Dozier to the Yankees for a Catcher?

[DocBauer]

Just can't get behind this move. As Stringer stated, there is enough unsettled in the lineup heading in to 2016 that unsettling another position, with the loss of Dozier, seems to weaken the lineup/team, not strengthen it.

 

I do like Polanco. I do think he's going to be a very good ML infielder. I do think, under different circumstances, that he could replace Dozier now or in the near future. But while the team has a lot of young pieces, a lot of young offensive talent and potential, it hasn't had time to bloom yet. To remove Dozier, the second best power source on the team, just doesn't make sense to me at this time.

[old nurse]

 

If you're thinking of trading Dozier, think out of the box - Plouffe to 2B.  With Polonco as a backup option.

Plouffe would have been at 2b after he was deemed not to be the shortstop of the future except for the 150 innings of work that would lead one to believe he wasn't a 2b, either.  The short stay in the outfield seems to be forgotten, also

[Platoon]

I still think that alone advocating keeping Dozier for his power, has a questionable argument. He is never going to see enough up and in mistakes to replicate his first half numbers. I was surprised he did the first half of this year, but they either didn't listen, or didn't execute. In the second half they made it a mission to stay below the belt.

[Reider]

 

It's a bit disingenuous to insist on a proven major league player, you sound like Gardy loving some vets!

 

Logical fallacy #1: Fallacy of quoting out of context (contextomy) – refers to the selective excerpting of words from their original context in a way that distorts the source's intended meaning. - which I might add is further supported by your phrase "washed up vet who is "proven" later in your post.

 

Why are you assuming that I am referring to veteran players that have been around for many years and / or are possibly "washed up?" All I used was the word "proven." That could be a guy like Sano, Rosario etc.. They had their rookie years last year, but they proved they can play at the MLB level.

 

There's reasons why the Twins need to put a proven player at 2nd base instead of an unproven rookie like Polanco. Are you familiar with players such as David Ortiz, Ben Revere, Carlos Gomez, and Aaron Hicks? There's no guarantee that players performing in the minor leagues will automatically make the transition into the major leagues right away. Likewise, players sometimes have good rookie seasons, then fall off the map (One of the best examples of this in Twins history is 1995 rookie of the year Marty Cordova).

 

The Twins are one step away from making the playoffs. If the Twins are going to trade anyone away, it would make more sense to me to trade Plouffe away because at least we know there's another proven 3rd baseman on the team who can replace him immediately (Sano), whereas that's not the case if the Twins trade Dozier. Polanco is not established at the MLB level yet. Of course if the Twins sign or trade for a second baseman in the off season that's a completely different story. It's a differnet story in either of those instances because they would be replacing the hole at 2nd base with a proven player. Of course I would not have a problem with the Twins acquiring a proven second baseman if they trade Dozier away for a catcher. But that's not what my argument is.

I Don't agree with the concept of trading dozier because this isn't the only way the twins could get a catcher and I like some of the other ways better. That said, your logic is false.

 

O rly?

 

The twins have a gaping hole in their organizational depth chart at catcher. No one looks ready for next year and it's really doubtful anyone will be ready even the year after. Second base is not the same - the twins don't have some washed up vet who is "proven" there but in polanco/Santana and even Nunez they have some intriguing options that could fill in while solving their catching woes once and for all. They also could easily sign a second baseman for far less than a catcher demands (and catchers don't hit the market very often). Catcher is more important than 2b so your argument about opening another hole is flawed.

 

No, actually my logic is not flawed. It's a logic 100 level statement; a University class in which I passed. My statement is if the Twins trade Dozier away for a catcher and replace him with nothing (e.g. go with an unproven / unestablished player at the MLB level in Polanco), then they are filling a hole and opening another hole by doing so. The reason why it's not fallacious and your argument is, is because I never made any statement regarding 1) the size of the hole created at 2nd base compared to the current one at catcher and 2) Of course the Twins could sign a 2nd baseman or trade for one, which is why I clearly specified the qualifier of the Twins replacing Dozier with an unestablished / unproven 2nd baseman (E.g. Polanco) in my statement. You continually comparing the size of the holes, when I merely refer to their existence actually makes your argument fallacious (red herring, more specifically, the straw man).

