Dozier Trade Discussion Thread

[Otto von Ballpark]

I guess I'm not high on either del Leon or Stewart. Besides Dave says it's Alvarez so why all this talk about him being off the table? Seems like only dodger fans would be saying that

Problem is, only Dave has said it is Alvarez, and the Twins have apparently been shopping this offer for a month and it hasn't remotely leaked anywhere else that Alvarez is part of the offer (despite the De Leon part being widely confirmed).

 

I am almost 100% sure that Dave's source was mistaken about the Alvarez inclusion. It was probably Stewart or someone similar all along. Nothing that has happened in the last month makes any sense if the offer was really De Leon plus Alvarez.

[Otto von Ballpark]

It probably goes without saying that I was stuck at home today. Thanks everyone for reviving this thread in an interesting fashion! (Although I suppose I should thank Doogie Wolfson for inspiring the revival?)

[AZTwin]

Problem is, only Dave has said it is Alvarez, and the Twins have apparently been shopping this offer for a month and it hasn't remotely leaked anywhere else that Alvarez is part of the offer (despite the De Leon part being widely confirmed).

 

I am almost 100% sure that Dave's source was mistaken about the Alvarez inclusion. It was probably Stewart or someone similar all along. Nothing that has happened in the last month makes any sense if the offer was really De Leon plus Alvarez.

If that's the case then we should walk. Just my opinion.

[AlwaysinModeration]

Brock Stewart had a very limited track record, but looks promising. He started 2016 at A+ ball, and rose three levels to get starts at MLB. He has a 93mph fastball, a great strikeout rate, and impeccable control. He's 25, a bit old for a prospect, and hasn't been on many prospect lists. However, that seems likely because he hasn't pitched much before getting converted from a hitter. He seems like he has a pretty nice floor, but I am not sure about the ceiling. Maybe the ceiling could be pretty high as well, but just not sure with such a limited track record, and limited pedigree. For some reason, I keep thinking of Aaron Nola, but with more velocity.

 

Alvarez, in contrast, given his youth and distance from the majors, seems like he has a much lower floor and a much higher ceiling. He also has a very limited track record, but a much higher pedigree. $32million out of Cuba is certainly notable, as is the "easy triple digits."

 

I'd prefer the much higher ceiling of Alvarez, but Stewart seems like he could be a decent alternative. Plus, if Stewart is in the deal instead of Alvarez, part of his "upside" is that maybe the third and fourth pieces would be much better. Say, Barnes and Lux? Or even better, Buehler?

[puddle]

I posted something similar in another thread on this site, but figured I'd post it here too since this seems to be the main thread. I feel like people are kind of taking stabs in the dark about how to value the players involved, but we can actually be more precise.

 

Let's start with Dozier. He is projected to be a 3 fWAR player per Fangraphs' Steamer projections. I think that's a little low, to be honest, considering that would be the second worst season of his career (and that Steamer is notoriously conservative). So let's project him for 4 fWAR in 2017 (which is actually his 2016 WARP per Baseball Prospectus) and 3.5 fWAR in 2018. Considering 1 WAR costs about $8.5m and that Dozier is on a $5m salary for the next 2 years, that means he has about $54m in surplus value (($8.5m*7.5)-$10m). De Leon projects for 10.1 fWAR over the next 6 seasons per Fangraphs' KATOH projection. Using this formula to approximate prospect values (and updating the formula for $8.5m per WAR), we get $69.7m of gross value and a Prospect Cost During Team Control of $29.65. That leaves an excess value of $35m. $54m minus $35m leaves a gap of about $19m of excess value to make up for. Brock Stewart projects for 4.9 fWAR over the next 6 seasons (which, after watching him pitch, seems low, but whatever, let's go with it). That's worth $16m of excess value. We're now short $3m, which is like a 40 FV prospect like Rhame, Peters, Abdullah, Estevez, or Sborz. The Dodgers have about a thousand of those, so whatever, take your pick.

 

If, however, you're using a projection system where next = last and you're using 5.9 fWAR as the baseline for Dozier, and you don't expect him to regress at all in 2017 or 2018, then yeah, you're assuming $90m in excess value, which would require De Leon plus $55m more in excess value, which would mean a package like De Leon+Buehler+Stewart+Heredia.

 

This is where I think a lot of Twins fans are coming from and why these expected packages seem so pie-in-the-sky to Dodgers fans. Obviously, I don't think that's at all reasonable to project him to have two seasons like he had in 2016. But you can see how differences in projections can make a really big difference in how to value him, not to mention however you project the prospects themselves. Frankly, I think assuming about 7.5-8 WAR over the next 2 years for Dozier is about right based on his career to this point and based on various projections. That means De Leon+Stewart should be a reasonable starting point, and that the discussion should be around the 3rd piece.

