Castro's framing.

I think it is legitimate to question how "strong" this start has been for the new regime, or at least withhold judgement until we have more insight for the direction they are taking the franchise. Dumping Plouffe and signing Castro both (should) move the needle in the right direction, but the Castro signing kind of is a win-now move. He is solid, but given his age and strikeout rates it is certainly possible that he falls off a cliff in the next couple of years. If they end up moving Dozier and/or Santana for prospects next week, what was the point of the Castro signing? I'm not sure what their longterm plan is yet, but for me the Castro signing signals a willingness to keep Dozier and Santana and try to win now. And I'm not sure that is the right move.

I think lots of people would argue that Castro is better than Wieters. I've heard a lot of reports that he hasn't been the same after TJ surgery, both at the plate and behind it.

While I agree that the Cardinals are kind of an awkward fit for Dozier, it is worth remembering that the Cardinals did trade Shelby Miller for Jason Heyward - a trade, broadly speaking, that resembles the current Dozier situation. Again, the Cardinals don't seem like a natural fit, but they are one of the few teams that actually has a bit of a surplus of young pitching.

I'm going to stick with my original analysis for a potential Dozier return: - one of (league average regular with 4+ years of team control OR top 25-50 prospect) - one youngish below-average but above-replacement level pitcher (think 25yo 4th starter) - one A-ball youngster with upside. From the Dodgers, my guess would be: - one of De Leon or Alvarez - one of Stewart or Stripling - one of [pick a random 19yo with upside] For the record, I think Santana would return a top 75-100 prospect.

Sounds like Adam Brett Walker is available again.

It is a tough balance to be sure. I think there is space for 2 or 3 flip options. Bullpen probably has room for a couple. In a certain sense, Santiago already fits this profile - 15 decent starts and he could be flipped. Hard to determine if there will be room to sign another starter - depends on if they decide keep Santiago and if they trade Santana. If Santiago is non-tendered and Santana is traded, then they definitely have room for an arm like Holland. I don't have the option status for Rosario or Kepler off the top of my head, but I don't think it would ruin either to spend the first 3 months in AAA (or for Rosario, as 4th OF) to give room for a player like Gomez on a one-year-deal.

Looking at the recent history of similar minor-league catchers, I think odds are that he starts less than 100 big league games in his career and is out of baseball before he turns 30. My guess is that there is a 10-20% chance that he ends up as an OK regular. This isn't a knock on Garver; he has done well as a later round pick to continually move up and be on the doorsteps of the majors. But the reality is that he has almost 2000 PAs in the minors, but less than 100 at AAA. He still has a lot of development left to be successful in the big leagues, but that is going to be happening in his late twenties when his physical skills will be plateauing at best, deteriorating at worst. He might still be successfully - that's why the probability isn't zero. But it seems unwise to count on him right now.

I agree that age doesn't matter if he becomes really good, but age does effect the likelihood that he becomes really good! Looking back since 2010, there have been 21 catchers who have done what Garver did this past year (300+ PAs at AA, 24-26yo, at least 118 wRC+). One (Stephen Vogt) ended up as an above-average regular. Another, Caleb Joseph, is arguably a starter. The third best in the list is probably Chris Herrmann. The majority never made it to the majors, many only got a cup-of-coffee. In contrast, looking at the same criteria for catchers 23yo and younger, there were twelve total. Four (D'Arnaud, Norris, Realmuto, Contreras) look to be at least average regulars, and another three (Susac, Vazquez, Swihart) are backups to varying degrees. Now I'm not saying that Garver's chances are zero, but history suggests that they are not very high. Every year there are roughly three older catchers in the high minors who do as good or better than what Garver did last year, and the vast majority do not have an impact in the majors.

If I'm correctly remembering their explanations of the minor league framing stats, they are just approximations based on rates of ball-strike calls. It correlates pretty well when using big league data (where one can compare to the actual PitchFX results) but it is unclear exactly how well it extends to minor league results. It probably points in the right direction, but the actual value is a little suspect. Also, the FRAA is the amount a player is "above-average", but I'm not sure what is the "average" for the minor league stats. It doesn't necessarily mean much for a AAA catcher to be "above-average" if the average AAA catcher is way worse than the average MLB catcher. For example, JR Murphy has been among the best defensive catchers in the minors the past four seasons, averaging almost 20 FRAA per season when in the minors (as a comparison, that is better than Russell Martin during the same time-span). However, Murphy's 6000+ framing chances in the big-leagues (basically one full season) indicate that he is league-average - total FRAA of -0.6.

