What's Wrong with Brian Dozier?

[Guest]

I don't think the a Twins should have extended Dozier, but I don't fault them for not "selling high". If you constantly do that you'll never play at a high level. They were right (and are still right) to be trying to help him contribute.

But extending him, batting him first, and continuing to pretend there isn't something very wrong - those I find to be mistakes.

You should sell high when the rest of your team isn't ready when you manage on a cycle, like the Twins do. Playoffs were a stretch goal last year that came in sight due to great "clutch" statistics, which can end as quickly as they start. With the pitching staff last year, the team was, at best, going to go 0-3 in the playoffs. Further, the book on Dozier was known; what remains a mystery is why teams didn't start read it until the All Star game. Nonetheless, he would definitely obtain less value in trade today than he would have 12 months ago. Keeping Dozier shows the long-term cost of getting caught up in short-term excitement.

[jimbo92107]

 

I mean he's been hitting it hard, but he seems completely flummoxed by the shift.  Look at today.  Whole space between 1st and 2nd open (and more then one pitch on the outside of the plate) and he didn't know how to put the ball there. 

 

It is disapointing.

Dozier has to prove he can punish pitchers that work him low and outside. Obviously the book says don't give Dozier anything up and in unless he's diving across the plate. He's got to develop a Mauer-style sit back and slash it oppo tactic for those low outside pitches. If the two players swapped styles, Dozier would suddenly bat .350 and Mauer would hit 35 home runs.

[TheLeviathan]

 

You should sell high when the rest of your team isn't ready when you manage on a cycle, like the Twins do. Playoffs were a stretch goal last year that came in sight due to great "clutch" statistics, which can end as quickly as they start. With the pitching staff last year, the team was, at best, going to go 0-3 in the playoffs. Further, the book on Dozier was known; what remains a mystery is why teams didn't start read it until the All Star game. Nonetheless, he would definitely obtain less value in trade today than he would have 12 months ago. Keeping Dozier shows the long-term cost of getting caught up in short-term excitement.

 

Look, you won't find someone who has been more doubtful about Dozier than me, but when you have multiple yeas of team control left on a player who busts out like that, you don't just deal him at the first sign of success.  It sends a terrible message to your team and it's just  a bad way to operate.

 

Sell high is what you do with rentals, older players, and guys with waning team control.  Dozier was a guy to keep around.  That's precisely why his second half last year, and start this year, have been so concerning.  He should be a key cog.

[TheLeviathan]

For me, the Twins FO has little to do with this issue.  I thought at the time, and continue to now, that the extension was totally unnecessary, but the issues with Dozier are about Dozier. 

 

(Though, it'd help if the damn manager hit him where he belonged)

[Guest]

Look, you won't find someone who has been more doubtful about Dozier than me, but when you have multiple yeas of team control left on a player who busts out like that, you don't just deal him at the first sign of success. It sends a terrible message to your team and it's just a bad way to operate.

 

Sell high is what you do with rentals, older players, and guys with waning team control. Dozier was a guy to keep around. That's precisely why his second half last year, and start this year, have been so concerning. He should be a key cog.

You also do it with guys who bust out when they are already in their prime years, especially when the rest of the team is a few years behind them and you have an exciting replacement coming. If you don't trade these players, you never get anything good back, especially if you wait until it appears they have lost value.

 

As far as terrible messages go, we're seeing a lot worse, including the messages that veterans with good contracts keep their jobs and better players sit on the bench. At least with trading him and giving the next guy a shot, you're telling someone he can earn a job other than by being a replacement for an injury or a failure.

[TheLeviathan]

 

You also do it with guys who bust out when they are already in their prime years, especially when the rest of the team is a few years behind them and you have an exciting replacement coming. If you don't trade these players, you never get anything good back, especially if you wait until it appears they have lost value.

As far as terrible messages go, we're seeing a lot worse, including the messages that veterans with good contracts keep their jobs and better players sit on the bench. At least with trading him and giving the next guy a shot, you're telling someone he can earn a job other than by being a replacement for an injury or a failure.

 

The rest of the team was not years behind Dozier.  Sano, Buxton, Berrios, and many others were within 2 years of joining a guy you still had 4 years of control on.  You don't deal him.

 

If you constantly deal everyone who is good waiting for the perfect window of everyone joining at the same time - you'll NEVER find that window.  That's just not realistic.

[Guest]

The rest of the team was not years behind Dozier.  Sano, Buxton, Berrios, and many others were within 2 years of joining a guy you still had 4 years of control on.  You don't deal him.