[AZTwin]

I posted something similar in another thread on this site, but figured I'd post it here too since this seems to be the main thread. I feel like people are kind of taking stabs in the dark about how to value the players involved, but we can actually be more precise.

 

Let's start with Dozier. He is projected to be a 3 fWAR player per Fangraphs' Steamer projections. I think that's a little low, to be honest, considering that would be the second worst season of his career (and that Steamer is notoriously conservative). So let's project him for 4 fWAR in 2017 (which is actually his 2016 WARP per Baseball Prospectus) and 3.5 fWAR in 2018. Considering 1 WAR costs about $8.5m and that Dozier is on a $5m salary for the next 2 years, that means he has about $54m in surplus value (($8.5m*7.5)-$10m). De Leon projects for 10.1 fWAR over the next 6 seasons per Fangraphs' KATOH projection. Using this formula to approximate prospect values (and updating the formula for $8.5m per WAR), we get $69.7m of gross value and a Prospect Cost During Team Control of $29.65. That leaves an excess value of $35m. $54m minus $35m leaves a gap of about $19m of excess value to make up for. Brock Stewart projects for 4.9 fWAR over the next 6 seasons (which, after watching him pitch, seems low, but whatever, let's go with it). That's worth $16m of excess value. We're now short $3m, which is like a 40 FV prospect like Rhame, Peters, Abdullah, Estevez, or Sborz. The Dodgers have about a thousand of those, so whatever, take your pick.

 

If, however, you're using a projection system where next = last and you're using 5.9 fWAR as the baseline for Dozier, and you don't expect him to regress at all in 2017 or 2018, then yeah, you're assuming $90m in excess value, which would require De Leon plus $55m more in excess value, which would mean a package like De Leon+Buehler+Stewart+Heredia.

 

This is where I think a lot of Twins fans are coming from and why these expected packages seem so pie-in-the-sky to Dodgers fans. Obviously, I don't think that's at all reasonable to project him to have two seasons like he had in 2016. But you can see how differences in projections can make a really big difference in how to value him, not to mention however you project the prospects themselves. Frankly, I think assuming about 7.5-8 WAR over the next 2 years for Dozier is about right based on his career to this point and based on various projections. That means De Leon+Stewart should be a reasonable starting point, and that the discussion should be around the 3rd piece.

I like this post but you are also missing a key piece of the equation. Increased WAR as you get closer to a World Series has more value. That's to say it is harder to acquire those missing pieces. Surely everyone would value having increased odds of winning a World Series for two years over mediocrity for a few more

[beckmt]

According to LaValle in the morning StarTrib,  Twins are about to move on and make plans for Dozier to be a Twin at the start of spring training.  I know this could all be a bluff, but also could show the two sides are at an impasse and different plans need to be made moving forward.

[Cory Engelhardt]

According to LaValle in the morning StarTrib,  Twins are about to move on and make plans for Dozier to be a Twin at the start of spring training.  I know this could all be a bluff, but also could show the two sides are at an impasse and different plans need to be made moving forward.

I saw that too. Dozier is really a good player, but this would be a waste of an asset at the height of its value

[Otto von Ballpark]

Here's the Lavelle link:

 

http://m.startribune.com/want-brian-dozier-twins-imply-time-s-running-out-to-consider-trade-offers/408699505/

[diehardtwinsfan]

Intersting.  I admit I'm warming up to Stewart a bit more after reading this. They would still need another decent prospect in there to make it worthwhile...

[Cory Engelhardt]

So, let's say hypothetically the Twins keep Dozier and do not trade him this offseason, and he enters camp as a member of the Twins.

Adding Castro will help the pitching staff. Keeping Dozier at 2nd and Polanco at SS (along with Escobar) will continue to give good defense at 2nd and below average defense at SS. Sano at 3rd, at best, will be average, (and that feels optimistic) but the OF defense should be ok. Is this enough to think that the Twins pitching staff, who as of now is the same they had last year, will rebound to be even close to 13th in the American League in runs allowed?

What other changes/additions can the Twins make to better themselves if they do not trade Dozier?

[AZTwin]

Oh man. I was reading about a dodgers trade we made with them in the past last night. We got absolutely taken to the woodshed. We gave up both Kevin tepani and Mark Guthrie. In return we got headliner Ron Coomer then a bunch of nothing. Chris Latham, Jose parra, and Greg Hansell were also sent to the Twins.