I'm not sure it is completely obvious how the positional filters work. For example, for individuals, if you filter by DH, does that include all hitters that had at least 1 at bat as a DH? Or is there a certain qualification level (min PA? games?)? Or maybe majority PAs or games at DH? And does it just show their stats as DH, or include their full-season stats across all positions? At the team level, how are the above decisions aggregated together? Example: AL teams, 2011-2016, DH filter, sorted by wRC+: Twins are #6 with 111 wRC+ http://www.fangraphs.com/leaders.aspx?pos=dh&stats=bat&lg=al&qual=0&type=8&season=2016&month=0&season1=2011&ind=0&team=0,ts&rost=0&age=0&filter=&players=0&sort=16,d Click on 'Twins' in the list, and you get this list of players: http://www.fangraphs.com/leaders.aspx?pos=dh&stats=bat&lg=all&qual=0&type=8&season=2016&month=0&season1=2011&ind=0&team=8&rost=0&age=0 AL teams, 2011-2016, Split - DH, sorted by wRC+: Twins are #8 with 102 wRC+ http://www.fangraphs.com/leaders.aspx?pos=all&stats=bat&lg=al&qual=0&type=1&season=2016&month=44&season1=2011&ind=0&team=0,ts&rost=0&age=0&filter=&players=0&sort=16,d Click on 'Twins' in the list, and you get a very different list: http://www.fangraphs.com/leaders.aspx?pos=all&stats=bat&lg=all&qual=0&type=1&season=2016&month=44&season1=2011&ind=0&team=8&rost=0&age=0 I think the latter list (Split - DH) is the correct list for this discussion. In general, I ignore the filter position options and only use the Split - <position> dropdown box when trying to look at performance at a single position. It's not that I don't trust the Fangraphs data; I just don't know the nuances of their filtering algorithm and so I'm never exactly sure what it is displaying.

Random thought: I wonder if a Santana-for-Holland+Profar trade makes sense for both clubs.

That makes sense to me. A lot depends on the direction the team goes. As you said, if they decide on a tear down and Santana is traded, they still need innings. Holland is a pretty decent lottery ticket. A decent 3-4 months and they could easily get more value back at the deadline. But if they decide to try to get better this year, I don't think he makes as much sense.

I don't disagree that the Twins can't exactly mimic the Cubs when it comes to building a pitching rotation. But almost every good rotation has pitchers that are still under team control that were acquired from other organizations. The majority of Cleveland's rotation are all guys acquired from other organizations: Kluber, Carrasco and Bauer. The Mets have Thor and Wheeler. The Nats have Roark and Gonzales. The Red Sox have Pomeranz and Rodriguez. Given that they aren't going to go out and sign a Price/Lester/Cueto/Scherzer, they will almost assuredly need to successfully identify, acquire and develop pitchers that are currently in other organizations. Also, I do think that if the Twins win 97 games with a super-young roster, there will be free agents like Lackey interested in coming to Minnesota.

As a rebuttal, I might ask you how do you ever create a winning team by trading 3-WAR position players for 2-WAR pitchers. It's not passing out of fear - it's trying to make an informed decision based on the risk/reward of different player profiles. Personally, I think developing pitching is all about casting a broad as net as possible rather than focusing on one or two singular talents. In the case of the top of the draft, I think the evidence shows that there is traditionally much better luck with hitters than pitchers. And selecting a really good position player with the top pick is a great way to free up a lot of resources to focus on pitching via other avenues (other draft picks, trades acquisitions, free agency, international markets). Lots of teams (ex. Cleveland) have put together excellent pitching staffs without using top picks. While there isn't a definitive study that I'm aware of, the general consensus from a wide range of research is that pitchers are riskier and have lower expected value at an equivalent pick/ranking. For example, see http://www.hardballtimes.com/tht-live/analyzing-the-mlb-draft-using-war/ http://www.thepointofpittsburgh.com/mlb-prospect-surplus-values-2016-updated-edition/ The first article, looking at first round picks, showed that pitchers (college and high school) end up producing roughly 50% less value than position players: College hitters– 1.336 WAR/year High School hitters– 1.204 WAR/year College pitchers– .649 WAR/year High School pitchers– .878 WAR/year The second article focuses on prospect lists rather than draft picks, but even with the additional year(s) of knowledge of the players' performance in pro-ball, the results show that equivalently ranked pitchers produce less WAR in total and are busts more often. I think there are a lot of limitations with all of the draft analysis over the past few years for a number of reasons, so please don't assume that I'm taking these numbers as gospel truth. But I do think there is enough evidence that SOME discount needs to be applied when trying to calculate the future value of pitchers. The 1-1 pick is super valuable - expected value of 15-20 WAR during pre-free agency seasons - so applying even a small discount (say 20%) to that, and you end up losing 5 WAR by picking a pitcher over an equivalently talented hitter. That's a lot of value - by some measures that's equivalent to a pick in the 10-15 range, or trading a 3-WAR player for a 2-WAR player. But if one thinks that Greene (or any other pitcher) is significantly better than any other position player, then by all means take him.