Its like if I'm doing yard work and I have a great leaf blower but no lawn mower. Yeah if I trade my blower for a mower raking becomes harder but the lawn mower is so much more valuable that the trade might be worth it.

 

Logical fallacy #2: Red herring – a speaker attempts to distract an audience by deviating from the topic at hand by introducing a separate argument the speaker believes is easier to speak to. More specifically you are using a straw man fallacy. - An argument based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. - Attempting to make your case by arguing that one hole is bigger than the other, thus I am wrong, when in fact the size of the holes in my statement are irrelevant. My only argument is that a hole would be created by trading Dozier for a catcher and replacing him with an unproven player at the MLB level. There was no statement of comparison regarding the size of the holes between the two positions, thus rendering your entire argument that my argument is logically fallacious, irrelevant and logically fallacious.

 

[jsteve96]

 

Absolutely. Dozier wasn't the same hitter in the second half. He was still pretty good defensively, even though he did make a few errors. I would really like to know if he had some undisclosed injury or if he was mentally drained or if pitchers just figured him out. Also, I noticed Perkins fell off of the map after the all-star break as well. I'm sure there were more. The team just wasn't quite the same after the all-star break.


Yes, but none of those guys are proven at the MLB level. Unless Dozier is replaced at 2nd base with a proven player, you're just opening one hole to fill another, thus starting the development process all over again. How is your team going to win if you are continually starting from scratch at various prositions year after year? At some point you need to have a full roster of proven players if you want to make a playoff run. I know the Twins were very fortunate last year and had a few rookies have solid seasons (e.g. Rosario, Sano, Duffey etc..), but having that many players have breakout rookie seasons isn't the norm.

Show me 1) Which proven MLB player replaces Dozier @ second base and 2) What the Twins' infield would look like with Dozier gone in a trade. These are two things open for anyone / everyone to post. I'd love to see what people have in mind moving forward without Dozier around. It's easier to get on board when I can see the big picture. As of right now, I"m just not seeing it. I think i'd have a lot easier time parting with Plouffe unless a guy like Polanco steps up big and impresses me (e.g. can slap leather and put up good numbers offensively), similarly to the way the aformentioned rookies did this year. I could get get behind a rookie like that, but it's risky, there's no guarantee. Trading Plouffe seems more logical to me. Trading Dozier seems like a much larger risk.

The Twins took a leap forward this year from last year and as of right now they are one step away from making the playoffs. I understand that without taking risks, there are no rewards. I am just not convinced that trading our all-star 2nd baseman is the right move to make in order to get the team into the playoffs in 2016 and beyond. I'd love to be proven wrong.

i would agree on the thinking Michael would be too big of a question mark, but i totally disagree with you saying that about Jorge Polanco. the kid has played great at every level and had some great PA's when he was with the Twins in his short stints. he would have a much better range than dozier and his weak arm shouldn't come to play as often at 2nd base. i'd much rather have 2nd base be the question mark than catcher even if that was the situation. I say this because i don't see too many more 3+ WAR seasons from Dozier and under that is replaceable. Danny Santana's WAR 2 years ago was more than dozier's this year, he's replaceable.

[jsteve96]

 

 

Polanco is ready, the part you forget is the Defensive part of the game. you tried to find all my arguments but you forgot how much defense we'd lose with moving police. Sand's defense will never be average with his size and Plouffe has been a top 10 out of 21 qualifiers at 3rd base in the MLB 2 years straight according to FanGraphs. Polanco's range would be very good at 2nd Base and his arm strength would not come in to play even close to as much. Dozier over the the last 2 years is 13th out of 18 qualifiers. I don't expect polanco to have a 3+ war but he would be a solid 2nd baseman even if you think his hitting might take a little time to develop.

[Reider]

 

i would agree on the thinking Michael would be too big of a question mark, but i totally disagree with you saying that about Jorge Polanco. the kid has played great at every level and had some great PA's when he was with the Twins in his short stints. he would have a much better range than dozier and his weak arm shouldn't come to play as often at 2nd base. i'd much rather have 2nd base be the question mark than catcher even if that was the situation. I say this because i don't see too many more 3+ WAR seasons from Dozier and under that is replaceable. Danny Santana's WAR 2 years ago was more than dozier's this year, he's replaceable.