[Vanimal46]

Oh man. I was reading about a dodgers trade we made with them in the past last night. We got absolutely taken to the woodshed. We gave up both Kevin tepani and Mark Guthrie. In return we got headliner Ron Coomer then a bunch of nothing. Chris Latham, Jose parra, and Greg Hansell were also sent to the Twins.

Cool. What does that have to do with the current regime for the Twins?

[Major League Ready]

 

I guess I'm not high on either del Leon or Stewart. Besides Dave says it's Alvarez so why all this talk about him being off the table? Seems like only dodger fans would be saying that

No.  It's not just Dodger fans.  Heyman reported "they’re not willing to include first base prospect Cody Bellinger or well-regarded right-handed pitching prospects Yadier Alvarez or Walker Buehler alongside De Leon."   There were several of us here who suggested many pages back that the deal was not being held up by 3rd or 4th pieces and the holdup was that the Alvarez  was not being included.

 

Given the lack of suitors for Dodgers, I would have to question the decision making prowess of our new leadership if they are rejecting deal that includes both De Leon and Alvarez.  I would do that deal without a 3rd or 4th piece.

[AZTwin]

Cool. What does that have to do with the current regime for the Twins?

Just a blast from the pst and more evidence to not make a trade just to make a trade. Good lord that was bad. Dodgers should overpay just for having ripped us off so bad.

[drjim]

Is LEN III suggesting the Dodgers have only offered De Leon for Dozier straight up? The article is a little ambiguous but that's how mlbtraderumors reads it to.

 

If so the Twins can't do that and don't really have to think hard.

[drjim]

Just a blast from the pst and more evidence to not make a trade just to make a trade. Good lord that was bad. Dodgers should overpay just for having ripped us off so bad.

I think Terry Ryan said that was his most memorable trade in his career.

 

If I remember right he had a strict order from ownership to cut payroll to a certain level so had absolutely no leverage. Ends up shedding the salaries and gets slightly more than a bag of balls.

[Squirrel]

Just a blast from the pst and more evidence to not make a trade just to make a trade. Good lord that was bad. Dodgers should overpay just for having ripped us off so bad.

While I'm mostly in agreement with your stance on what the Twins should get for Dozier, I don't think anyone who is advocating we need to trade him are advocating to make a trade just to make a trade. Our differences lie in the area of how much we think we should/can get for him. No one is suggesting we trade him for nothing. We need pitching and Dozier is the chip to get it, but where we settle on price is the debate.

[markos]

 

I posted something similar in another thread on this site, but figured I'd post it here too since this seems to be the main thread. I feel like people are kind of taking stabs in the dark about how to value the players involved, but we can actually be more precise.

 

Let's start with Dozier. He is projected to be a 3 fWAR player per Fangraphs' Steamer projections. I think that's a little low, to be honest, considering that would be the second worst season of his career (and that Steamer is notoriously conservative). So let's project him for 4 fWAR in 2017 (which is actually his 2016 WARP per Baseball Prospectus) and 3.5 fWAR in 2018. Considering 1 WAR costs about $8.5m and that Dozier is on a $5m salary for the next 2 years, that means he has about $54m in surplus value (($8.5m*7.5)-$10m). De Leon projects for 10.1 fWAR over the next 6 seasons per Fangraphs' KATOH projection. Using this formula to approximate prospect values (and updating the formula for $8.5m per WAR), we get $69.7m of gross value and a Prospect Cost During Team Control of $29.65. That leaves an excess value of $35m. $54m minus $35m leaves a gap of about $19m of excess value to make up for. Brock Stewart projects for 4.9 fWAR over the next 6 seasons (which, after watching him pitch, seems low, but whatever, let's go with it). That's worth $16m of excess value. We're now short $3m, which is like a 40 FV prospect like Rhame, Peters, Abdullah, Estevez, or Sborz. The Dodgers have about a thousand of those, so whatever, take your pick.

 

If, however, you're using a projection system where next = last and you're using 5.9 fWAR as the baseline for Dozier, and you don't expect him to regress at all in 2017 or 2018, then yeah, you're assuming $90m in excess value, which would require De Leon plus $55m more in excess value, which would mean a package like De Leon+Buehler+Stewart+Heredia.

 

This is where I think a lot of Twins fans are coming from and why these expected packages seem so pie-in-the-sky to Dodgers fans. Obviously, I don't think that's at all reasonable to project him to have two seasons like he had in 2016. But you can see how differences in projections can make a really big difference in how to value him, not to mention however you project the prospects themselves. Frankly, I think assuming about 7.5-8 WAR over the next 2 years for Dozier is about right based on his career to this point and based on various projections. That means De Leon+Stewart should be a reasonable starting point, and that the discussion should be around the 3rd piece.