 

If you constantly deal everyone who is good waiting for the perfect window of everyone joining at the same time - you'll NEVER find that window.  That's just not realistic.

In 2015, it was forecastable that Dozier would be on the downside in 2017. If Sano, etc. were two years behind, you're saying it would be a good idea to hang onto someone entering his downside when the other players are ready.

 

The amount of team control matters more for establishing the value you get in return than the value of the player to your team.

 

Arguing about trading "everybody" is a red herring. This discussion is about trading one player when he was at his highest value, who is already in his prime years, when the window of contention is realistically two years away and a younger (and cheaper) replacement is soon to be available. The closest analogy is A.J. Pierzynski. Denard Span is not as good a comparison, because he was traded when his value was low, but even then, right now, I'd rather have an exciting AA pitcher than Dozier.

[TheLeviathan]

 

Arguing about trading "everybody" is a red herring. This discussion is about trading one player when he was at his highest value, who is already in his prime years, when the window of contention is realistically two years away and a younger (and cheaper) replacement is soon to be available. The closest analogy is A.J. Pierzynski. Denard Span is not as good a comparison, because he was traded when his value was low, but even then, right now, I'd rather have an exciting AA pitcher than Dozier.

 

Projecting a 28 year old to be in full decline in two years is just obtuse.  

 

Making another Denard Span trade, while somewhat defensible in principle, seems like a silly thing to base your argument on given the results of it so far.  Pierzyski was dealt because of this guy named Mauer, not because the team sold high.  So, again, a bad example.

 

Dozier had no one ready to take over for him, Polanco was at least a year away.  Now, had Dozier continued to be good until now, in the middle of a terrible season, you'd be right.  But last year?  No.  That's just not a defensible way of running a team.

[Riverbrian]

I don't want to trade Dozier. 

 

I'd like Bruno or someone to fix him and until they do... I'd like to see him play less. 

[Platoon]

I don't think the a Twins should have extended Dozier, but I don't fault them for not "selling high". If you constantly do that you'll never play at a high level. They were right (and are still right) to be trying to help him contribute.

But extending him, batting him first, and continuing to pretend there isn't something very wrong - those I find to be mistakes.

There are different kinds of selling high, and those different kinds apply variably depending on what state your team is. Contender, rebuilding, one last shot at it, etc. There is no one size fits all. A rational view of the Twins last year should have shown that the team was not ready to contend,especially with that pitching staff. It was basically a house of cards. The other observation should have been more obvious to the Twins than the fans. Some fans could see a player with a hole in his strike zone the size of a refrigerator. Plus the team should have known that he appears to be a stubborn egotist, who had and has no intention of seeing the futility of his approach.

[TheLeviathan]

 

Thers different kinds of selling high, and those different kinds apply variably depending on what state your team is. Contender, rebuilding, one last shot at it, etc. There is no one size fits all. A rational view of the Twins last year should have shown that the team was not ready to contend,especially with that pitching staff. It was basically a house of cards. The other observation should have been more obvious to the Twins than the fans. Some fans could see a player with a hole in his strike zone the size of a refrigerator. Plus the team should have known that he appears to be a stubborn egotist, who had and has no intention of seeing the futility of his approach.

 

This is where I think hindsight goes too far.  You don't abandon contention because you think it's a mirage.  And you don't deal your best players because you think they might go south.  

 

That's operating our of fear.

[USAFChief]

I would have been livid had they dealt Dozier last year.

 

I hope they never operate like that.

[jimbo92107]

 

Dozier could battle the shift by pushing a bunt to the right side.  He has the speed to beat it out.  He doesn't need to change his hitting style, only use other things to stretch the field.  

Yeah, but he'd probably try to pull the bunt for a home run, then hit a two-bouncer to short. ;-)

[beckmt]

Too late now, I would have dealt Dozier about 2 years ago.  Pitchers union caught up and Dozier does not seem to make adjustments.  Now I would put him on the bench and let Polanco play.  If his approach does not change, would consider ending his scholarship.  Extending him was a very bad move, now you can't afford to DGA him. 

[nicksaviking]

Too late now, I would have dealt Dozier about 2 years ago.  Pitchers union caught up and Dozier does not seem to make adjustments.  Now I would put him on the bench and let Polanco play.  If his approach does not change, would consider ending his scholarship.  Extending him was a very bad move, now you can't afford to DGA him.

 

He didn't get extended, he just got a raise.

[beckmt]

 

He didn't get extended, he just got a raise.