 

Hey, there's nothing wrong with this point of view. In theory, I don't disagree. I think what you have to do is calculate the opportunity cost / cost benefit analysis of each option because we are not just comparing positions, we would have to actually compare the players that accompany those positions in order to figure out the best way to go in the short term and long term.

 

Is Dozier + Suzuki/possible FA signing going to be better than Polanco + Catcher received in trade from trading Dozier away? It's difficult to gauge for a couple of reasons. 1) We really don't know what we are going to get from Polanco in a full season because he has only played 9 MLB games over the last two years. This doesn't mean he wouldn't shine, it just means we don't know. On the other side of the equation is the catcher who we'd trade Dozier for. Since a possible trade hasn't happened, we don't actually know what catcher we'd be getting. Thus it's extremely difficult to even do a proper analysis.

 

However, what we do know is that Dozier has been improving offensively and defensively over the last few years. We know that he was an all-star last year and hit a home run in the all star game. While it may be true that his home run numbers could drop off from last year, that is not certain considering the only information we have indicates that he's been improving year over year. And defensively he has been improving year over year as well. So we don't actually know for sure if he's reached his ceiling yet.

 

Given the information that we currently have, keeping Dozier seems to be the most logical thing to do.

 

 

[jsteve96]

 

Hey, there's nothing wrong with this point of view. In theory, I don't disagree. I think what you have to do is calculate the opportunity cost / cost benefit analysis of each option because we are not just comparing positions, we would have to actually compare the players that accompany those positions in order to figure out the best way to go in the short term and long term.

 

Is Dozier + Suzuki/possible FA signing going to be better than Polanco + Catcher received in trade from trading Dozier away? It's difficult to gauge for a couple of reasons. 1) We really don't know what we are going to get from Polanco in a full season because he has only played 9 MLB games over the last two years. This doesn't mean he wouldn't shine, it just means we don't know. On the other side of the equation is the catcher who we'd trade Dozier for. Since a possible trade hasn't happened, we don't actually know what catcher we'd be getting. Thus it's extremely difficult to even do a proper analysis.

 

However, what we do know is that Dozier has been improving offensively and defensively over the last few years. We know that he was an all-star last year and hit a home run in the all star game. While it may be true that his home run numbers could drop off from last year, that is not certain considering the only information we have indicates that he's been improving year over year. And defensively he has been improving year over year as well. So we don't actually know for sure if he's reached his ceiling yet.

 

Given the information that we currently have, keeping Dozier seems to be the most logical thing to do.

totally agree. i'm just saying i'd be ok with them going for it if they get the right catcher. If they didn't get a good offer i'd be pissed if they accepted it. no way I'm forcing any trades, the more depth the better but dont shut down teams asking about him. same with Plouffe. i think we get more equal value with Dozier than plouffe though.

[Reider]

 

 

Polanco is ready, the part you forget is the Defensive part of the game. you tried to find all my arguments but you forgot how much defense we'd lose with moving police. Sand's defense will never be average with his size and Plouffe has been a top 10 out of 21 qualifiers at 3rd base in the MLB 2 years straight according to FanGraphs. Polanco's range would be very good at 2nd Base and his arm strength would not come in to play even close to as much. Dozier over the the last 2 years is 13th out of 18 qualifiers. I don't expect polanco to have a 3+ war but he would be a solid 2nd baseman even if you think his hitting might take a little time to develop.

Once again, we would have to consider our opportunity cost of each option.

 

Mauer

Dozier

Escobar

Sano

Suzuki / with a possible FA signing

 

Or

 

Mauer

Polanco

Escobar

Plouffe

Catcher in return for Dozier

 

To be honest, considering Polanco has only played 9 MLB games and the catcher in return is currently an unknown, having Dozier and Sano @ 2nd and 3rd doesn't look so bad compared to Polanco and Plouffe @ 2nd and 3rd, especially when you consider that Dozier's defense is fantastic and both Dozier and Sano are dangerous hitters in the line up. As a side note, Sano doesn't have the best range, but he does have a very strong arm.

[Reider]

 

 

totally agree. i'm just saying i'd be ok with them going for it if they get the right catcher. If they didn't get a good offer i'd be pissed if they accepted it. no way I'm forcing any trades, the more depth the better but dont shut down teams asking about him. same with Plouffe. i think we get more equal value with Dozier than plouffe though.