I think that the Surplus Value framework is more or less correct for valuing players, but I think that the specifics currently used by the larger sabermetric community are limited, and possibly incorrect.

 

First, there is an assumption of unlimited roster spots, infinite playing time and perfect liquidity, and therefore players that are below average but above replacement level have significant surplus value when they are cheap. In a certain sense, it is definitely true that cheap, non-terrible players have value. But I'm not remotely convinced that it scales linearly with WAR, and that role-players and superstars can be plugged into the same formula. At the extremes this is very obvious, as everyone realizes that your favorite team can't package together 6 B prospect and expect the Angels to agree to give them Mike Trout, even if the Surplus Value calculations line up. But the Surplus Value framework doesn't build in any quality-vs-quantity tradeoff, so it is hard to know how to adjust the numbers for low-ceiling players. In addition, baseball players aren't super liquid assets, so there are significant transaction costs associated with converting surplus value into an asset that will actually help the team. In particular, a good team (90+ wins) basically needs its top (by playing time) 20 players to average 2 WAR per player. If one of those players is a 1 WAR talent (like, for example, Stewart), then someone else on the roster needs to be 3+ WAR to make up the difference.

 

Second, if the Surplus Value implementation is correct, then one should be able to demonstrate that empirically. But in reality, the opposite is true. I've tracked roughly two dozen MLBer-for-prospect trades over the past three years. Using PECOTA, KATOH, The Point of Pittsburgh tables, and my own best guesses to fill in the projected values, over and over again the Surplus Value of the prospect side vastly exceeds that of the MLBer side. Generally speaking, the prospect Surplus Value is usually 150% to 200% of the MLBer Surplus Value. Examples of position players:

Zobrist/Escobar to OAK - $40M vs $65M

Zobrist to KC - $7M vs $30M

Cespedes to NYM - $15M vs $30M

Kendrick to LAD - $18M vs $30M

Frazier to CWS - $31M vs $70M

Upton to SDP - $17M vs $70M

Myers to SDP - $81M vs $172M

Lucroy to TEX - $50M vs $75M

Gomez to HOU - $50M vs $100M

 

Two significant exceptions:

Donaldson to TOR - $85M vs $66M

Simmons to ATL - $60M vs $15M  // Maybe teams don't value defense?

 

One even:

Eaton to WAS - $100M vs $90M (using KATOH) or $110M (using TPOP table)

 

Two hypotheses

1) Teams value prospects for their future WAA rather than their future WAR

2) The 8% discount rate on future WAR used by TPOP and others is grossly incorrect, and a more appropriate value is something like 40%.

 

So even we agree that Dozier has roughly $50M in surplus value, I think past trades indicate that he is worth something like $75M to $100M in prospects. Someone who is super optimistic about De Leon and Stewart could agree that they get close to the $75M number. But if one isn't (and using your numbers, maybe we shouldn't be), then it seems completely reasonable to want another significant piece in the trade.

[jorgenswest]

La Velle's story and source seem credible.

 

The Twins may regret keeping Dozier over De Leon. It is very difficult to acquire major league ready young pitching. I don't think a pitcher that close to the majors is available in the summer. It is also easy to understand why they are expecting more in return.

[Otto von Ballpark]

Just a blast from the pst and more evidence to not make a trade just to make a trade. Good lord that was bad. Dodgers should overpay just for having ripped us off so bad.

You don't seem to be looking at any kind of context with your comparisons. Tapani had a 4.92 ERA and was 2 months from free agency, plus the Twins were a distant last place team. He wound up taking a massive pay cut on a one year FA deal for the following season anyway.

 

Guthrie had an extra year of control, but he was a middle reliever with a 4.19 career ERA (and was coming off a 6.14 in 1994).

 

Those two had virtually zero value. The Twins were frankly lucky to get out of ~$1.5 mil in salary obligations.

 

Like the Kielty-Stewart deal you referenced earlier, it bears absolutely zero resemblance to, or relevance toward, a proposed Dozier swap.

[gSutter]

Would could be getting close to a deal.

 

Twins Reportedly Asking Teams For Final Offers On Brian Dozier

https://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2016/12/brian-dozier-trade-rumors-final-offer-twins.html

[Otto von Ballpark]

Is LEN III suggesting the Dodgers have only offered De Leon for Dozier straight up? The article is a little ambiguous but that's how mlbtraderumors reads it to.

 

If so the Twins can't do that and don't really have to think hard.

