TheLeviathan

Well you are admittedly down on JDL. Which is a fair stance, there are red flags for sure. But I tend to think a top 30 pitching prospect being added over Hughes/Meija is a rather sizable upgrade in upside.

If we dealt for DeLeon I'd like to see this rotation: Berrios-DeLeon-Gibson-Santana-Santiago with Meija and May in the mix for the fifth spot as well. I'd probably prefer May. I also hope Santana is dealt in July.

If you are trading Sano and Berrios for Quintana (something I would bet you are in the vast minority in favor of doing) then you need to take Berrios out of your plans for the rotation. You should read up on what was being asked for around the league for him. It rivaled Sale. I do appreciate you being open abuot this though. Most people who toss out the "we should just fix it" aren't brave enough it seems to face the reality of what it would take. Though I don't get why we'd wince at trading Dozier and then leap at trading Sano and Berrios. I can't get behind that. As for our second point, I'm not underestimating those player's upside, I'm being realistic about what to expect from them in 2017. For at least half of those young guys they may not even pitch in the big leagues while Dozier is a Twin and if they do they are probably rookies when they do. I wouldn't expect much, that's something we frequently do unfairly here - expect rookies to hit their ceiling right away. And DeLeon is in the rotation because I highly, highly doubt Phil Hughes is a capable SP out of spring training. And we may not want him there anyway.

Do you have any idea what the price tag is on Quintana? Think: Sale. That ain't happening. So you think we build a contending rotation out of "giving a shot" to Santiago, Hughes, and May and then hoping two or three young guys figure it out? I'm amazed anyone could type this plan and feel reassured it would work. For that I give you kudos, but there is enormous risk here (young pitchers, injuries, or unprovens all over) and very little upside. This plan's ceiling is "doesn't totally suck". No thanks.

If I'm them I am much more concerned about if he transitions well to the NL. Many hitters have seemed to struggle for a year adjusting to new parks and pitchers.

I would also like to hear this. Mostly I seem to recall hearing "they have to be creative" which is, pretty much, a non-answer. I also would expect it to be pretty low risk (somehow) since that also appears to be a criticism.

Fair point. If I was going to deal them from a position of depth I'd just choose a different target than Dozier. One with more of a track record.

Then you and I need to talk about buy low and sell high, If I'm the Dodgers, I'd rather give Kinsler a contract extension than overpay for Dozier on the chance 2016 wasn't a fluke.

My understanding is that we were asked for Garza/Baker and Kubel and we rebuffed it. Maybe my recollection is wrong. Either way, I think you at least see my point - given what Dozer is (a guy with one elite season and a lot of inconsistency) we might want to temper our expectations a bit. If the reverse was true, we'd laugh at the very idea of being asked for Bellinger and Deleon. We'd block the damn number from calling us back we'd be so insulted at the idea. So yeah, it needs to hurt the Dodgers a bit more IMO, but probably not much more.

It would make a lot of sense. Unless the Dodgers just refuse to pay that much for a guy based on a career year. I know this is a Twins forum, but if the situation were reversed - what would we say if we analyzed Brian Dozier? Would we pay a Top 25 prospect and another in the Top 100? Maybe we'll get that, but the notion that it's a "bad deal" if it's anything less strikes me as a fundamental misread of the value of Brian Dozier. A misread we may later regret.

Maybe we never really moved past this point.

When that number comes out I'm on my way, life savings in hand, to bet the #/!$ out of that under.

So now a reputable source is saying the Twins want DeLeon and Bellinger huh? That makes way more sense than this 1:1 crap. Also puts these conversations in a different light if true.

Not moving Dozier compounds the problems thoygh. You let an asset languish when you had an opportunity to maximize it. Again, how many times need we learn our lesson on this? Sometimes doing nothing is the worst idea. Even if you don't love the return, the status quo is bound to fail. We can't pitch. You can't win if you can't pitch. And our best internal pitching options won't be here until Dozier is likely gone. Not trading him is going to feel like Perkins does now. Or like the Sano in the outfield thing did a month into last year. Some of us were screaming about how terrible that idea was and the tone of the counter arguments rings all too familiar here. By many of the same posters too. If this deal doesn't happen, we will rue it later. I guess I would've hoped last year had taught or team and our community here some lessons.

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

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.

And yet many experts disagree with you.

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.

Part of how you are determine bad deal is, in part, on the basis of expecting similar or better future offers. You don't get to do that and then hide behind future uncertainty. That's my whole point about probability and the probabilities are decidedly against your position.

To me he is both, which is ideal. But if it's high ceiling vs high floor, I pick ceiling everytime.

Ok, maybe Newcomb could fit as a centerpiece. Now tell me why the Cardinals don't care? They don't appear to have any interest and their roster doesn't scream need either. Could that change? I guess, but you have to admit how flimsy the odds are right? You are several layers down in your hypothetical better deal now.

Not in the same realm as DeLeon. And your explanation emphasized floors over ceilings. Maybe that's the real impasse. I'm long done with that thinking.

Why are we aiming for high floors over high ceilings? Have we still not learned our lesson?

Prior to the offseason a top 50 prospect was the ideal centerpiece and now that we have that (top 25 even!) we bemoan it as not enough. And we heap on top of that the weird (and rampant) belief that Dozier's value will endure and that some mythical better deal awaits us. Don't like DeLeon? Alright, I get it, shoulDer injuries are scary. But he is a near ready, top 30 prospect. Who is going to top that? Because if you can't actually identify them, we should drop the "better deal in the next year" talk and get real.

We should have dumped Plouffe for anything. Waiting for a sweetheart deal is as big a mistake as anything.