Yes, I agree, the Twins don't need to force anything. They have a good nucleus of players and there's lots of good players on the FA market. Lets listen to teams, lets talk to teams and lets consider all of our options. If we can get the right deal, take it. If not, then that's okay too.

[kab21]

 

I believe the Twins are a lot further away from sustained success than most.  Let's face it:  they were in a playoff race that  was manufactured by MLB.  4 games over .500 is a great success, for any team coming off 4, 90 loss seasons.  The Twins did finish 2nd in the AL Central, 12 games out. 

 

This will certainly be true if the Twins trade away their good players. 

 

Perhaps I could be talked into trading Dozier but Sanchez isn't even close enough for a player as good as Dozier.  I would do Polanco for Sanchez.  That seems to be reasonable for both sides.

[jsteve96]

 

Once again, we would have to consider our opportunity cost of each option.

 

Mauer

Dozier

Escobar

Sano

Suzuki / with a possible FA signing

 

Or

 

Mauer

Polanco

Escobar

Plouffe

Catcher in return for Dozier

 

To be honest, considering Polanco has only played 9 MLB games and the catcher in return is currently an unknown, having Dozier and Sano @ 2nd and 3rd doesn't look so bad compared to Polanco and Plouffe @ 2nd and 3rd, especially when you consider that Dozier's defense is fantastic and both Dozier and Sano are dangerous hitters in the line up. As a side note, Sano doesn't have the best range, but he does have a very strong arm.

you're not gonna get me off my point that Polanco-Plouffe is a MUCH better defensive combo. The catcher wouldn't just be an "Unknown" after we traded for him too. I think Minnesotans overrate Dozier way too much. 10th best hitting 2nd baseman out of 20 qualified MLB players. also 10th out of 20 in defense war, he's merely a little above league average starting second baseman but not close to an all star. He's replaceable. Polanco is 22 and the future

[jsteve96]

 

This will certainly be true if the Twins trade away their good players. 

 

Perhaps I could be talked into trading Dozier but Sanchez isn't even close enough for a player as good as Dozier.  I would do Polanco for Sanchez.  That seems to be reasonable for both sides.

highly doubt the Yankees are interested in a second baseman

[Reider]

you're not gonna get me off my point that Polanco-Plouffe is a MUCH better defensive combo.

Is this your opinion or a statement of fact? Dozier is an all-star and a gold glove candidate at the MLB level. Those are facts. He's fantastic on defense and is clearly one of the better hitters on the team.. If Polanco is better than him defensively, then i'd be impressed, but I'd have to see it first. Fact is, we won't know if Polanco is better than Dozier until he proves it at the MLB level. The jury is still out on this one until Polanco establishes himself and I can watch him play regularly.

 

Is Plouffe better than Sano? I have to admit, Plouffe sure has become a reliable 3rd baseman and is a decent hitter in his own right. However, he is not unflawed. I've seen him make mistakes purely due to laziness / mental weakness. While, I admit Sano really hasn't played enough 3rd base at the MLB level, from what I can tell, he's not going to have the greatest range, but I do know that he has a stronger arm than Plouffe.

 

When it comes to hitting, apart from the 2-3 month run Plouffe had a few years ago when he hit 20+ home runs, Sano, in my opinion has a bright future ahead as a power hitter. He looks so confident and generates a lot more power in his swing over Plouffe.

 

I like both players, however, it wouldn't hurt my feelings if Plouffe was traded away. Sano could step right in and I'm sure he would do just fine. However, if Dozier was traded away, I'm not sure Polanco could step right in. Perhaps he could, but unlike Sano, who we saw a fair amount of last season, we've only seen Polanco play 9 games over the last 2 seasons.

 

If a Dozier/Plouffe combo isn't in the cards for 2016, I'd rather see a Dozier/Sano combo the most, then Polanco/Sano. Lastly, I'd want to see Polanco/Plouffe.

 

As of right now Dozier and Sano are flat out bigger impact players than Polanco and Plouffe.

 

 

 

The catcher wouldn't just be an "Unknown" after we traded for him too.

This is correct. I only say unknown right now because we don't know who it would be yet. Obviously the Twins would have to get a good catcher in return for Dozier.