Sorry bad semantics on my part.  Bottom line is, he now is too expensive to trade with this production or to just cut our losses at the end of the year and not offer him a contract.  He needs a new voice or significant bench time to get the message across.  This is usually done in the minor leagues, so do not have a solution.  I guess the best thing is to hope he improves slightly and then trade him in July for what we can get and put Polanco in that spot.  Just wish 2 years ago we could have gotten a good return.

[Vanimal46]

 

I would have been livid had they dealt Dozier last year.

I hope they never operate like that.

Absolutely agree. When they were in the thick of the playoff race, there was no reason to trade Dozier last year. This year, IMO, it's a completely different story. He should be expendable if there's a team willing to take him on. 

[Mr. Brooks]

Absolutely agree. When they were in the thick of the playoff race, there was no reason to trade Dozier last year. This year, IMO, it's a completely different story. He should be expendable if there's a team willing to take him on.

And that is where we got unlucky. If we had the record we have this year, last year. Or if Dozier was having a season like he was at this time last year, either one of those could have netted us a nice haul.

Instead we are stuck with a player with little to no trade value.

[Vanimal46]

 

And that is where we got unlucky. If we had the record we have this year, last year. Or if Dozier was having a season like he was at this time last year, either one of those could have netted us a nice haul.
Instead we are stuck with a player with little to no trade value.

 

Unless I'm reading this wrong, I'll never say it's unlucky that the team was in contention for the playoffs. The book was written quickly on how to stop Dozier, and he's failed to adjust. I assume that the coaches point this out to him on a daily basis that they're pitching to you outside knowing you're going to pull the ball. Either he's being stubborn and not taking the guidance given to him, or his swing is so programmed into his brain that he can not change it. 

Either way I still can't blame the organization for holding onto him. It's surprising that he's completely fallen off the map at age 29..  

[Mr. Brooks]

Unless I'm reading this wrong, I'll never say it's unlucky that the team was in contention for the playoffs. The book was written quickly on how to stop Dozier, and he's failed to adjust. I assume that the coaches point this out to him on a daily basis that they're pitching to you outside knowing you're going to pull the ball. Either he's being stubborn and not taking the guidance given to him, or his swing is so programmed into his brain that he can not change it.

 

Either way I still can't blame the organization for holding onto him. It's surprising that he's completely fallen off the map at age 29..

Well we disagree. Short term thrills at the expense of the future are not productive.

Although we were on contention, let's be real that team had zero chance of winning it all.

Many of our current problems are directly caused by that fluke month of May, as well as many more future problems that haven't affected us yet.

[Winston Smith]

Send a message to the team and him by sending him down until he gets his act together. He isn't do himself or the team any good at this point.

[Mike Sixel]

No way they should have been trading veterans last year. Luck or not, they were in contention.

 

If anything, they should have traded for bullpen help sooner, and maybe an OF. They should have gone in more last year.

 

To me, last year / this year is a perfect example of what happens when you don't try to win, when you have a chance. You might think things will get better, or even stay the same, but you just don't know. When you have a chance, you should take it. I'm not saying go all in by trading the best prospects....please don't attack that strawman.

[Major League Ready]

 

No way they should have been trading veterans last year. Luck or not, they were in contention.

 

If anything, they should have traded for bullpen help sooner, and maybe an OF. They should have gone in more last year.

 

To me, last year / this year is a perfect example of what happens when you don't try to win, when you have a chance. You might think things will get better, or even stay the same, but you just don't know. When you have a chance, you should take it. I'm not saying go all in by trading the best prospects....please don't attack that strawman.

How were you going to trade for "difference makers" without giving up top prospects.  The team was in contention last year because they hit at an unsustainable pace with RISP and it did not require as many wins as normal to be in contention for a wildcard.  I might go along with your thinking if we were in contention because we had a great team that was a piece away.

 

You are also using being in the hunt for a wildcard as being in contention.  There was no way they were winning the division and that was abundantly clear.  The wildcard does not even get you a series any longer.  Its a one game playoff or put another way, even if you get the wildcard, you have a 50/50 chance of playing in  a series.  Its no surprise that Fans look at this fanatically but a a leader should look at this set of circumstances and have zero interest in leveraging the future for a team that had no real chance in the playoffs.  I would not this set of circumstances as contending.

[Guest]

Last things I'll say on this thread.

 

The book on Dozier was known before last year started. Some writers had him as a top pick to regress. It would have been good to get when the getting was good.

 

Bill Belichek: trades players a year too soon, instead of a year too late; goes to playoffs routinely and wins multiple championships.

 

Twins: generally hang on to players until after their peaks; on a historic run of futility. Keep bringing up that one time 15 years ago when the strategy worked enough to win one playoff series.