TooSmartForEweNow

You should blame them. Just because you liked a guy a couple years ago doesn’t mean that he’s a good signing now. He’s almost 30 and has 1 decent year on his resume.. and he’s the guy we go after when there were literally a couple dozen quality arms to be had. It’s a preposterous signing when everyone else actuslly competing is signing actual talent.

There's a pretty prodigous gap between expecting an ace of a currently contending team and attempting to get more than a guy still in the minors with arm injury issues never projected to be higher than a #3 without a lot of luck... You are looking to rebuild, which means guys with very high upside in the minor leagues. One guy with pretty high upside isn't really that. The Twins are not wrong. Like I said above, Forsythe just got that same guy and Dozier > Forsythe. Even if Dozier "regresses" he'll still be worth someone the level of DeLeon.

Agreed. And the Twins think the combination of (value of current contributions + future market value) > current market value. And i agree.

Dozier doesn't need to prove that last year wasn't a fluke, IMO. Pre-2016 he was a better player than Forsythe and Forsythe just netted the guy people think we should have traded 1-for-1 for. Therefore, if he regresses... he'll still be worth the same value. Also, I'm not sure Billy Beane and the Rays are proving much, since they both won <70 games.

While this is true, it ignores future value. It's akin to saying you should sell your stocks right now because, well... that's what the market says its worth. You can sit on it and hope the *market* picks back up.

There are a lot of factors that go in. The ones you pointed out, as well as other things like how many teams actually are competing for the crop of second basemen. At the end of the day I don't see any way of convincing me that the Twins should have taken a 1-for-1 or a 1-for-1-plus-junk deal. Hopefully Dozier hits 25 homers by the all star break and we get a huge haul at the deadline.

No, my point was just that it was asserted that because the Rays got DeLeon, the Dodgers *must* have offered more than that to the Twins. And I was just pointing out that that really didn't make any sense.

RE: 1. I think all the trade talks have ended up overhyping DeLeon. Nobody is expecting this guy to be ace caliber. Sure he's a ranked pitching prospect, but those have been moving with more frequency recently. He's expected to be a contributing piece, nothing really more. RE: 2. He doesn't really need to replicate his 2016 success to be desirable. Just like we are talking about DeLeon's potential ceiling, we now have a basis for Dozier's actual ceiling. DeLeon's floor is just being an absolute bust with a 7 ERA like in his callup. Dozier's floor is 20 homers/15 steals/60 RBI and pretty good defense. Even for 9 million next year, someone would bite on that.

They might. I don't really know what teams might be needing a second baseman at this deadline, so that's really tough one to call.

but this year still has to be played. Why not make some money off of Dozier if you think you can get the same deal a little later one? Then sure, trade him and do what you said - move polanco over and put Gordon up. even better if he's ready by the deadline. I fully agree that recent trades have been terrible. I'd actually argue that Carlos Gomez was a good enough piece to warrant that Santana deal. but we traded him... in another good deal to get Hardy. Everything after that has been pure insanity. We traded Hardy for nothing. We traded Ramos for nothing. Revere, Span... all of them, we just get junk in return. And while that doesn't mean you should get gun-shy it does mean when you have flexibility you hold out for something better. You don't continue to make questionable trades, which DeLeon very much would be, in a 1-for-1. FWIW I would have gladly taken any second pitching prospect with DeLeon and said let's do it. Alvarez for sure, even Buehler, Stewart, something to pad the chances of actually turning out to be a good deal. But I would have been very unhappy if they pulled the trigger on the 1-for-1

I'd argue that your argument is the one negotiating out of fear. You seem to be under the assumption that there's no way we'll ever get better than whatever we are offered right now so we have to pull the trigger... because what if his trade value goes down? Dozier has a several season track record of being one of the better second basemen in baseball. Even his "bad" first half last season was actually pretty decent using analytics. I am pretty comfortable in assuming that he'll continue to be a productive second baseman and someone will make a similar offer. It's not like one pitching prospect offers are historically hard to come by. Keep in mind also that next season there are several more teams losing their 2B to free agency. Neil Walker (mets), brandon Phillips (reds), Jed Lowrie (A's), Brett lawrie (CWS)... even Logan Forsythe could hit free agency next year if the Dodgers decide he's a bust and don't pick up his option. While you could argue that that means more competition in the fact that they could just sign a free agent instead of giving up prospects to get one, there is also the fact that Brian Dozier is better than literally every single one of those guys and would be cheaper than some of them. Someone would be willing to part with a pitching prospect to get him.

I disagree fully that they need to trade Dozier right now. He's incredibly affordable for 2 more seasons and a fan favorite. I do think they need to move him before his contract ends and I'd rather see that than any kind of extension, but that can be done this deadline, next off season, or next deadline. there's no reason to take a below-value offer just because there's an offer for a pitcher than might be a #2 only if he hits his ceiling, but is much more likely to be a #3-4. I don't know how much you've really looked into DeLeon but he's got a 92 MPH fastball and a really really good changeup. But nothing else. His movement pitches haven't done much for him. Add shoulder injury and a really bad callup to that resume and he's just a huge gamble. Way too big of a gamble to make a 1-for-1 deal for when you have flexibility. Also, if you moved Polanco to second, who do you have playing short?

Why *not* take it at the deadline instead of now? Then you still get a half season of a fan favorite and something to root for in an otherwise dull off-season. And the only real roll of the dice is injury - if it's Dozier getting injured then it'll obviously make it tougher to get value for him. If another team's second baseman gets injured, well then that bare minimum 1 pitching prospect return has now just gone up. There's no rush to move him and you can get *at least* the current deal later. So you don't do the move. And as far as that second sentence goes, the reverse is more true. If you aren't willing to move significant prospects, you aren't going to land any of the top players (of their position) in the league. One potential middle of the rotation guy with recent injury history is not equal to someone like Dozier. At least not when the selling team isn't in a position of *needing* to trade.

He's not a top 10 prospect. Top 10 prospect and "top 10ish" pitching prospects are two *vastly* different things. The most recent prospect ranking that just came out about a week ago on ESPN had DeLeon ranked the 74th best prospect in baseball. Twins can get that at the deadline.

I disagree with your logic here. That's not evidence that the Dodgers offer to the Twins was more than just DeLeon. That's your hypothesis, but it's not proof. One could just as easily say that based off of them *only* parting with DeLeon the Dodgers may have told the Twins it was just DeLeon and nothing else to start. They could have said DeLeon was the only major piece they were willing to part with and they had other options available (and likely had already discussed DeLeon for Forsythe with the Rays). And they could have been the listening party for offers (since we know Falvey said he was going to stop making calls) and willing to possibly budge if the Twins came up with something - but in the end just got a lesser second baseman for the price they were willing to part with. That's just hypothesizing as well, but the point is... like in the court of law - if it *can* be explained another way, it's not proof. We still don't know what they offered, but media reports were saying the Dodgers really wanted 1-for-1. And that's what they got, elsewhere.