 

 

I think Minnesotans overrate Dozier way too much. 10th best hitting 2nd baseman out of 20 qualified MLB players. also 10th out of 20 in defense war, he's merely a little above league average starting second baseman but not close to an all star. He's replaceable. Polanco is 22 and the future

 

How can you say that he isn't an all-star, when it is already a fact that he is an all-star and a gold glove candidate? Also, please consider that Dozier was a leadoff hitter last year. He hit a lot of solo home runs. He could help produce more runs with a proper lead off hitter in front of him.

 

Lastly, stats aside, I like to let my own eyes decide a players ability. Dozier is absolutely fantastic on defense. He did have a few errors late in the season, which in my opinion appeared to be a result of fatigue more than anything. He is strong mentally and has improved a great deal over the last few years. He's been consistent and has made a lot of highlight reel plays. I'd take him before most other 2nd basemen in the league for sure.

[kab21]

 

highly doubt the Yankees are interested in a second baseman

then why in the world does this thread even exist?

[USAFChief]

Polanco has a career .750 minor league OPS. .719 in almost 600 AA PAs. He just reached AAA and didnt hit a lick. He may or may not develop the ability to hit at an acceptable level, but it's extremely doubtful he can do that now.

 

I have zero interest in turning second base over to Polanco in 2016. That seems to me like a really bad idea.

[Major League Ready]

What if the deal was Sanchez, Refsnyder, and Clarkin for Dozier?  I don't like the idea of losing Dozier but this would be the kind of deal where it becomes pretty hard to resist.

[HitInAPinch]

highly doubt the Yankees are interested in a second baseman

Many reports say the Yankees are interested in Daniel Murphy. It's been mentioned in MLB Trade Rumors that the Yankees are looking for a second baseman. Refsnyder, by all accounts, looked pretty good in his brief stint with the Yankees. But he was in a rotation. MiLB numbers look pretty good.

But these are the Yankees

[HitInAPinch]

 

 

This will certainly be true if the Twins trade away their good players. 

 

Perhaps I could be talked into trading Dozier but Sanchez isn't even close enough for a player as good as Dozier.  I would do Polanco for Sanchez.  That seems to be reasonable for both sides.

 

I like Dozier, but I don't think he's all that great.  His sharply increasing K's and dip in OBP are a big concern.  Maybe try to get Rob Refsnyder included.  But a combo of Sanchez and Refsnyder is probably way beyond Dozier's value.

 

Polanco = Gary Sanchez?  I don't know about that.

 

[ThejacKmp]

 

 

 

Woah, chill Reider. This comes way too intense, much like the post I made the mistake of replying to. People who have taken a basic level logic class are the worst because they have a bit of the official language to use but not enough self-control to not use it like a hammer.

 

It's absolutely okay for me to take your argument (which I didn't disagree with BTW) and add in a caveat that if you could trade uncertainty at catcher for uncertainty at 2B (again, I also said that this is not the only or best option - I agreed with you) it would be a net gain. That's a true statement and the point of the original poster. Once again, I don't necessarily agree with it, just thought you went overboard attacking him/her/it.  I was just trying to help the other person whose perfectly acceptable opinion you were savaging.

 

P.S. It's called an analogy and its fun and can be quite informative - or just fun. Calling it a red herring is ridiculous. Chill with the regurgitation of logic class dude.

 

P.P.S. I enjoy much of what you post on TD (anyone who defends the ridiculous overreaction to Dozier’s few and often-overstated flaws is a friend of mine) so don’t read this as an attack. I work with college kids and am likely channeling some aggression towards the ones who took a logic class freshman year.

[ThejacKmp]

 

 

 

Proven player means they’ve shown that they can play the position at the major league level. So last year, Sano, Buxton, Rosario and Duffey were all not proven players – they were just prospects who may or may not work out. By your arguments, the Twins should not have relied on them. My point is that “proven” is the same language people use when they sign the Shane Robinsons and Tony Batistas we’ve suffered through. Yeah proven doesn’t mean washed up vet and I’m sorry if my hyperbole insinuated that but you’re talking the language that people use to defend misguided veteran signings. You can argue that Polanco isn’t ready based on minor league track record or a lack of defense (and I agree with you for the most part, I love me some Dozier) but to say that he shouldn’t be relied upon because he isn’t “proven” is dangerous ground my friend.