I thought that too, but LEN3 and a lot of other observers have pretty much ignored any non-De Leon/Bellinger/Alvarez pieces, so it's hard to say. Brock Stewart is interesting but frankly isn't a big enough name to warrant common mention, which is why I suspect he could have been the second prospect offered in Dave's rumor.

[Otto von Ballpark]

I think Terry Ryan said that was his most memorable trade in his career.

I think that was actually Erickson-Klingenbeck.

[diehardtwinsfan]

 

I think that the Surplus Value framework is more or less correct for valuing players, but I think that the specifics currently used by the larger sabermetric community are limited, and possibly incorrect.

 

First, there is an assumption of unlimited roster spots, infinite playing time and perfect liquidity, and therefore players that are below average but above replacement level have significant surplus value when they are cheap. In a certain sense, it is definitely true that cheap, non-terrible players have value. But I'm not remotely convinced that it scales linearly with WAR, and that role-players and superstars can be plugged into the same formula. At the extremes this is very obvious, as everyone realizes that your favorite team can't package together 6 B prospect and expect the Angels to agree to give them Mike Trout, even if the Surplus Value calculations line up. But the Surplus Value framework doesn't build in any quality-vs-quantity tradeoff, so it is hard to know how to adjust the numbers for low-ceiling players. In addition, baseball players aren't super liquid assets, so there are significant transaction costs associated with converting surplus value into an asset that will actually help the team. In particular, a good team (90+ wins) basically needs its top (by playing time) 20 players to average 2 WAR per player. If one of those players is a 1 WAR talent (like, for example, Stewart), then someone else on the roster needs to be 3+ WAR to make up the difference.

 

Second, if the Surplus Value implementation is correct, then one should be able to demonstrate that empirically. But in reality, the opposite is true. I've tracked roughly two dozen MLBer-for-prospect trades over the past three years. Using PECOTA, KATOH, The Point of Pittsburgh tables, and my own best guesses to fill in the projected values, over and over again the Surplus Value of the prospect side vastly exceeds that of the MLBer side. Generally speaking, the prospect Surplus Value is usually 150% to 200% of the MLBer Surplus Value. Examples of position players:

Zobrist/Escobar to OAK - $40M vs $65M

Zobrist to KC - $7M vs $30M

Cespedes to NYM - $15M vs $30M

Kendrick to LAD - $18M vs $30M

Frazier to CWS - $31M vs $70M

Upton to SDP - $17M vs $70M

Myers to SDP - $81M vs $172M

Lucroy to TEX - $50M vs $75M

Gomez to HOU - $50M vs $100M

 

Two significant exceptions:

Donaldson to TOR - $85M vs $66M

Simmons to ATL - $60M vs $15M  // Maybe teams don't value defense?

 

One even:

Eaton to WAS - $100M vs $90M (using KATOH) or $110M (using TPOP table)

 

Two hypotheses

1) Teams value prospects for their future WAA rather than their future WAR

2) The 8% discount rate on future WAR used by TPOP and others is grossly incorrect, and a more appropriate value is something like 40%.

 

So even we agree that Dozier has roughly $50M in surplus value, I think past trades indicate that he is worth something like $75M to $100M in prospects. Someone who is super optimistic about De Leon and Stewart could agree that they get close to the $75M number. But if one isn't (and using your numbers, maybe we shouldn't be), then it seems completely reasonable to want another significant piece in the trade.

 

That was a nice post. 

[nicksaviking]

 

I think that was actually Erickson-Klingenbeck.

 

That was also my thought. Though to be fair both trades happened within the same month so it's not like Pohlad had him shift strategy, both were likely cost saving moves, particularly considering the uneven returns.

[AZTwin]

I honestly would pass on the dodgers offer. Not worth it for a guy that has a bum shoulder and can't mix up pitches at a major league level. If daves proposed trade is true, I think that's closer to the value he should get but is still a bit short. I'd rather enjoy him being on the team and check again come trade deadline. At that time, i hope the dodgers are looking up at all the other NL teams who improved their teams

[Otto von Ballpark]

For those not high on Brock Stewart, it is worth noting that there was evidence the Twins were pretty high on him (I know Bernardino dropped his name around the winter meetings).

 

They would have to be unusually pessimistic on De Leon to resist a De Leon plus Stewart package.

[drjim]

I think that was actually Erickson-Klingenbeck.

Correct, mixing up my mid 90s dumps.

[AZTwin]

For those not high on Brock Stewart, it is worth noting that there was evidence the Twins were pretty high on him (I know Bernardino dropped his name around the winter meetings).

 

They would have to be unusually pessimistic on De Leon to resist a De Leon plus Stewart package.

Agree to disagree