 

Now as for Mr. Cordova . . .

 

Marty Cordova is a terrible example of the point you’re making.  Marty Cordova’s slash from his freshman to his sophomore campaigns:

 

.277/.352/.486/.839
.309/.371/.478/.849

 

So he improved into his second year, not some cataclysmic drop off.  And his career slashes are:

 

.274/.344/.448/.792

 

Not far off his rookie campaign, which now seems pretty representative of his career. Cordova is perhaps seen as a failure because he never progressed from his rookie year into some star?  That may be true but he had a legitimate career and the rookie year was not some outlier.  Of the 7 full seasons he played, 5 of them were reasonable facsimiles of his rookie year, including two years that were significantly better.  In fact, if you take Marty Cordova’s career average and make him 30ish today, he has better numbers than Chase Headley, who signed a 4 year $52 million extension last offseason at that age.  He would be a hot commodity on the free agent market.  Marty Cordova did not in any way “fall off the map” after his rookie season.  He made a career of putting up pretty similar numbers – in fact, it’s hard to see why he was out of baseball - though he was injury prone, he was an above average player who could easily be a bench bat, and likely deserved a starting job.

 

P.S. Who is this David Ortiz? Some kind of a celebrity chef?

[ThejacKmp]

 

I'd totally consider trading Dozier to fill a need. But given his second half struggles in each of the past two years, I think you'd have a tough time getting comparable value for him. 

 

When will people stop the madness? Dozier did not have "second half struggles in each of the past two years." I've posted this before and will continue to post it until people stop saying that the world is flat:

-----------

What is interesting about this is not that Dozier had a bad second half of 2015 but that everyone thinks he had a bad one the year before. His splits before and after the break in 2014:

.242/.340/.436/.776
.244/.352.387/.739

There's a slight fall off in slugging but an increase in OBP. Overall this is not much of a drop off. The narrative is almost entirely driven by the differences in his home runs, which we focus on too much.  Dozier had 18 HR in the first half of 2014 vs. 5 HR in the second half but also had 16 doubles and no triples vs 17 doubles and one triple. As the first half has 100 more at bats than the second half, the real story is a little less pop with some home runs turning into doubles. This myth of Dozier falling apart in the second half of 2014 colors the way we look at Dozier as a player. He slumped late in 2015 but we certainly shouldn’t be building patterns out of one season and the mistaken impression of another season. He played everyday through injury - the issue is the Twins not giving him a day off, not some failure to finish seasons.

Please, the next time you see someone on Twins Daily or IRL talk about how Dozier always fades in the second half, introduce them to this funny thing called statistics. We can do better than rehashing the tired plotlines of the FSN broadcast.

[jsteve96]

When I said "highly doubt Yankees are interested in a second baseman" I screwed up I meant Highly doubt the Yankees are interested in a Second baseman in MiLB** guarantee they'd be interested in dozier, Dozier at Yankee stadium would be deadly with that pull happy power

[Reider]

 

You can argue that Polanco isn’t ready based on minor league track record or a lack of defense (and I agree with you for the most part, I love me some Dozier) but to say that he shouldn’t be relied upon because he isn’t “proven” is dangerous ground my friend.

 

It's a statement of fact is what it is. 9 games in the MLB is all he has played. What it means is that Polanco is a much bigger risk than putting a proven player at the position. But there's more to it than that. I'll explain.

 

It needs to be put into context. Remember, we are talking about trading our all-star 2nd baseman / gold glove candidate away and replacing him with an unproven prospect. When we talk about guys like Duffey, Rosario, Sano, etc.. Remember, the Twins basically had open spots for these young guys to move into. For instance, with Span and Revere being traded years ago, Rosario was given an opportunity, much like Hicks and Buxton were. Same with Duffey. The Twins needed good pitchers and had the space to give him an opportunity. Same thing with Santana and Escobar at SS. There was an open spot so the Twins gave the players they had in their organization to fill it instead of trading for a player or signing one via free agency.

 

When it comes to Polanco, it's not like Twins fans are suggesting he try out for the vacant spot in right field or at SS or at catcher. No, they're talking about trading our all-star second baseman away to make room for him. And not only that, but they are making such a suggestion at a time when the Twins had just taken a huge step forward and are now one more step away from being in the playoffs. Theres a huge difference between those two different scenarios. The amount of risk is huge, given the circumstances.

 

 

Now as for Mr. Cordova . . .

 

Yeah you're right about Marty Cordova. I probably shouldn't have used him as an example before looking at his career stats. I knew he had a relatively short career, but after further review, it was longer than I thought. Regardless, my point in that post remains the same.

 

P.s. Post #52 that you wrote was excellent and solidifies how special of a player Dozier is, which is why I'm not interested in trading him away unless the return is so great that the Twins couldn't afford not to trade him.

[stringer bell]

I like Brian Dozier and I like his game. He has already exceeded most scout's predictions for his career. How many would have predicted that Dozier would hit 69 homers in a three-year span and lead the Twins in homers all three years? Not many, I'm sure. Dozier made adjustments to add extra-base power to his game and it has served him well. However, the league and it's pitchers have adjusted to Dozier. He now must make further adjustments if he wants to improve. It appears that Mauer couldn't, but a player like Torii Hunter continued to make adjustments and became a better hitter later in his career. I don't think it is out of the question that Dozier could continue to improve.

 

Polanco looks to me to be the anti-Dozier. If his minor league record is to be believed, he might be able to come to the majors and hit an empty .270. The two things that Dozier has provided--extra-base hits and free passes-are the two things pretty much lacking in Polanco's MiLB resumé. Polanco is young enough to develop both power and better on-base skills, but I don't think they are there yet.

[darin617]

Dozier struggled in the second half of the season because he fell in love with the long ball and tried to hit almost every ball out of the park. Which would be great if you were a power hitter. I don't know why Bruno didn't try to work with him and dare I say it spray it around the field a little bit. And if he could not try to take such big hacks he might hit .275 or so to go along with 15-20 home runs and great defense which would make him one of the best 2nd baseman in the league.

Just not sure if trading for a catcher is the best way to get the best value out of Dozier.

[brvama]

My thoughts on this idea can only be explained by my disappointment of myself for even reading this thread.

[Brock Beauchamp]

When will people stop the madness? Dozier did not have "second half struggles in each of the past two years." I've posted this before and will continue to post it until people stop saying that the world is flat:

-----------

What is interesting about this is not that Dozier had a bad second half of 2015 but that everyone thinks he had a bad one the year before. His splits before and after the break in 2014:

 

.242/.340/.436/.776

.244/.352.387/.739

 

There's a slight fall off in slugging but an increase in OBP. Overall this is not much of a drop off. The narrative is almost entirely driven by the differences in his home runs, which we focus on too much.  Dozier had 18 HR in the first half of 2014 vs. 5 HR in the second half but also had 16 doubles and no triples vs 17 doubles and one triple. As the first half has 100 more at bats than the second half, the real story is a little less pop with some home runs turning into doubles. This myth of Dozier falling apart in the second half of 2014 colors the way we look at Dozier as a player. He slumped late in 2015 but we certainly shouldn’t be building patterns out of one season and the mistaken impression of another season. He played everyday through injury - the issue is the Twins not giving him a day off, not some failure to finish seasons.

 

Please, the next time you see someone on Twins Daily or IRL talk about how Dozier always fades in the second half, introduce them to this funny thing called statistics. We can do better than rehashing the tired plotlines of the FSN broadcast.

God, yes, this.

 

People are building a narrative around perception, not facts.

[jsteve96]

Fun Fact of the day, Brian dozier was drafted when he was 22 years old, Jorge Polanco has already played 9 games in the MLB at the same age.

[HitInAPinch]

 

I'm sure I'm in the minority but YES, in a heartbeat.  The other factor here is that everybody on this thread is overlooking the obvious in house 2B replacement-a guy who hit .267 at the big league level in 2015 with 46 extra base hits and played more games at 2B in his minor league career than any other position-EDDIE.  He would be a better fit as a 2B than OF and would free up OF space for Kepler/AB Walker/Arcia or whatever random veteran TR brings in to fill the Torii role, OR Trevor Plouffe.

Eddie?  As in Eddie Rosario?  Maybe you didn't hear the part where the Twins tried Rosario at 2B and it was a failure.  OF was deemed to be the alternative.